The Open Minded Christian
How To Engage Charitably With Fellow Sinners
Richard Bushey
Dedication:
ToallofthosewithwhomIhavesharedadisagreementand
didnotbehavewiththestandardsofcharityoutlinedinthis
book.
TableofContents
Preface–Page7
Introduction–Page11
Ch.1–LearnAboutOthers–Page33
Ch.2–LearnAboutYourself–Page55
Ch.3–OnMisrepresentations–Page77
Ch.4–ShouldWeBeOffendedByDisagreements?–Page
101
Ch.5–YouMayBeWrong–Page123
Ch.6–WhatIsAHeretic?–Page145
Ch.7–HowDoWeTreatBrothersInChrist?–Page167
Ch.8–CanChristiansBelieveInAnOldEarth?–Page189
Ch.9–EngagingWithAtheists–Page211
Ch.10–EngagingWithHomosexuals–Page234
Ch.11–LearningFromOneAnotherWithinTheConfinesof
Friendship–Page256
Ch.12–AllowYourLoveToBeYourSeatAtTheTable–Page
279
Conclusion–Page300
AboutTheAuthor–Page306
Preface
Ifearthatthetermopen-mindedchauffeurswithita
numberofcharacterizationsthatIdonothaveinmindwhen
composingthisbook.IamnotsayingthatChristiansneedto
compromisetheirfaith,noramIsuggestingthatChristians
needtotraversetheboundsofChristianityandabandonJesus
Christ.Iamnotsayingthatweneedtofleefromthegospelto
relatetotheworld.Thatisfarfrommyconceptionofwhatit
meanstobeopen-minded.
Rather,Iamthinkingofopen-mindedasarelationalterm.
ThisisacalltohelpChristianstolearntorelatetoother
people,tolistentowhattheyhavetosay,andtobetolerant
ofothers’views.Evenwhilewemaystaunchlydisagreewith
somethingthatanotherpersonsays,(whetherafellow
brotherinChristoraworldlyperson)thatoughtnotinclineus
tobeintolerantofthem.Hence,thisbookisacallto
Christianstobehaveinawaythatisloving,respectful,and
relationalwithotherindividuals,evenwhilewemaystrongly
disagree.
IlaborthispointpurelybecauseIhaveseenthechurchfall
shortofthestandardthatChristsetdownforhisfollowers.I
donotseeachurchthatrepresentsthereputationthatChrist
hadasbeingafriendofsinners.Iseeachurchthatdoesnot
wanttohearwhatanybodysays.Ifindachurchthatrepels
people,evenparishionerswithintheirowncongregation,
fromthegospel.So,thisisacall,nottocompromisethefaith,
nortodeclineourfoundationaldoctrines,nortorejectthe
notionofsin,butrathertoallowourlovetobeourseatatthe
table.Iimplorethechurchinthewritingofthisbookto“Let
yourshinebeforemeninsuchawaythattheymayseeyour
goodworksandglorifyyourFatherwhichisinHeaven.”
(Matthew5:16).
Iwouldextendthiscommandtoourrelationshipswith
otherpeople.Ifwearetrulygoingtorelatetothelostsinners,
tohelpthemtofindthegospel(sinceGoddoesuseusto
bringpeopletothetruth),weneedtolearntorelatetothem.
Theevangelicalchurchcannotdeclineintothefatalistic
mindsetthatarguesthatweneednotdoanything,because
God’selectwillcomenomatterwhatwedo.Weneedto
behaveasJesusdid,makingourselvesafriendofsinnersso
thattheywillcometoknowthetruthaboutGod’slovein
Christ.
SoIsayonelasttimebeforebeginning:Thecalltobeopenmindedandtolerantisnotacalltopermitsininourmidst.It
isnotacalltocompromisebiblicalprinciplesorvalues.Itisa
calltounderstandthesinner,andevenunderstandour
brethrenwithwhomwedisagree.Inthisway,ouropenmindeddispositionleadsustomaneuverasopen-minded
Christians,withintheframeworkofaChristianworldview.We
neednotcompromiseChristianitytobeopen-minded,
anymorethanamathematicianneedstocompromisethesum
of2+2being4tobeopen-minded.
Introduction–APleaForSelf-Reflection
Ifrequentlyencounterpeoplethatwanttostrikeupa
conversationwithme,butIfindthattheirapproachto
conversationrepelsme.Theseindividualsaretryingto
summarizemyviewsandtellmewhatIbelieveinawaythatI
finduncharitableandunsympathetic.TheyignorewhatIsay
orscrutinizethesyntaxofmysentencessoastofindwaysto
refutewhatIsaid.TheydonotconsiderifIamrightnordo
theyconsidertheargumentationthatIampresenting.They
onlywanttorevealhowwrongIam.Theyareutterly
intolerantofdisagreementsandareunwillingtohearany
dissidentviewrepresented.Itisanaffronttoeverythingthey
havebeentaughtthroughouttheirlives.Thisisthesortof
personthatIcannotstandtalkingto.Thisisthesortofperson
thatIam.Thisisthesortofpersonthatyouare.
Ihavediscoveredthattherearemonolithicurgesinmany
Christiandenominations.Wewanttobearoundkindred
spiritsandwewanttobearoundpeoplewhothinkjustlike
wedo.Wewanttobearoundpeoplewhowillagreeand
affirmthatwewererightallalong.Ifthereisadissident
opinion,itwillserveonlytoannoyusandthereisadesireto
wanttostompitout.
Whilethechurchnolongerburnshereticsatthestake,we
cancertainlyinourselvesseetheresidualattitudetoward
thosewithwhomwedisagree.Thereisasortofdisdain
amongmanypeople.Thereisintolerance.Idonotmean
intoleranceinthemodernusageoftheword.Iamnotsaying
thatwehavetoagreewitheverybodyoraffirmthebeliefs
thattheyarepromoting.Iamnotwritingacallintopluralism
oruniversalism.Iamnotsayingthatallbeliefsareequally
valid.Thatisnottolerance.Toleranceistoacknowledgeand
acceptthosewhohavedivergentviewsasmembersofsociety
andtolovethemasweloveourselvesdespiteour
disagreements.Ourdisagreementsshouldbecomesecondary
toourdesiretoserveandhonorthemandindividuals.When
divergentviewsariseinthebodyofChrist,solongastheyare
notheretical(seechapter6foradefinitionofheresy),we
shouldbewillingtoacceptthemasmembersofour
congregationandallowourdifferencestofadeintothe
background.
Weshouldfleefromourmonolithictendencies.Christians
donothavetoagreeabouteverything.Whenwedevelopthis
idea,itbecomesthecasethattheChristianwhodisagrees
withsecondarydoctrineswillbegintofeellikeasecond-class
Christian.Wehavedevelopedthisrecipeofisolating
membersofthebodyofChrist.Therecipelookssortoflike
this:[1]Iholdtothissecondarydoctrinepassionatelyand[2]I
donotknowhowtohandledisagreements.Thereisnothing
inherentlywrongwith[1],asweshouldbepassionate.But[2]
hasalwaysbeenprevalentbecauseofourmonolithic
tendencies.ManyChristiandenominationsareseparatedby
secondarydoctrinesthatdonotneedtoseparateChristians.
Forexample,thereisnoecclesiologicalreasonthatCalvinists
andArminianscannotcongregatetogether.Yettheywill
separateonthebasisofthisdifference.Butthisseparation
hastrainedustobeterribleathandlingdisagreements.
Wehavetrainedourselvestosurviveinthecomfortable
environmentwhereineverybodyagreeswithusandis
remindingusthatwewererightallalong.Inthisway,when
weencountersomebodywhothinksthatwemightnotbe
right,itisfrustratinganditisnotwhatweareusedto.Of
course,Iwouldnotdenythatdenominationsmakesensefor
purelyecclesiologicalpurposes.Thatistosaythatifachurch's
generalpracticeisdifferentfromanother,thencreating
differentdenominationsmakessense.Ifachurchbelievesin
thebaptismofinfantsasopposedtobeliever'sbaptism,it
makessensethatthesechurcheswouldnotworshiptogether,
becausetheirpracticesaredifferent.Thisisnottosaythat
theycondemnoneanotherasun-Christian.Itistosaythat
theirpracticesareoftenseenasincompatible,sothey
separate.However,manyofthedifferencesthatcause
separationarenotlikethat.Manyofthedifferencesarenot
ecclesiologicalbutsecondaryortertiarytheological
differences.Inseparatingoverthesedifferences,thechurch
becomesuntrainedinhandlingdifferences.Itbecomesmore
intolerantbecauseeverybodyaroundthemalreadyagrees.
Leadersorteacherswithinourdenominationareoftenthe
onestopitchthetreatmentofopposingviewsthatwe
receive.Theydonotbelieveintheseopposingviews.Now,
whilearesponsibleteacherwillensurethattheyareproperly
representingtheopposingviewandtheobjections,Iam
afraidthatthisisoftennotthecase.Thecongregantswill
receiveanunderstandingoftheopposingviewthatisjust
subpar.Ifweheardanactualrepresentativeofthatview
speaking,itwouldsounddifferentandmorerobust.The
congregantswouldholdthisconceptionoftheothersidethat
issortofacartoonversionoftheview,sothattheywould
havetoaskthemselves,“Whocouldbelievethis?”Indeed,
nobodycouldbelievethat,becausenobodydoesbelievethat.
Butthenwhentheyencountersomebodywhodoeshold
thatparticularview,theywillassumethatthisindividual
holdstothecartoonversionoftheviewratherthanthe
robustversionoftheview.Theirobjectionswillbeaimedat
thecartoonversion,andconversationwillbeimpossible
becauseyouaretalkingabouttwodifferentthings.
Thisistheproblemthatthisbookisaddressingandthatis
onlyoneangletoconsider.Christianshavebeenvery
unsympathetictootherChristians,andevenmore
unsympatheticpeopleoutsideofthebodyofChrist.Inthe
classicalsenseoftheword,Ihaveencounteredalotof
intolerance.Ihavepersonallybeenguiltyofintolerance.You
havepersonallybeenguiltyofintolerance.Thisbookservesas
apleaandimploreforself-reflectioninthisarea.
Watchyourlifeanddoctrineclosely.
Thepracticeofself-reflectionshouldbeprevalentinthelife
ofeveryChristian.Wewanttoensurethatwearenot
wanderingoffthenarrowwayandthatwearenotwandering
intofalsedoctrine.Thisisonereasonthatitisimportantto
maintainfellowshipwiththelocalcongregationandremain
undertheauthorityofchurcheldership.Ifyouareoutof
reachwiththeseprovisionsthatGodhasprovidedforliving
theChristianlife,thenitcouldbesaidthatyouareyourown
authority.Youdonothaveanyoneinyourlifethatisofa
higherrankthanyou.
Youmightsaythingslike,“theBibleismyauthority,”or
“theHolySpiritismyguide.”Well,thatiscertainlytrueof
everyChristian.TheBibleisourauthority.ButtheBibleisstill
subjecttoourflawedinterpretation.Itissubjecttoeverything
thatwebringtoit.IfIwerewearingglasseswitharedtint,
thenIwouldthinkthattheentireworldwasred.Sowhenwe
opentheBible,wehavethisredtintaswereadthepages.
Thisisonereasonthatitisimportantthatwesubmit
ourselvestochurchauthorityandtofellowshipwithother
Christians.
Afterall,myownpersonalpracticeofself-reflectionwill
alwaysyieldtheresultthatIwasrightallalong.Weare
inclinedtothinkthatwewererightandweareinclinedto
taketoomuchpridetoallowself-reflectiontobringusto
admitthatwewerewrong.Ifwearebehavinginawaythatis
immoral,wewilloftennotbereflectiveenoughtoconsider
thatwemightbewrong.YetthisiswhatChristiansarecalled
todo.TheChristianwhodoesnotreflectuponhislifeandhis
doctrinewillwalkintoimmoralityandheresy.
Thequestionthatyoushouldposetoyourselfasyouread
throughthisbookiswhetherthisappliestoyou.Reflectupon
youractions.Recalltheinteractionsthatyouhavehadwith
peoplewithwhomyoudisagree.Considerwhetherthereis
anybodyinyourlifethatholdsadivergentopinion,andhow
youfeeltowardthisindividual.Ifthedisagreeablepremise
makesyouangrythenperhapsitcouldbesaidthatyouare
guiltyofthis.Thisisespeciallytrueofthatpremiseiswithin
thebodyofChrist.Ifyoucannothearsomebodyrepresenting
analternativeopinionwithoutfoamingatthemouth,you
maybeguiltyofthis.Considerthewayyouhaverepresented
intellectualopponents.Isitidenticaltohowtheywould
representtheirview?Didyoucreateacartoonversionof
theirbeliefsothatitwouldbeeasiertocriticize?Youshould
beaskingifyouractionsreflectthepoorbehaviorthatIhave
outlinedinthesepages.Ithinkitissomethingthatwehaveall
beenguiltyofatsomepoint.Butwhenwedothis,itisolates
people.ItisolatesmembersofthebodyofChristandrepels
peoplefromhearingthegospel.
ThusPaultellsus,“Watchyourlifeandyourdoctrine
closely.”(1Timothy4:16).Itseemstobeasignofspiritual
maturitythatanindividualcanreflectupontheiractionsand
honestlyassesswhethertheyarebehavingproperly.Itisa
signofmaturitywhenaChristiancanmeasurehimselfagainst
thebiblicalstandardandrealizethattheyhavefallenshort.In
watchingandanalyzingourbehavior,wecanlearnwhereour
shortcomingsareandcorrectthemsothatwecanhave
properandlovinginteractionswithothers.Wecanlearn
whereourshortcomingsaresothatwemaybeopen-minded
andtolerantChristians.
Thisisnotaproblemthatis“outthere.”
Whenaseriousproblemisoutlinedbeforepeople,theyare
usuallywillingtoconcedethatitisinfactaproblem.Itis
somethingthatneedstobedealtwith.Iamremindedofthe
sermongivenbythegreatreformedpreacherPaulWasher.It
wasatayouthconventionandtodayitisknownasThe
ShockingYouthMessage.Ithinktheexpectationwasthathe
wouldpreachamessagethatwouldsendchillsupthespine,
getsomeapplauseandthensendpeoplehome.Instead,he
waslaboringthepointthatpeoplewhodonotliveaChristian
lifearenotreallybornagain.Thatisnottosaythattheir
workssavesthem,butratherthatworksarefruitthatare
broughtforthfromaregenerateheart.Inthisway,thelife
thataChristianlivesneedstoreflectthelifeofChrist.Hesaid,
“We’renotheretolookliketheworld…we’reheretolook
likeJesusChrist.”Thentheaudienceroaredinapplause.His
nextwordsquicklycalmedtheauditorium.“Idon’tknowwhy
you’reapplauding.I’mtalkingaboutyou.”
Thenhedweltontheseverityofthepresenceofongoing
sinintheChristianlife.Hedweltonthenecessityof
repentance.HedweltonthesuperficialityofChristian
conventions,asthepreachersjustwanttoinspiresome
emotionswhentheyshouldbeimploringthemtolivelike
Christ.Thisissomethingthatwecanallagreewith.Thisis
somethingthatwhenhesaiditinfrontofagroupof
Christians,allofthepeoplesaid“Amen!”Buthewastalking
aboutthem.Hewaspleadingfortheirself-reflection.
Inthesameway,peoplewhoreadthisbookmightbe
inclinedtoagreethatitisarealproblem.Theymightbe
inclinedshout“Amen!”andagreethatoutthere,inthe
outsideworld,therearealotofpeoplewhocannothandle
disagreements.Therearealotofpeoplewhoisolateother
Christiansandwhorepelnon-Christians.Therearealotof
brethrenwhocreatebarrierstothegospelwhereitdoesnot
needtobe.TherearealotofChristianswhocreatebarriersto
discipleshipandfellowshipwithotherdenominationswhereit
doesnotneedtobe.Youwillapplaudinagreementofthese
points.ButIdonotknowwhyyouareapplauding.Iam
talkingaboutyou.
Chapter1-5:Howdoyourelatetopeople?
Throughoutthefirstfivechapters,Ioutlinedsomeofthe
generalmisstepsthatpeoplemakeincommunicatingwith
others.Thesewouldapplytoourengagementswithboth
Christiansandnon-Christians.Whenwehavethesedebates
ordiscussionswithpeoplethatwedisagreewith,weoften
arenotveryinterestedinwhattheyhavetosay.Weare
interestedinwhatwehavetosay.Weareinterestedin
provingthattheyarewrongandweareright.Sowetendto
justconjureupcounter-argumentswithoutthinkingthrough
themjustasadesperatemeasuretoprovethatwewereright
allalong.Yetbothpartiesinthediscussionareoftenguiltyof
this,sothisresultsinpeoplejusttalkingpasteachother.
Considerforexamplethedebatebetweenthepro-life
movementandthepro-choicemovement(andIam
passionatelypro-life).Thepro-lifemovementfocusesonthe
lifeandpersonhoodofthefetus.Ifthefetuswerehuman,
thentokillitwouldbehomicide.Thisgeneralprincipleisthe
foundationforpro-lifeapologetics.Sincethefetusishuman,
weknowthatitishomicidetokillit,andhomicideis
universallyrecognizedasamoralcrimeandshouldbe
condemnedatallcosts.Ontheotherhand,thepro-choice
movementfocusesontherightofthewomanwhileignoring
thequestionofthepersonhoodofthefetus.Bothofthese
partiesfocusontheimportanceoftheirrespectivearguments
whileundervaluingtheotherone.Inthisway,theyjusttalk
pasteachother.
Thisisjustoneadversitythatopenandhonestdiscussion
faces.Howcanweleapoverthesebarriers?Well,inchapter
one,Iindicatedtheneedtolearnaboutourintellectual
opponents.Whydotheybelievethethingsthattheydo?
Whathasledtothemtothatbelief?Wetendtoassumethat
wealreadyknowwhytheybelievewhattheybelieve.Butit
maybethecasethatwedonotreallyunderstandwhatthey
believe.Wemaynotunderstandtheparticularnuancesof
theirbeliefandperhapsourobjectionsdonotreallywork.
Perhapstheyhavethoughtthroughtheobjectionsthatwe
haveinamoresystematicandrigorousmannerthanwedid.
Thatwouldleadustothequestionoflearningnotonly
aboutthem,butalsoaboutourselves.Thiswasthepremiseof
chaptertwo.Withinthischapter,Iindicatedthatweoughtto
understandwhyweholdtheparticularbeliefsthatwedo.
Peoplealwaysbelievethingsforbadreasons.Weare
motivatedbyourtradition,forexample,andthe
interpretationofcertainversesthatourtraditionhastoldus
tobelieve.Traditionisoftenagoodthing,butitoverstepsits’
boundarieswhenitbecomesanequalauthoritywiththe
Bible.Whenthewordsoftraditionarewrittenbetweenthe
linesoftheBible,thenweknowthatourtraditionisbeing
misapplied.Thisissomethingthatweneedtoconsider.We
needtoensurethepietyandrigorandintellectualsatisfaction
ofourjustificationforourbeliefs.
Further,inchapterthree,Ilaboredthepointthatour
representationsofalternativepointsofviewneedto
accuratelyrepresentthosepointsofview.Wouldyoutrusta
MuslimtoteachotherpeopleaboutChristiantheology?Asa
generalprinciple,Icertainlywouldnot.However,Ialsowould
nottrustaChristiantoteachaboutIslamictheology,asa
generalprinciple.Wehaverenderedcaricaturesoftheviews
ofouropponentstomakethemeasiertoattack.Muslims
oftenarguethatChristiansbelievethattherearethreegods
becauseofthedoctrineofthetrinity.Thisisacaricatureof
thetrinitythatnoChristianwouldrepresent.Ofcourse,this
problemofmisrepresentingthosewithwhomwedisagreeis
widespread.Itissomethingthatisevidentthroughoutmany
traditionsandworldreligions.Wearesokeento
misrepresentotherssothatourbeliefwillhavegreater
credibility.
Yetwhenweencountersomebodywhoholdsadifferent
view,howdowereact?Ilaboredthispointinchapterfour.
Wegenerallydobecomeangrywhensomebodyiscriticizing
orattackingbeliefsthatweholdtobesacred.Ofcourse,the
reasonthatweareoffendedcouldbesimplepride.Theyare
tellingusthattheyaremorestudiousthanweare.Sowe
becomeoffended.However,ourawarenessofthisproblemis
thefirststeptoovercomingit.Weneedtobegintoaskwhy
weareoffendedandwhetherthispersoniseventryingto
offendus.Ifwedothat,theyieldandprofitwouldbegreat.
Butthiswouldrequirehumility.Itwouldrequireustolisten
towhatothersaresaying.Itwouldrequireustoconsiderthat
wemaybewrong.ThisiswhatIinvestigatedinchapterfive.
ThatisnottosaythatChristiansneedtoconsiderthattheir
faithmaybewrong.Justasamathematiciandoesnot
consideralternativeanswersto2+2,soalsotheChristiandoes
notthinkthattheChristianfaithiswrong.But,iftheyopened
themselvesuptoanhonestinvestigationoftheirfaith,they
wouldfindthatitstoodthetestofevidence.Inthecaseof
disputesbetweendenominationsandsecondarydoctrines,
Christiansshouldconsiderthattheymightbewrongsothat
theycanopenlyandhonestlyexaminetheevidenceandlisten
towhattheindividualwithwhomtheydisagreeissaying.
Chapters6-10:Howdoyourelatetodifferentgroups?
Inastirofemotionsandtheinabilitytohandle
disagreements,Christianstendtothrowoutthewordheretic.
Eveniftheissueaboutwhichtheyaredisagreeingis
secondary.Theverypropositionthatwemightbewrongis
deeplyoffensivetous.Thisisbecausetheirfaithissortoflike
ahouseofcards.Ifyouremoveonecard,theentirehouse
collapses.Thatisprobablybecausetheycametobelieveallof
theirsacreddoctrinesbythesameepistemologicalresource:
theirpastortoldthemtobelieveit.Theirtraditiontaught
themwhatistrueandtaughtthemwhycertainproof-texts
provethatitistrue.Thismeansthatifyouremoveonecard,
everythingthattheybelievewillbevulnerabletoremoval.
Theentirehousewillcollapse.Thatistheconceptionofthe
Christianfaiththatmanyhave.
However,perhapstheChristianfaithisabitsubtlerthan
this.PerhapstheChristianfaithisflexibleenoughsothatit
wouldpersistevenifaparticularsecondarybeliefwere
wrong.TheillustrationthatIusedisthatitismorelikea
spiderweb.Therearecertainlycorestringswithintheweb.If
youpluckoneofthesecorestringsout,thewebwillfallapart.
Butinadditiontothesecorestrings,therearealsostrings
thatareontheoutercoreoftheweb.Ifyoupluckoneof
thesestringsout,thewebwillpersist.
Soinchaptersix,Ioutlinedwhatitmeanstobeaheretic.
Whatarethesecorestrings?WhatisitthattheChristianfaith
couldnotpersistwithout?Iarguedthatthecoredoctrinesof
theChristianfaitharethetrinity,thedeathofChristforour
sins,theresurrection,theBibleasGod’sword,and
justificationapartfromworksandobediencetoanysortof
moralcodeasthemechanism.Thesearethecoreelementsof
theChristianfaith,withoutwhich,Christianitywouldnot
exist.Soifsomebodyaffirmsallofthese,weneednotcall
themaheretic.Further,thereisastarkdifferencebetween
inconsistencyandheresy.Ifaviewlogicallyprecedesheresy
thatdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthepersonisaheretic.It
justmeansthattheyareinconsistent.Weneedtoaskiftheir
confessionisorthodox,notaboutwhattheirviewentails.But
evenifthepersonthatweencounterisanactualheretic,we
stillneedtobekindtothem.Weneedtobeevangelisticand
lovingtowardthem.Weneedtokeepthelinesof
communicationopen.Butwealsoneedtobecarefulabout
whowedeemaheretic.
Whenweencountersomebodywhoclaimstobea
Christian,howdowedetermineiftheyarewithinthebodyof
Christ?Inchapterseven,Ioutlinedtheproperapproachfor
dealingwithbrothersandsistersinChristwhodisagreewith
us.Weshouldaskthemfortheirtestimony.Withintheir
words,wewillhearhowtheycamefromdeathtolife,how
theyaresavedbythedeathofJesusChristandhis
resurrection.Itisdifficulttocallsomebodyahereticwhoisin
lovewithChristandwhohasabornagaintestimony,andan
orthodoxconfession.Itismoredifficulttogetangrywithsuch
aperson.Weshouldaskwhatwecouldlearnfromthem
ratherthanhowwecanwinargumentsagainstthem.
Thisextendseventothecreationcontroversy,whichI
expoundeduponinchaptereight.Oneofthetopicsthat
invokeheavyemotionwithinthebodyofChrististheissueof
theageoftheearth.Manywouldgosofarastosaythatitis
heresytosuggestthattheearthisold.Manysuggestthatto
believeinevolutionisacondemnablebelief.Theywillsuggest
thatthisconceptionofGodthatcreatedanoldearthisjust
evil,becausehecreateddeathbeforetheFallofman.The
originalworldthatGodcreatedwasfullofdeathand
suffering.Further,theyareaccusedofcompromisingthe
Bibletoplacatemodernscience.Theyarereinterpretingthe
Bibleonthebasisofwhatmodernsciencetellsthem.They
areappealingtothewordofmantooverridethewordof
God.Thisisthechargeagainsttheoldearthcreationistandit
isquitepotentamongmanyChristiancircles.ButIarguedin
thischapterthattheissueoftheageoftheearthand
evolutionarenotworthyofcondemnation.Theyare
secondaryissueswithnooverlapwiththecoredoctrinesof
theChristianfaith.Atmost,youcouldsaythatanoldearth
creationistwasbeinginconsistent,notheretical,buteven
thatchargewouldbestrained.
Inchapternine,Iturnedawayfromissueswithinthebody
ofChristandofferedadviceabouthowweshoulddealwith
atheists.Manyatheistsaregenuinelyunpleasantandnot
willingtolistentoawordthatwesay.Theyareonlythereto
provehowsmarttheyareandhowdumbreligiouspeople
are.Aresuchpeopleworthyofourtime?Well,Iarguedthatit
depends.IappealedtoProverbs26:4-5,whichsaysthatthere
aretimeswhereinweshouldaddressafoolaccordingtohis
folly,andothertimesthatweshouldnot.Wisdomwould
dictatewhichtouseinaparticularsituation.Therearetimes
whenweshoulddisarmtheatheisticargumentationjustso
theydonotthinktheyarewiseintheirowneyes.Further,if
thereisanaudience,thenweshouldshutdowntheir
arguments,notnecessarilyfortheirsake,butforthesakeof
thosewhoarelistening.Butthereareothertimesthatwe
shouldjustbackoffbecausetheconversationisnotgoing
anywhere.Itisalsoprudentthatweunderstandandtrustin
thesovereigntyandpoweroftheHolySpirit.UnlessGod
softenstheirheart,theywillneverturntohiminfaith
becausetheylovetheirsin.Weneedtounderstandthisand
evenhaveameasureofsympathyandpatience.
Thesamemightbesaidwhendealingwiththedaunting
issueofhomosexuality,whichIofferedatreatmentofin
chapterten.Whenweencounterpeoplewhoareadvocates
oftheLGBTmovement,orareevenhomosexuals,weneedto
labortounderstandhowtheybecamethepeoplethatthey
are.Weneedtounderstandhowtheyseeussothatwecan
overcometheirpreconceptionsofus.FormanyChristians
reallyareverybigotedandintoleranttoward.By
understandingthemandgettingtoknowthem,andhonestly
recognizingtheirstruggles,thenwebegintomendthebroken
linesofcommunicationbetweenthebodyofChristandthe
LGBTmovement.
Thesearejustafewofthegroupsthatwewillencounter
andthatrelationsandcommunicationwithareverydifficult.
EvenwithinthebodyofChrist,communicationisdifficult
whenwedisagreebecauseofourmonolithictendencies.But
ifwecannothandlesecondarydisagreements,howcanwe
handlethoseoutsideofthebodyofChrist?Howcanweshare
thegospelwithanyoneifwecannotcommunicate?
Chapters11-13:Practicalapplicability
Whiletherewascertainlyameasureofapplicable
contentinthefirsttenchapters,Idedicatedthesefinalthree
chapterstoofferingaresolutiontotheproblemof
communication.Itisnotirreparable.Butitstartswiththe
individual.Asanindividual,youneedtobewillingtohavethe
humilitytosaythatperhapsyoudonothandledisagreements
aswellasyoushouldandmovingforward,youwanttomend
thelinesofcommunicationwiththosewithwhomyou
disagree.
Thusinchaptereleven,Ipointedoutthepossibilityof
friendshipevenwhenwehavedisagreementsata
fundamentallevel.AChristiancanbefriendaMuslim.A
Christiancanbefriendahomosexual.Infact,itiswithinthe
confinesoffriendshipthatthegospelwillreceiveafair
hearing.Peoplearemuchmorelikelytolistentoyouifthey
knowthatyoucareaboutthem.Butiftheythinkthatyouare
onlytalkingtofeedyourprideortoshowhowsmartyouare,
theywilltuneyououtorjustlookforwaystorefuteyou.But
iftheythinkthatyoucareaboutthem,theywillbemorelikely
tolistentoyou.
ThatiswhyIarguedinchaptertwelvethatweneedto
allowourlovetobeourseatatthetable.Peopledonotlisten
tousbecauseofourintellectualrigor.Theydonotlistentous
becauseofhowstudiousweare.Theydonotlistentouseven
becauseweareright.InthecaseoftheLGBTmovementfor
example,peopleforgetallofthesethings.Theyjustseeyou
asabigot.Butifyoudemonstrateloveforthem,thenyouwill
havedevelopedamoralopinionofrepute.
However,evenwhileitisimportanttolove,itisalso
importanttobeintelligent,asIarguedinchapterthirteen.
Wecanloveallwewantwhilepromotinginvalidlogicandit
willnotmatter.IfIamdemonstratinglovetosomebodyand
tellthemthat2+2=5,itwillnotmatter.Ourbehaviorwillnot
changetheirmindaboutsomethingthatispatentlyincorrect.
Thusloveandintellectneedtoworktogether.Theyneedto
complimentoneanother.Weneedtobeabletoprovidegood
answerstodifficultquestions,becausetherearetangible
intellectualstumblingblocksthatpeoplehavetofaithin
Christ.
Myprayeristhatanybodyreadingthisbookwilllaborto
applytheseprinciplessothatwecantrulyexemplifythelove
ofGod.WecanpresentaChristianitythatisbothlovingand
intellectuallyacceptable.Butthatbeginswithusas
individuals.Individualsneedtounderstandhowthey
representChristandhowtheirpresentationsofthegospel
affectotherpeople.Weneedtounderstandtheassumptions
thatwemakeaboutpeopleandlabortocombatthem.Thatis
thepleaofthisbook.Iimploreeverybodyreadingtoexercise
self-reflection.
Chapter1–LearnAboutPeople
Iamafraidthatthetragicrealityhasemergedthatlearning
aboutpeopleissomethingofanovelconceptamongmany.
Whilethisisnotanindictmentsolelyagainstthechurch,
thereissomeoverlapinthisindictmentandthechurch’s
behavior.Whenwedisagreewithsomebodyaboutacertain
propositionaltruth,thereisatendencytoloadamyriadof
assumptionsintowhatthatpersonissaying.Everythingthat
wehavebeentoldaboutwhattheybelieveisassumedtobe
whattheyaresaying.Everythingthatotherrepresentativesof
thisposition,orofasimilarposition,havesaid,isassumedto
bewhattheyarerepresenting.Thereisatendencyfor
Christianstomakeassumptionsaboutpeoplebasedona
wordortwo.
Thereisanoldpieceofwisdom,whichsaysthatapictureis
worthathousandwords.Whilethatmaybethecase,itwould
probablybeappropriatetoinduceanotherpithysayingthat
alignswiththispoint.Onewordisworthathousandwords.
Forinsayingoneword,theindividualcommunicatesentire
concepts,summonsforthstreamsofthought,callsmemories
andlecturesaboutthatparticularwordintothememoryof
thepersonwithwhomtheyarecommunicating.Wedothisall
ofthetime.Onewordisworthathousandwords.
Ifyoudonotfindofthislineofreasoningpersuasive,just
thinkofagiraffe.Justinreadingthatparticularword,there
hassprungforthimagesofagiraffeandperhapsfondor
intriguingmemoriesofscienceclassesthatyouendured
duringyoureducation.Youmaybethinkingoftheirlongneck,
andthefactthattheycouldhaveevolvedwiththatparticular
traitasanadaptiontoanenvironmentwherenutritionwas
outofreach.Consequently,duringthestruggleforsurvival,
thegiraffedevelopedthislongerneckasanadaptationtothe
environment.Itmaybethecasethatyouarethinkingallof
thesethings,withoutmyevensayingthem.EvenifIdidnot
describethegiraffe,youwouldhavethoughtofit.Youwould
haveloadedyourassumptionsaboutthegiraffeintomy
words.Inthiscase,however,yourassumptionswouldhave
beencorrect.
Withthatinmind,Iconcedethattheexampleofthegiraffe
mightbeabitmundane.Iwilltryanotherexample.Inthe
previousparagraph,Iusedtheword“evolved.”Sincethisis
booktargetsChristians,Iwouldbejustifiedinthinkingthat
thiswordtriggersacertainreaction.YoumaybeangrythatI
haveseeminglyacceptedtheTheoryofEvolutionandimplied
its’truthintheveryfirstchapterofthisbook.Itmayhaveleft
youthinkthatthisbookurgingChristianstobetolerantis
actuallyasampleofliberaltheology,foritpromotesthe
TheoryofEvolutionandcallsChristianstobeopentoit.Well,
theseassumptionsthatyouhavemadefarexceedwhatI
intended.Forinusingtheword“evolved,”Iwasbeingquite
consistentwithwhateventhemostadamantdeniesofthe
TheoryofEvolutionwouldpropagate.Iwasdescribingthe
lengtheningofaneck,notaninstancewhereinonespecies
becomesanother.Therefore,Iwasnotadvocatingnor
implyingthetruthintheTheoryofEvolution.Nonetheless,
youmayhaveloadedthatassumptionintowhatIsaidand
mayhavebeenpreparingtocriticizemeonthatbasis.This
shouldservetounderlinemypointthataonewordiswortha
thousandwords.
Yet,ifyouwillpermitme,Iwillapplyjustonemore
illustrationandthenwewillmoveon.Letussupposethatyou
encounteraChristianwhotellsyouthattheyendorsethe
legalizationofsame-sexmarriage.(Iamanadvocateof
traditionalmarriagebetweenamanandawoman).If
somebodyweretotellyouthat,wewouldinstantlyassume
thatthisindividualsupportsthelifestyleofhomosexual
behavior.Wewouldinstantlyassumethatthispersonthinks
thathomosexualbehaviorisnotasin.Youhaveprobably
encounteredChristiansinthepast,andtheyhaveclaimed
supportofsame-sexmarriage,andtheywere,infact,
supportingthelifestyleandendorsingthebehavior.Thus,
whenweencountersomebodyelsewhoclaimstoendorse
thelegalizationofsame-sexmarriage,weassumethatthey
aresayingthesamethingthattheotherpersonsaid.Weare
loadingthestanceofourpreviousencounterintowhatthis
personissaying.
Yetaswebegintoprobethisindividual,wediscoverthat
theyreallydothinkthathomosexualbehaviorissinful
behavior.Theyhaveadoptedthepositionthatparticular
Christiannuancesofmoralityshouldnotbeimposeduponthe
government,forwedoliveinasecularsociety.Justaswe
wouldnotwanttoseethepresenceofIslamiclawsintheUS
Constitution,thispersonissayingthatitwouldbewrongto
imposetheirreligiousvaluesupontheUSConstitution.This
wouldbeakintoCSLewis’sthoughtsondivorce.Ofcourse,
whethertheyarerightorwrongaboutthisisnotthepoint.
Thepointisratherthatwemadeanassumptionaboutwhat
theyweresaying.Weassumedthattheyweresayingthat
homosexualbehaviorisnotsinful.But,whattheywerereally
sayingwasthattheydidnotwanttoimposetheirreligious
valuesuponthelaw.
Theseareobviouslytwoverydifferentstatements.Wedo
notwanttobeguiltyofaccusingsomebodyoftheformer,
whentheyactuallymeantthelatter,whichisthecasein
manysituations.Weroutinelyloadourassumptionsonto
whatotherpeoplesay.So,howcanwecombatthisbehavior
ofours?
Learntoaskquestions.
Youwillrecallthatabove,Iusedthewords“evolution,”and
“same-sexmarriage,”andlaboredtounderlinethereality
thatthesetendtoinvokecertainassumptions.Youmayhave
evenassumedthatIwassayingsomethingthatIwasnot.
Howcanweaverttheseassumptions?Ofcourse,itis
impossibletoavertassumptions.Assumptionsarea
psychologicalphenomenon,whichIamsimplynotqualifiedto
bringyoutoovercome.
Thatisnottosaythattheyarealwaysnegative.Iassume
thatwhenIturnthewateroninmyshower,corrosiveacid
willnotcomeout.IassumethatwhenItalktosomebody,I
willmakesoundandmywordswillbecoherent(hopefully)so
thattheyunderstandthewordsthatIamsaying.WhenI
mentionagiraffe,IassumethatyouknowexactlywhatIam
referringto.Ifalecturerrelaystotheaudiencethathewillbe
fieldingquestionsafterhislecture,hemakestheassumption
thataudienceknowswhatitmeanstoaskaquestion.I,and
everybody,makestheseinductiveassumptions,without
which,wesimplycouldnotfunctionintheworld.Webase
whatweencounterinthepresentonwhatwehave
encounteredinthepast.Thatisundeniableandoften
warranted.
However,whenwearedealingwithotherpeople,our
assumptionsareoftenwrong.Wemisuseourassumptions.
Justassomebodywhomisusesahammerbycommitting
murderwithit,soalsowemisuseourassumptions.In
properlyapplyingourassumptions,wemustfirstrecognize
thatwearemakingthem.Ifsomebodyuttersaphraseora
wordthatinvokesacertainmentalresponse,weneedto
considerthepossibilitythattheymaymeansomething
differentthanwhatwethinktheymean,lestwebeguiltyof
thefallacyofequivocation.
Thewayinwhichwecandiscernwhattheythinkisquite
simple.Whileitisoneofthesimplestapproachestoresolving
thisconundrum,itwillalsobeseenasforeigntomany.For
peoplearejusttooproudtoexercisethisalternative.Many
wouldratherjustassumethattheyknoweverythingthata
personisthinkingandsaying,asopposedtoadoptinga
positionofhumilityandadmittingthattheymaybe
vulnerabletomisunderstanding.Thismethodwillberegarded
asoutrageoustosomeandoffensivetoothers.
Ifyouwanttoknowwhatsomebodymeans,justaskthem.
Expressyourcapacityformisunderstanding.Expresshow
likelyyouaretoloadyourassumptionsintowhattheyare
saying.IfyouhadaskedmeifIwaspeddlingevolutionearlier
inthischapter,IwouldhavetoldyouthatIwasnot(Iam
skepticaloftheTheoryofEvolution).Ifyouhadaskedthat
hypotheticalpersonwhattheymeantwhentheysaidthat
theyareinfavorofsame-sexmarriage,theywouldhavetold
you.IcannottellyouhowmanytimesIhavesaidsomething,
andthepersontowhomIsayitemitsasporadicoutburstof
angerandaccusationsofheresy.TheywoulddothiswhenI
wasnotevenpromotingtheviewthattheyaccusemeof
promoting.Yettheycouldhaveresolvedthisissueby
adoptingapositionofhumilityandjustaskingthequestion.
Whatdoyouthink?Whatisyourview?DoIunderstandyou
correctly?
Bysimplyaskingsomebodywhattheymean,younegateall
ofyourownassumptions.Youbecomereceptivetowhatthis
personhastosayandyoulearntoaddressthemasan
individual.
Allowthemtotelltheirownstory.
Still,asIindicated,therearemanytimesthatyour
assumptionsaboutanindividualwillbecorrect.Youwillhave
discernedthatitwascorrectbyaskingthemandallowing
themthefreedomtoclarifytheirposition.Whentheyclarify
itforyou,youcometorealizethattheyreallydorepresent
thispositionthatyouthoughttheydid.Atthisjuncture,many
ofuswouldbeinclinedtowardanger.Ifanindividual
communicatestheirsupportofapositionthatwefind
particularlyobjectionable,themovethatweareinclinedto
makeistooverloadthisindividualwithfactsand
argumentationsopowerfulthatanhonestseekeroftruth
couldnotpossiblycontinuetodenywhatisbeingsaid.Then
webecomeangrywhentheypersistintheirdisagreement.
Thisisnottosuggestthatwecanneverdisagreeandcan
neverexpressourdisagreement,forobviously,thereareways
forustoapproachpeoplewithwhomwedisagree.Butthe
firstpropositionthatwerelayneednotbeanexpressionof
thelatitudeofourpositionoverandagainsttheirs.Rather,it
ismythoughtthatifwearetotrulyunderstandwhataperson
issayingandunderstandwhytheyhavecometoadopta
certainposition,thenweneedtobegintounderstandthis
individualasaperson,asopposedtoasarepresentativeofa
corporatebody.Ifweviewthemasawalkingmanifestationof
aparticularargument,wewillbeinclinedtodelivercounterargumentaftercounter-argumentwithoutregardtothemas
people.Whilesomemaybereceptivetothis,manywillreact
withdisdain.Peopledonotenjoybeingtoldthattheyare
wrong,especiallyinthecontextofarelationshipwith
somebodywhocaresnothingforyou.Theymaythinkthat
youarejustbeingpridefulandtryingtowinanintellectual
showdown.Infact,evenifyouofferarobustdefenseofa
certainposition,thisindividualmaybelikelytoseekouta
robustdefenseoftheirposition.Afterall,peoplearenotlikely
toabandontheirbeliefs,butrathertheyarelikelytoseekout
answerstothequestionthathavebeenposedtothem.
Ifwetrulywanttohaveanimpactuponthelivesofour
fellowman,weneedtotrulycareaboutthisperson.Again,
thisseemstoalignwithadoptingastanceofhumility.We
havetoassumethatwedonotknoweverythingthatthereis
knowaboutthisperson.Thereismoretoanindividualthan
thebeliefsthattheyareespousing.Thereisoftenmoretothe
beliefsthattheyareespousingthanourinitialperception.
Thereisadeeplyimbeddedcommitmenttothoseparticular
beliefs.Ifwewanttounderstandwhatourfriendissaying,we
needtobegintoregardthemasourfriend,ratherthanasa
target.
Allowthemtotelltheirstorytheirway.Whatwehavein
mindabouthowtheycametotheirconclusionsisourstoryof
them.Butourstoryofthemshouldnotbesointerestingto
us.Ourstoryofthemshouldbeheldtentativelyandreceptive
toutterrefutationandabandonment.Ourstoryofthem
shouldbemeasuredagainsttheirstoryofthemselves.Ask
probingquestions.Allowthemtoexplainwhotheyare,and
whytheycametobelievewhattheybelieve.
Ifyouwanttotellthemwhatyouthink,bewillingtofirst
listentowhattheythink.
Peoplearekeentousethebroachingofaparticulartopicas
aplatformforexpressingtheirbeliefsaboutasubject.Asa
blogger,Iroutinelypostmyarticlesonsocialnetworking
websitessothatpeoplecandigestmyreasoningandrespond
towhatIsay.Well,thismodelhasemergedasanidealpie-inthe-sky,asitturnsoutthatmanypeoplearenotinterestedin
anythingthatanyone,asidefromthemselves,havetosay.
Manypeoplewanttohearaffirmationsofwhattheyalready
believe.Manypeoplewanttohearwhyitisthattheywere
rightallalong.Buttheydonotwanttohearareasonedand
objectiveanalysistotherelevanttopic.Theywillcrowin
disgustiftheyhearaninklingofacriticismofwhatthey
alreadybelieve.So,ratherthandigestingwhatIhavetosay,
peoplewillreadjustthetitleofablogpost,andremindmeof
theirview.
InmyinteractionsontheInternet,Ihavefoundthatmany
peoplearejustnotinterestedinhearingviewsespousedwith
whichtheydisagree.Ratherthanallowingafairhearing,
manyhavethementalitythattheonlyviewthatshouldbe
espousedistheonethattheyalreadyhold.Peopleare
inclinedtojustsortofplugtheirearswhenanotherviewis
beingrepresented.
However,thisbehaviorseemstoseverourcapacityto
relatetootherpeopleortodrawthemclosertothetruth.IfI
usemydisagreementwithanotherpersonasaplatformfor
preachingthereasoningbehindmyview,anddonotallow
themtospeak,orrefusetolistentowhattheyaresayingand
reallydigestit,thenwhatIhaveessentiallydoneisshutdown
communicationbetweenmyselfandthatindividual.Theyare
lefttoaskwhytheyshouldbothertolistentomewhenI
refusetolistentothem.Ifyouwanttotellthemwhatyou
think,bewillingtofirstlistentowhattheythink.
Yetevenonthismodel,itwouldbepossibleforyoutojust
sortofwaitforyourturntotalk.Iamafraidthatthisstyleof
conversationisquitepervasive.Manypeoplearenot
interestedinwhatothershavetosay.Christians,aswell,are
quiteguiltyofthis.Peoplejustwanttheirchancetoexpress
themselvesandarenotinterestedinthehonestreflectionsof
theirfellowman.ItshouldnotbethatwayamongChristians.
Christiansshouldbewillingtolistentopeopleandtoreally
digestwhattheyaresaying,totrytounderstandthe
perspectiveofthosewithwhomtheydisagree.
Whenwebegintounderstandtheirreasoningandhow
theycametotheirconclusions,wedevelopthisfeelingthat
wecanrelatetothisindividual.Webegintoknowand
understandthem.Webegintolearnaboutwhotheyareand
wheretheyarecomingfrominespousingtheseviews.
Whetherweagreewiththeirreasoningordenytheir
conclusionsisnottherelevantpointhere.Thepointisthat
weunderstandwhythislineofreasoningcompelsthem.Ifwe
candevelopthatmaturity,theimplicationsforourfuture
relationshipsandpotentialinevangelismwillbeprofound.
Perhapstheyreallydohavegoodreasons.
Theaboveshouldnotbetakenasanopportunityforusto
condescenddowntotheirlevel.Asthoughtheirlineof
reasoningwasmanifestlyinvalid,andwecanseetheerror
thattheyarejustobliviousto.Rather,thereareoftentimes
whereinIthoughtIhaveasounddefeaterofacertain
proposition,untilIheardthedefendersofthatproposition
givearationalanswertothatparticularquestion.Justthinkof
allofthetimesthatsomethingsimilarhasoccurred.We
thoughtweknewthatsomepropositionwasfalseuntil
somebodyexplainedwhyourobjectionsdidnotreallyhave
anymerit.
Foramoment,considerwithme,theproblemofeviland
sufferingintheworld.Thismayseemtomanylikeavery
potentemotionalargumentagainsttheexistenceofGod,for
ifGodreallyweregoodandpowerful;hewouldnotallow
abundantevilasweseetodayinourworld.Thismustimply
thatGodprobablydoesnotexist.Somebodycouldwalk
aroundmaintainingthisobjection,andthinkingthatitisa
sounddefeateroftheexistenceofGod.But,whenthey
encounteraChristian,theChristianwillprobablyofferthe
freewilldefense.TheywillsuggestthatGodpermitseviland
sufferingonthebasisofhisdesirestoallowmankindtohave
afreechoice.Freechoiceimpliesthattheywouldhavethe
capacitytomakethewrongchoice.Therearecertainaspects
ofthisworld,whichwecouldneverhaveinHeaven.Thereare
virtuessuchascourageorself-sacrifice,whichwecouldnever
haveinHeaven,butaregrantedasgiftsonearth.God
providedtohiscreaturesthesevirtuousexperiences,among
thembeingfreedomofthewill.Now,whenthisrobust
defenseoftheprovidenceofGodoverevilisprovided,the
personwhothoughtthattheyhadasounddefeaterofGod’s
existencewillbeleftstaggering.
Likewise,whenweassumethatwehaveasounddefeater
ofacertainproposition,weneedtoadoptapositionof
humility,forinhumility,wewillcometorealizethatthereare
manythingsthatwejustdonotknow.Perhapsourfriend
withwhomwedisagreeknowsmorethanwedo.Perhapshe
ismorephilosophicallyorientedthanweare.Perhapshehas
abetterhandleontheScripturethanwedo.Perhapshehas
hadverysophisticatedteacherswhowalkedhimthroughthe
variousobjections,includingyours,anddemonstratedtohim
howitisthattheseobjectionsfail.
Ofcourse,hecouldstillbewrong.But,weneedtolearnto
approachthesepeoplewithhumility.Itwouldbequite
helpfulifweofferedtopeopletheluxuriousassumptionthat
theyhavegoodreasonsforthethingsthattheybelieve.
Perhapsthesereasonsarewrong,andthereisaflaw
somewhereinthelogic,butthatisnottosaythatwecannot
relatetoorunderstandwhytheywouldbecompelledbyit.
IfIamreallygoingtoengagewithsomebodywithwhomI
disagree,agoodruleofthumbtoapplywouldbetothinkthat
theyknowwhattheyaretalkingabout.Theyarenotjust
gulliblesimpletonswhobelievewhattheyaretoldtobelieve.
Rather,Icanthinkthatperhapstheyhaveheardmy
objectionsandmyreasoningandstilldisagreeprecisely
becausetheythinkmyobjectionsfail.IfIamgoingtorelateto
anotherindividual,theyshouldnotbedisqualifiedfroma
reasoneddefenseoftheirpositionbyvirtueofholdingthat
position.Theymayreallyhavegoodreasons.
Perhapstheyhaveemotionalreasons.
Asweprobetounderstandthisindividual,therewillbe
caseswhereinweencounterverylittleintellectualresistance
oraverycompellingargumentfortheircase.Perhapswhen
theyarecitingtheBible,theyaredemonstratingaclearlack
ofrespectforthecontextoftheseparticularverses.Perhaps
glaringflawsdetaintheirreasoning.Itmaybecomeobviousto
youthattheyhaveotherreasonsforholdingtheparticular
viewthattheydo.Theyhaveemotionalorotherwisenonintellectualreasonsforholdingfasttotheirparticularstance.
Butthesereasonsareprobablynotevenknowntothem.
Theirtruemotivesaresubconsciousandsubliminal.
Whilethisissomethingthatwemightfindfrustrating,we
shouldfindthatweverymuchrelatetothisattitude,because
thereareoftentimeswhenwebelievethingsandevenacts
onthingsbasedonemotionalreasonsratherthanrational
reasons.Ifyouarekeentojealousyinrelationships,thenyou
cancertainlyrelatetothissortofbehavior.Yourjealousyis
probablypromptedbyinfidelityinpreviousrelationships,and
thoseoldemotionsaresproutingupandimpactingyour
decisions,actionsandcurrentrelationshipinanegative
manner.Yourmotivationforjealousyissubliminaland
subconscious.Likewise,ifapersonisdepressedorfrustrated,
theywillturntothingsthatcomfortthem,likejunkfoodor
evencigarettesmoking.Butthesemotivationsareoften
underlyingtheconsciousmind.Weseethesamethinginour
sexualdesires.Ifamanlustsafterawoman,heisconsciously
drivenbythehopeofenjoyingintercourse,buttheunderlying
andsubconsciousmotivationisthatheneedstopropagate
hisDNAandimpregnatehisfemalecompanion.The
underlyingmotivationishiddenfromhimandhedoesnot
needtoknowitfortheactiondrivenbyittosucceed.
Thatisnottosaythatthesebehaviorsarejustified.Rather,
itistosaythatitisanaturalaspectofthehumanpsychology.
Weareregularlydrivenbynon-rationalmotives,evenifwe
thinkotherwise.Ourfriendmaybedrivenbyhistraditional
values,orperhapshewantstoalignwithhisparents,orhis
favoriteteacher,ormaybehejustdoesnotlikechange.Sohe
resiststheviewthatyouarepropagating,infavoroffallacious
reasoningthatleadshimtoanunsavoryconclusion.Thisis
somethingthatistobeexpected,foritisprevalentinhuman
beings.Weoftenbelievethingsforbadreasonsbecauseour
truereasonsareemotional.Thisissomethingwithwhich
everybodycansympathize.
Icautionpatiencewhendealingwithsuchaperson.One
interactionwillnotchangetheirmind.Ifallthatyouhaveis
oneinteraction,thenyoumaybeabletoplantaseedof
skepticismintheirmind.Butthismayhavetheadverseeffect
ofleadingthemtoseekingoutarobustdefenseoftheir
fallaciousview.(Ifthisisdoneproperly,itwillinvolvean
objectivescouringoftherelevantsources,boththosewith
whichoneagreesanddisagrees.Butpeoplearescarcely
pronetosuchanobjectivescouring.)Theywilldosowitha
heavyconfirmationbias,attemptingtoconfirmtheir
emotionallyheldbelief.
Itisbesttoensure,then,thatyouhavemorethanone
interaction,sothatyoucanbepatient.Peopleneedpatience
andtheyneedtobeslowlyworkedthroughtheirparticular
viewsothattheymaycometoadeeperunderstandingofthe
truth.
Thispersonisnotnecessarilyevil.
Dependingonthestancethatthisindividualisespousing,
thereisaninclinationtodemonizethem.Itseemsakintothe
logicalfallacyknownaspoisoningthewell.Thisoccurswhena
certainindividualispresentedinanegativemannerbeforean
audience,sothattheaudiencelistenstothemwithnegative
presumptionsinmind.Asaresult,theaudiencewillalways
interpreteverythingthattheysayinanegativelight.Thisis
whatpeopledowhentheydisagreewithaparticular
individual.
IfyouarehavingtroublegraspingwhatImean,considerthe
waythedebateoversamesexmarriageisoftenframed.The
Christianpositionisrepresentedasbigotedevenbeforethe
Christiansaysaword.Beforewespeak,wearethoughtofas
hatefulpeopleandareperceivedthroughthatlens.Inthis
way,wearenotreallyofferedafairhearing,becausetheonly
thingthatpeopleunderstandiswhattheyhavealreadybeen
toldaboutus.Thewellhasbeenpoisoned.Forthisreason,
evenmanyChristiansarebeginningtodisassociate
themselveswiththebiblicalstanceonsamesexmarriage,
becausetheywanttoappeasetheculture.
However,thisactionofpoisoningthewellisnotexclusive
toourintellectualopponents.Weareguiltyofitaswell.
Considermycharacterizationintheaboveparagraphofthe
Christianwhoapprovesofsamesexmarriagejusttoappease
theculture.IfIweretosaythatallChristianswhoapproveof
samesexmarriagearejusttryingtoappeasetheculture,then
Iwouldbepoisoningthewell,too.Iwouldpreventyoufrom
listeningtoanythingthatsuchapersonhadtosaybecause
theyarejusttryingtoappeasetheculture.Thatispoisoning
thewell,andmanyChristiansareguiltyofit.
IfIweretorepresentaviewthatyourdenomination
teachesiswrong,thenyouareprobablylisteningtomewitha
numberofpreconceptionsinmind.YoumightthinkthatIdo
notcarewhattheBiblesays,thatIdonotbelievetheBible,or
thatIhavesomehiddenemotionalmotive.Youcannoteven
listentoawordthatIsaywithoutalreadyassumingboththat
IamwrongandthatIamanimmoralpersonwhoistryingto
distortthewordofGod.Thatisjusttheperceptionthatwe
tendtocreateofpeopleoverthesedisagreements.
Whetherthedisagreementissecondaryorcardinaltothe
faith,weneednotassumethatthepersonwhoispropagating
thedisagreementisevil.Weneednotdemonizeour
intellectualopponents.Eveniftheydohaveimpuremotives
oreveniftheyaremotivatedbyunbiblicalprinciplesorantibiblicaldoctrines,thenwedonotneedtopoisonthewell.We
mayexposewhattheyaresayingasunbiblicalor
unreasonable,butweshouldstillacknowledgethatthisisa
personwhohasahistory,anemotionalbackgroundanda
depththatwecannotseeatthemoment.
Ifweassumethateverybodywithwhomwedisagreehas
impuremotives,thentherewillneverdevelopanyfriendships
andtherefore,thepotentialforsharingthegospelwiththem
willbesignificantlyreduced.Evenifwedisagreewiththemat
afundamentallevel,atthelevelofChristianityandIslam,we
stilldonotneedtoassumethattheyhaveimpuremotives.
Peopledeservethebenefitofthedoubtbydefaultuntilthey
demonstrateotherwise.
ThisisparticularlytrueofourbrothersandsisterinChrist.If
somebodyisaChristianandespousingaview,itisnothelpful
forustodemonizethem.Thatwillonlyaccomplishthe
shuttingdownofcommunication,neitherpartywilllistento
eachotherandeverybody’sheartwillgrowcolderandharder.
AsChristians,weneedtoapplytheseprinciples.Weneedto
treatpeopleasthoughtheywereindividualswithareal
history,withrealreasons,andnotasthoughtheywere
groupsofpeoplebutratheraspeople.
Chapter2–LearnAboutYourself
Apopularatheisticidiomrelaysthemessagethatifyouhad
beenborninanIslamiccountry,youwouldbeaMuslim.
Likewise,ifyouhadlivedduringthetimeoftheVikings,you
wouldworshipOdin.Ifyouwerealifetimeinhabitantofmost
partsofIndia,youwouldsingpraisestoShiva.Ifyoulivedina
countrythatendorsedtheprojectofscienceandspreadtales
aboutthemythicalfoundingofreligion,youwouldprobably
beanatheist.Religiousbelief,then,isseenasmerely
demographic,ratherthanastheresultofseriouslogical
scrutiny.
However,thisflawedepistemologicalapproachcanalsobe
seeninotherareasoflife.IfIhadbeenborninChina,Iwould
likelybeacommunist,andIwouldbeinformedaboutallof
thedemeritsofdemocracy.Ourdemographicsinfluenceallof
ourbeliefs,butthatdoesnotprovethatourbeliefsarefalse.
Itdoes,however,warrantabitofself-reflection.
Thismeansthatsolongaswedonotstretchthisatheistic
idiombeyondtheboundariesofits’logicalconclusion,we
mayactuallygleansomewisdomfromit.Itobviouslydoesnot
provethattheChristianfaithisfalse,forifonewerelaboring
tomakethatargument,theywouldbeguiltyofthegenetic
fallacy,whichistosaythatwecannotdeterminethatabelief
isfalsebypointingouthowsomebodycametoknowthat
belief.Wecan,however,pointoutthattheepistemological
resourcesthatwereemployedwere,infact,faulty.If
somebodybelievessomethingmerelybecausetheirparents
taughtittothem,anddonothaveafoundationoftheirown,
thenIamafraidthatitisoftenthecasethatwhenthisperson
leavesthehome,theirfaithwillcollapse.
Yeteveniftheyaretodeveloptheirownfaith,itisoften
thecasethattheirbeliefsreflectverycloselythebeliefsof
theirparentsandtheirtradition.Thereareveryfewpeople
whoobjectivelyexaminethebiblicaldataandcometo
rationalconclusions.Mostpeoplejustadopttheviewthat
theirparentshadandassumethattheyareright.When
challenged,theywillretreattotheoldwisdomandone-liners
thatweretaughttothemthroughouttheirlivestosatisfythe
demandsofthechallenger.
But,ifthechallengerissomebodywholikewisemaintainsa
deeplyingrainedtradition,thenbothpartiesarelikelytojust
spoutoffthewisdomthattheyhavebeentaughtsince
childhood,andneglecttointeractwithwhattheotherperson
issaying.Theywillnotlistentotheargumentsthattheother
individualisespousingpreciselybecausetheyhailfroma
differenttraditionalbackground.Theyonlywanttohearwhat
thosewithwhomtheyalreadyagreehavetosay.The
questionthatIwouldposetoyouisthis:doesthisdescribe
you?Isyourtraditionsoingrainedthatothervoicesare
purposefully(andsorrowfully)muffled?Haveyounoearsto
hear?Youshould.Afterall,itmaybethecasethatyour
traditioniswrong.
Haveyoueveraskedthedifficultquestions?
Oftenwhenpeopleanswerthisquestionintheaffirmative
andsaythattheyhavebeenchallengedbydifficultquestions,
andsoughtoutanswers,whattheyreallymeanisthatthey
triedtoanswerquestionsinaccordancewithwhatthey
alreadybelieved.Now,ofcourse,thisisnotalwaysabad
thing.Ifmybeliefshappentobecorrect,whichinthecaseof
thecentraltenetsofChristiantheology,theyare,thenthe
answerstothedifficultquestionswillalwaysbeinaccordance
withtheChristianfaith.Iamnotsomuchtalkingabout
questioningwhethertheChristiantraditionasawholeistrue,
butratherIamspeakingofdenominationaldifferences.Iam
speakingnowofdifferencesthatseparatestheMethodist
fromtheBaptistortheChurchofChristfromtheLutheran,or
theCalvinistfromtheArminian,ortheinerrantistfromthe
infallibilist.
Itshouldbeemphasizedthatourbrethrenwithindifferent
denominationsdeserveafairhearing,justasyourparticular
nuanceofthefaithdeservesafairhearing.Ifyoupresentyour
beliefstosomebodyelsewhomightnotshareanidentical
pictureoftheChristianfaith,youwouldnotwantthemtotry
tofigureoutwhyitisthatyouarewrong.Likewise,whenyou
feelchallengedbyacertainargumentthatispresented,itis
notyourdutytofigureoutwhythatargumentfails.Itisyour
dutytodetermineifthatargumentfails.
So,asyouinvestigatetheargumentsofyourintellectual
opponent/friend,youshouldbeinclinedtolearnhowto
representtheirargumentjustaseffectivelyastheycan.When
youcanconstructtheirargumentaccurately,inawaythat
theywouldaffirmit,thenyoushouldfeelfreetobeginthe
searchforlogicalerrors.Unfortunately,manyChristians
repudiatethismodelofobjective,honestandrigorous
investigation.Peopleoftenprefertoseekoutindividual
proof-textsorsoundbites;loneversesinScripturethatseem
toestablishtheirentireargument,andthiswillmarktheend
oftheinvestigation.Howdopeopleofalternativeviewpoints
interpretyourfavoriteproof-textagainsttheirposition?Can
youanswerthisquestion?Ifnot,thenitisinconceivablethat
youcanthinkthattheirinterpretationiswrong.Youdonot
havetheluxuryofbeingrightbydefault.
Thisleavesuswiththequestionofalternative
interpretationsofScripture.Howdoouropponentsinterpret
theBible?ConsiderRomans4:5,whichreads,“Totheone
whodoesnotworkbutbelievesinhimwhojustifiesthe
ungodly,hisfaithiscreditedasrighteousness.”Asan
adherentofProtestanttheology,Ibelievethatthistext,
properlyunderstoodinits’context,establishesthedoctrine
ofjustificationbyfaithalone.Readingchaptersthreethrough
fiveofthebookofRomansdrawsfurthersupport.But,the
questionis,howdoopponentsofjustificationbyfaithalone
interpretthis?DoIevenknow?IfIdonotknow,thenIwould
belefttothinkthatthereisaplausiblealternative
interpretationofthisparticularpassage.ButIdoknow.Many
willsuggestthatfaithentailsworksandarighteouslifestyle.
Otherswillsuggestthatfaithisjustonepart,andifwe
assemblealloftheversesthatspeakofthedifferentaspects
ofsalvation,thenwewillhaveconstructedaproper
soteriology.Thesearethedifferentinterpretations.Myview
isthatIneedtobewillingtogiveothersafairhearing.
IfIweretoinsteadonlylookforanswersthatreaffirmwhat
Ialreadybelieve,Iwouldnotreallybemakinganyprogress.I
wouldberenderinganexerciseinself-affirmation.Iwouldbe
provingtomyselfthatIwasrightallalong,whichisatrivially
easytask.Peoplearealltooeasilyconvincedthattheywere
rightallalong.Thusthiscallsforanapproachthatis
permeatedwithhumilitybeforetheScriptureandan
acknowledgementthatwemaybewrong.
Thatisnottoimpugnalltradition.
Inandofthemselves,traditionsarenotavice.Ifsomebody
learnssomethingbythemethodoftradition,theyarenot
learningsomethingthatisinherentlywrong.Therearemany
traditionsthataregood.JesuswasaJewandhemaintained
thetraditionalviewoftheHebrewBible(John10:35).Hekept
thePassover(John13:1).Likewise,PaulwasaJewwho
believedthattheTorahwasgood,righteous,andholy
(Romans1:32).HetaughtthatatrueChristianwillkeepthe
Law(Romans2:13)andthatatrueJewisonewhois
circumcisedoftheheart(Romans2:29).Hislettersarereplete
withcitationsoftheHebrewBible.Paulwasamanof
traditionalvaluesandtaughtotherstodolikewise.
TheBibletestifiestothevalueofpropertradition.Theold
proverbsaremeanttoservegeneralprinciplesuponwhich
wemaybaseourlives.Indeed,Proverbs22:6reads,“Trainup
achildinthewayheshouldgo,andevenwhenheisold,he
willnotdepartfromit.”Thus,theScriptureistellingparents
thattheyneedtoingrainintheirchildrenvirtuessuchas
righteousnessandtruth.Thismeansthatitisavirtueforusto
adoptpropertradition.
Ofcourse,thisraisesthequestionofwhatpropertradition
is.WhiletheapostlePaul’slettersarerepletewithcitationsof
theOldTestament,thereareothercitationsofwhichthe
orthodoxJewwouldbeunaware.HecitesearlierChristian
tradition,suchashymnsandrabbinicaloraltraditionsthat
haveimportedChristiantheology.1stCorinthians15:3-8is
primeexampleofthiscitation.Paulisnotwritinganew
teaching,butratherisappealingtotheoraltraditionthathas
circulatedsincetheascensionofChrist.Itoutlinesthedeath
ofJesusonthecrossforoursins,hisburialandhis
resurrectionfromthedead.Paulholdsfasttothattradition.
Likewise,theCarmenChristiinPhilippians2:5-8isahymnof
theearlychurch.ItemphasizesthatasJesus,beingGod,yet
distinctfromtheFather,cametoearthanddiedonthecross.
Itseemsthatinthispassage,wehavetheearliestinklingof
thedoctrineofthetrinity.Further,in1stTimothy1:15,Paul
writes,“Itisatrustworthysaying,deservingfullacceptance,”
meaningthatheiscitingasayingthatwascirculatinginthe
earlychurch.Thesayingwas,“ChristJesuscameintothe
worldtosavesinners,ofwhomIamtheforemostofall.”
ThesearetraditionsthatPaulaccepted,andyettheyare
clearlyvirtuous.Itseemstomethatinthecoredoctrineof
theChristianfaith,wefindtheboundariesforrational
investigation.Thatisnottosaythatthefaithis
unquestionable.Butrather,itisanestablishedtruth.Justas
inmathematics,wedonotquestionthevalidityofthesumof
2+2equaling4ateveryturn,becauseitisanestablished
truth.Wearefreetoaskquestions.Wearefreetoask,“Does
2+2reallyequal4?”andpursuetheanswertothat.However,
oncethatanswerhasbeenestablished,thenwework
exclusivelywithintheconfinesofthatanswer.Thatiswhy
oneoftheprinciplesofhistoricalinvestigationisthata
historicalexplanationmustbeinaccordancewithaccepted
beliefs.IfIhypothesizethatdinosaurscausedthefallof
Rome,thishypothesiswouldbequicklydismissed,as
establishedtruthremindsusthatdinosaurswereextinctlong
beforethefallofRome.Weworkwithintheconfinesof
establishedtruthinmattersofhistory,aswellasinmattersof
theology.
AsChristians,wehavebeenbornagain,weknowthepower
ofGodandtheloveofGodinChrist.Weseehisregenerating
workinourheartsandinourlives.Thatexperientialdata
servestoestablishthefaith.(However,externalevidencehas
oftenledpeopletoaccepttheChristianfaith.Buttoanswer
thatquestionisbeyondourtask.Iwouldjustreferenceyouto
IDon’tHaveEnoughFaithToBeAnAtheistbyDr.Norm
GeislerandDrFrankTurek.)
SincethecoreofChristianityisbeyondcompromise,
traditionscanbehelpful.Traditionsandcreedscankeepus
withintheboundariesoforthodoxy.Theycanassistour
exegesissothatitbothhonorsGodandisintellectually
satisfying.Ifatheologiangoesrogue,andbreaksthe
boundaries,Iamconfidentthatanhonestandrigorous
examinationofthebiblicaldatawilldrawhimback.Tradition,
then,canbeavirtuewhenwearetalkingaboutcardinal
doctrines.
TraditionthatnullifiesthewordofGod.
WhileJesuswasamanoftraditionalvalues,healsospent
hisministrycombatingthefalsetradition,whichhadcrept
intoJudaism.WhentheSadducees,whomaintainedthat
thereisnoresurrectionfromthedead,challengedhimby
pointingoutsomeinconsistenciesthattheyperceivedinhis
theology,Jesusansweredtheirobjection,andaccusedthem,
“Youaremistaken,notunderstandingtheScripture,northe
powerofGod.”(Matthew22:29).Likewise,whenthe
PhariseesnoticedthatJesusdidnotkeepalloftheir
observances,hetoldthemthattheynullifythewordofGod
bythetraditionsthattheyhanddown(Mark7:13).
Thedevelopmentoftheseextra-biblicalprinciplesseemsto
havearisenoutofmisguidedpiety.FortheJewswantedto
knowhowitisthattheTorahcouldbeapplicabletothemand
howtheycouldlivetheTorahoutintheirdailylives.So,the
religiousscholarswouldinterpretitforthemandexplainhow
theycanliveoutthepreceptsoftheTorahinapragmatic
way.
Now,theinterpretationofscholarsisquitevaluable.But
whenthatinterpretationiselevatedsohighlysothatit
cannotbequestioned,thenyouhavedevelopedatradition
thatnullifiesthewordofGod.Thewordofthescholar
becomesthewordofGod.Thepeopleonlyhearthe
interpretationofthescholarratherthanthewordofGod.So,
itisimpossibleforthemtoknowwhatGodissayingwithoutit
beingcloudedbythevoicesofthescholars.
ThatistheindictmentthatJesushadagainstthescholarsof
thatday,andthatispreciselytheindictmentthatcanbe
chargedagainstmanyChristiandenominationstoday.For
whenyoureadaparticularversewithstrongdoctrinal
implications,thescholarsofyourdenomination,
unbeknownsttoyou,arewhisperinginyourear.Amemberof
theChurchofChristwillreadJohn3:5,whichreferstothe
necessityofbeingbornof“water,”andassumethatitis
referringtowaterbaptism.Theywillreadthisbetweenthe
linesdespitethatthetextdoesnotsayit.
AmemberofaOnenessPentecostalchurchwillreadActs
2:38andbeinformedthatthismeansthatonemustrecite
theword“Jesus”asoneisbeingbaptized.These
interpretationsarewhisperedintotheirears,written
betweenthelines.Whiletheyaremerelyinterpretations,
theyareregardedasthetextitself.
Thinkofthetextasanobject,andtheinterpretationsasthe
shadowsthattheobjectcasts.IfIlookattheshadow,Imay
haveageneralideaofwhattheobjectis,butonlywhenIgo
totheobjectwillIunderstandthetruth.Thus,whenthese
variousdenominationsreadtheirinterpretationbetweenthe
linesofacertaintext,makingtheirinterpretationthe
authoritybywhichtruthismeasured,theyareactuallylike
thepersonwhoislookingatashadowratherthantheobject.
Ofcourse,itcannotbedeniedthateverybodyhasan
interpretation.Weinterpreteverythingthatweperceive.This
becomesaproblemwhenwedonotrealizethatweare
actuallyinterpreting.Ifwedonotrealizethatweare
interpreting,thenwearesayingthattheshadowistheobject
itself.Butwhenwerealizethatweareinterpreting,thenwe
canbegintoidentifywhereourreadingofthetextbeginsto
breakdown,andwherewehavemadeunwarranted
assumptions.Thenwewilldevelopadeeperandricher
understandingoftheobjectitselfratherthanjusttheshadow
oftheobject.Similarly,whenweunderstandtheshadowthat
otherpeoplesee,wecangraspafullerunderstandingofthe
objectitself.Understandingalternativeinterpretationscan
helpustograspthetext.Butwhenwegotothetextwiththe
knowledgethatwehavemadeaninterpretation,thenwewill
begintounderstandtheBibleonits’ownterms.
Areyouconfidentinyourtradition?
ConsiderthebehaviorofGod’schosenpeoplethroughout
thegenerations.ReadtheLawandtheProphetsandseehow
theybehaved.Seehowtheybuiltanidolandworshippedit
justasMosesturnedhisback(Exodus32:1).Weseeinthe
prophetsthatIsraelwasalwaysfallingintoidolatry,
worshippingvileimages.Whentheyfinallyestablishedafirm
foundationofstrictmonotheism,theybecameobsessedwith
ritualism.
RitualismiswhenonemakestheritualsthatGodsetsin
placeastheends,ratherthanthemeanstoanend.The
sacrificeatthealtar,theprayers,circumcision,wereallmeant
todrawpeopletoGod.Itissortoflikethepersonwhogets
marriedjustsothattheymaybegivenabeautifulwedding
ring.Theringsymbolizesthemarriage.Butifonegetsmarried
justforthesakeofthering,thentheyclearlyhaveadepraved
viewofmarriage.Likewise,whenGod’speoplebound
themselvesinacovenantwithhimjustforthesakeofthe
rituals,theyhaveadepravedviewofreligion.Thatiswhatwe
seeinMalachiandwhatJesusencounteredwhenhecameon
thescene.
Yetwhenthesepeopleindulgedinidolatryandreligious
ritualism,theythoughtthattheyweredoingtherightthing.
Theywerejustasconfidentintheirdoctrinalstancesand
religiousactivitiesasmanyofusare.Theythoughtthatthey
wererightandotherswerewrong.Thismeansthateven
thosewithwhomwedisagreeareassuredoftheirstancesby
theverysamemeansthatweareassured.Theytake
confidenceinthetraditionsandintheScripture.IntheNew
Testament,thePhariseeswouldsaythingslike,“youwere
bornentirelyinsins,andwouldyouteachus?”(John9:34).
Thesescholarsweresocertainthattheywererightthatthey
werenotwillingtohearanybodymakingaclaimthatstoodin
disharmonywiththeirown.Likewise,inLuke18:11,a
Phariseeprays,“God,IthankyouthatIamnotlikeother
people.”Thesemenhadconfidenceinwhotheywereand
whatstandingbeforeGodwas.
YetthefingerofGodpointedatthesemenanddirectly
accusedthem.Despitetheirconfidence,Jesuswouldsay,
“Woetoyou,scribesandPharisees,hypocrites!”(Matthew
23:23).Iftheyhaveasmuchconfidence,ifnotmore,thanwe
dothatourstancesarecorrect,thatshouldraiseafew
questionsinus.Itshouldcertainlyreduceustohumility.Itis
possibletobeasconfidentasweareinourdoctrinalnuances,
andstillbewrong.Itispossibletoreadthewordsthatour
denominationhaswrittenbetweenthelinessocloselythat
wecannotdiscernwherethelineisandwherethewords
betweenthelinesare.
Iamafraidthatthischaracterizationisnotfarfromthe
truth.Youmaybeparticularlyguiltyofthis.Youmayhave
suchdeepconfidenceindoctrinalnuancesthatareflatly
wrong,yetyoucannotseeit.Itisimportanttoemphasizethat
othertraditionshavethisconfidenceaswell.Everybody
thinksthattheyareright.Thisispervasiveamonghumanity.
Evenrelativists,whoclaimthatthereisnotruth,thinkthat
theyarerightaboutrelativismandtherestofuswhothink
thattruthisobjectiveareshallow-minded.
Whenwelooktoothertraditions,assumingthattheyare
doctrinallydeficient,wetherebyputourproverbialhandover
theirmouths.Wehavesuchgreatconfidenceinourown
tradition,assumptions,andinterpretationsthatwecannot
seepastit.Well,perhapsthegreatconfidencethatwe
maintainisbasednotinScripture,butinourinterpretation.
Perhapsourstrongopinionsarebasednotsomuchonthe
objectbutontheshadowthatitcasts.Ifwetrulywantto
cometoadeeperknowledgeofthetruth,weneedtohave
confidencethatisbasednotonourtraditionandwords
writtenbetweenthelines,butontheobjectitself.Christians
needtobefreethinkers.Theyneedtobepreparedtoventure
intouncharteredterritory,tovoyageintodoctrinal
discernmentthatourparentsnevergrasped.
Itisnotsomuchamatterofconfidence.Confidencein
realityisagoodthing.Weshouldallbeconfidentin
mathematicaloraxiomatictruths.Weshouldbeconfidentin
therisenLord.Weshouldhaveconfidence.Butthereisafine
linebetweenconfidenceandpride,andthatlineisoften
blurred.ThatisthebehaviorthatthePhariseesindulgeinand
thatisthebehaviorofmanycontemporaryChristians.Their
prideisdisguisedasconfidence,andthispridepreventsthem
fromreallycomingtoknowtruth.
Howshouldweviewotherdenominations?
ChurchhistoryexposesthepoorbehaviorofChristians
throughoutthegenerations.Weseetheschismsthatarose
overdoctrinalmatters,which,today,wouldmerelyseparate
onedenominationfromanother.Peoplehavealwayshada
lotoftroubleassociatingwiththosewithwhomtheydisagree
andhearinganotheropinionexpressed.Whiletheologiansof
oldwouldburnmenatthestake,acertainelementofthis
behaviorcarriesoverintocontemporarychurchlife.Forvery
often,Christiansviewotherdenominationsinavery
unfavorablelight.
Perhapsoneofthemoreobviousexamplesofthiswouldbe
theChurchofChrist.StandardChurchofChristapologetic
proposesthatthechurchesthroughoutthegenerationshave
slowlydriftedawayfromtheirapostolicroot.Thetruechurch
isnotpresentinanyofthesedenominations.Thetruechurch
waslostsomewherealongtheway,andneededtobe
restored.Therootsofthismovementarethereforecoined
theRestorationMovement.TheChurchofChristmentalityis
thatanydenominationisnotatrueChristiandenomination.
Theydonotalignthemselveswiththeapostolicsuccession.
Therefore,therewillbeendeavors,suchasplanting
ChurchesofChristinareaspopulatedwithchurchesofother
denominations,preciselybecausethesedenominationsare
nottrueChristiandenominations.Theywillbeevangelistic
towardotherChristiandenominations,astheyviewthevery
conceptofdevelopingadenominationasheretical.(Itshould
benotedthatwhilemanyindividualChurchesofChristdonot
maintainthisbehavior,itisarationalexpectationtoholdasa
generalprinciplewhenapproachingtheChurchofChrist.)This
behaviorwouldservetocondemnallChristiandenominations
asidefromthemselves.Thatbehavioristheantithesisofwhat
itmeanstobeanopen-mindedorafreethinkingChristian.
Whilethismayseemlikearadicalexampleofwhatappears
tobeafringegroup,thatsortoftraditionalthinkingembodies
manyofthedenominationsthatexisttoday.Itisquiteeasy
forachurchthatassociatesthemselveswiththeReformed
movement(asanexample)toencasethemselvesina
Reformedbubble.Everyonethattheyknowandencounteris
Reformedandthinksexactlyastheydo.Whenthey
encountersomebodywhoholdsarivalingview,theyarelikely
tothinkthatthisindividualisjuststiff-necked,hard-hearted
andnotopentothetruth.Theywillapplythesamecategories
tootherpeoplethatshouldbeappliedtothem.
Whenwebegintosurroundourselveswithonlythosewith
whomweagree,itbecomeseasierforustoaffirmthatweare
rightandtheyarewrong.Forwhenagroupofpeopleagree
abouteverything,therebeginstodeveloptheobviousand
foulstenchofarroganceandpride.ThepositionthatIam
advocatingisoneofhumility.Christiansneedtolearnto
engagewithotherpeople,engagewithothertraditionsand
learnwhattheyhavetosay.Wecannotjustmake
assumptionsaboutpeople.Whenwesurroundourselveswith
onlythosewithwhomweagree,wewilldetainourcapacity
foreducation.Oureducationwillcomesolelywithinthe
confinesofourparticulardenomination.Butwewillnever
learnalternativeviewpointsandwewillshutdown
communicationwithothersbydevelopingarrogant
presuppositionsaboutwhotheyareandwhattheybelieve.
Allowotherstospeakforthemselves.
Christiansroutinelypresenttheviewsofother
denominationsinamannerthatisveryunsympathetic.The
ChurchofChrist,whobelievesthatwaterbaptismwashes
awaysins,willrepresentotherdenominationsasthoughthey
didnotcareaboutbaptismorthoughtthatitwasafolly,an
oldpracticethatwenolongerneed.Arminianswillrepresent
CalvinismasthoughitwereapictureofGoddraggingpeople
intoHeavenagainsttheirwill,andcondemningpeopletoHell
despitetheirdesperatepleasforrepentanceandfaith.There
arejusttoomanycaricatures.
Weoftenholdcategoricalassumptionsaboutourbrethren.
Ifsomebodyweretotellyou,forinstance,thattheywere
RomanCatholic,thiswouldissueanumberofcategoriesthat
youimposeuponthatindividual.Recalltheprinciplesinthe
lastchapter.Awordisworthathousandwords.Justby
invokingthetermRomanCatholic,youhavealreadymadea
numberofpresuppositionsandassumptionsaboutwhatthe
individualbelieves.
WhensomebodytellsyouthattheyareRomanCatholic,
youinstantlymakeanumberofassumptionsabouttheircore
doctrineandtheconflictthatexistswithclassical
Protestantism.Youprobablythinkthattheypromotethe
hereticalsystemoffaithandworksentailingjustification.But
inSt.Joseph’sNewAmericanBible,whichis“Fromthe
Vatican,”thecommentaryisquitetelling.Theywriteof
Romans4:5,“PaulisabletoarguethatAbraham’sfaith
involvedreceiptoftheforgivenessofsinsandthatall
believersbenefitashedidthroughfaith.…James2:24
appearstoconflictwithPaul’sstatement.However,James
combatstheerrorofextremistswhousedthedoctrineof
justificationthroughfaithasascreenformoralselfdetermination.”ItseemsthattheseRomanCatholic
theologiansmaintainasoteriologyinconsistentwithwhatwe
wouldassumegivenonlytheirRomanCatholicism.
Itisvitalthatweallowpeopletodefinetheirownterms.
Eveniftheyassociatewithatraditionthathasdefined
differentterms,peoplecanbeunique.Ifsomebodyassociates
withRomanCatholicism,theycouldhavefamilialreasonsfor
thisevenwhilethatholdtobeliefsthataredivergentfrom
theRomanCatholictradition.Ifwewanttounderstandwhat
apersonbelieves,weneedtotakeastanceofhumility.We
needtoacknowledgethatwedonotnecessarilyknow
everythingaboutthisindividual.Weneedtodropour
assumptionsandjustbewillingtoaskthemwhatthey
believe.Whenweallowthemtodefinetheirownterms,then
wecantranscendourowntraditionalunderstandingofwhat
theybelieve.
Forourtraditionofteninformsusofwhatotherpeople
believe,doesitnot?Christiansaretoldbytheirleadersabout
whatotherdenominationsholdtobetrue,andtheseare
oftenstaggeringmisrepresentations.Peoplewillrender
critiquesofthatwhichtheydonotunderstand,andtheir
audiencethinksthatthisisanaccuratecritique.Ithinkthis
canbeattributedtotheunwillingnesstodialogue.Manyare
justunwillingtolearnaboutthebeliefsofotherreligious
people.ThisimpliesthatwhenaMuslimsrepresents
Christianity,orevenwhenaChristianrepresentsIslam,they
areoftenrepresentingadistortedviewofthesereligious
perspectives.Theyarenotbeingfairtothesebeliefsystems.
Inthisway,thetraditionalcritiquesthatyourparticular
denominationhassubmittedtoyoumaynotbeentirely
accurate.Ipraythatbynow,youarebeginningtounderstand
thevalueinseeingthegraspthattraditionhasonour
thinking.
Chapter3–OnMisrepresentations
ItisthedutyoftheChristiantopreachthegospeltothe
poorandtoeventhevilestofsinners.Thatiswhytheearly
churchoftenwasnotrespectedbytheRomanEmpire.The
parishionerswereofsuchlowreputethatitwasassumedthat
Christianitymustbequiteavilereligion.Christianswere
accusedofcannibalismastheyparticipatedinordinances
suchascommunion.Theywereaccusedofcondoningsinful
practices,fortheyallowedsinnersintheirmidst.Jesus
enduredthesameaccusationsaswell.Hewasaccusedof
indulginginsinaswellbecauseofhisfriendshipwiththe
sinnersaroundhim(Matthew11:19).
Thissortofmisrepresentationhasbeenprevalent
throughoutthegenerations.Thepracticeoffriendshipwith
sinnerschauffeurswithittheaccusationofsin.Justsuppose
foramomentthatyoubefriendedoneofyourneighborswho
wasknowntostrugglewithdrugsandalcoholism.Withpure
intentions,youwantedtofreeyournewfriendfromthebond
oftheseaddictionsandshowthemtheloveofGodinChrist.
So,youareseenspendingalotoftimewiththisindividual,
talkingwiththemaboutrecovery,counselingthemthrough
theirtemptationsandtheirregressions,buyingfoodforthem,
andsharingthegospel.Butasyouarespendingtimewiththis
individualbehindcloseddoors,rumorsbegintospread
amongstyourneighborsaboutyourbehavior.Someone
raisedthequestionofwhetheryouhavelikewisefalleninto
drugaddiction.Thatmerequestionrapidlyevolvesintoan
activerumorthatyouare,infact,takingillicitdrugs.People
begintomisrepresentyourmotives,justastheydidwith
JesusandjustastheydidwiththeearlyChristiansunderthe
RomansEmpire.
Peopleoftenenjoyspreadinggossipaboutothers.Itisa
delight.Similarly,manyfolkshavegossipedaboutthe
evangelicalphilosopher,Dr.WilliamLaneCraig.Reformed
Christianshavefoundoccasiontoaccusehimofanold
Christologicalheresy,andtheymanagetodothiswithout
readinghiswork.So,theywilldoafewmomentsofresearch
onthisChristologicalheresy,findtheflawsinit,aninstantly
attributetheseflawstoDr.Craig,notknowingthathealso
affirmsinhispublishedworkthatthesearedetrimentalflaws
tothatparticularview.Butnonetheless,thewhispersabout
hisChristologicalviewssustainevenwithoutanyinvestigation
intotheprimarysources.Inthisway,whenDoctorCraig’s
Christologicalstanceisattacked,theyareattackingaversion
ofitthathedoesnothold.Theyaremisrepresentinghimjust
forthesakeofdevelopinganargumentthatiseasierto
refute,ormorepatentlyheretical.
Unfortunately,thismodelofmisrepresentationisnot
containedwithinasmall,unseendenomination.Itis
pervasive.Peopleeverywherehavenoideawhattheir
intellectualopponentsbelieve.Butthatdoesnotstopthem
frompresentinganovervieworanoutlineoftheirbeliefs.
PerhapsIcanposethequestionthisway.Ifyouwereto
encountersomebodyofadifferentreligiousaffiliation,and
askedhimorhertocharacterizeexactlywhatwaswrongwith
Christianity,doyouthinkthattheywouldrepresent
Christianityproperly?Orwouldtheyrepresentacartoon
versionofChristianitythatwasmucheasiertocriticize?Iam
afraidthatpeopleofallreligions,includingChristians,donot
labortorepresentopposingviewsinafairorhonestlight.The
questionthatIwouldliketoexpounduponiswhythatis.
Whyisitthatpeoplemisrepresenteachother?
Simple,honestignorance.
Idonotknowthatignorancewouldbeconsideredavery
seriousindictment.Thereareseveralthingsofwhichweare
allignorant.Manypeoplehaveareasofspecializationof
whichtheyhaveafactortwomemorized,butinotherareas,
theyjustdonotreallyknowanything.Apersonwhoisan
expertinfilmprobablydoesnotknowanytheology,andthe
theologiandoesnotknowanythingaboutfilm.Bothwould
thinkthattheotherfieldisuselessandawasteoftime.
Similarly,ascientistmayhaveanexpertiseinhisspecialfield
ofscience,butheisnotanauthorityinmattersofphilosophy
orintheexistenceofGod.Butthatisnotacrime.Thereis
nothingwrongwithbeingignorantofaparticularfieldornor
understandingphilosophyofreligion.
However,scientistsoftenusetheircredentialsasscientists
tosmuggleinteachingsonphilosophy.Theywillusetheir
cloutthattheyhave,whichcomessolelyinresponsetotheir
brillianceintheirparticularbranchofscience,andmake
peoplethinkthattheyarestillspeakingintheirareaof
expertise.Oneofthemostobviousexamplesofthisis
ProfessorRichardDawkins.
InhisbookTheGodDelusion,ProfessorDawkinssubmits
argumentsthatphilosophersfindappalling.Astheeminent
AmericanphilosopherDr.AlvinPlantingaputit,“Iwouldsay
thatDawkins’foraysintophilosophyareatbestsophomoric.
Butthatwouldbeunfairtosophomores.”
ProfessorDawkins’mistakeisnotnecessarilyhisignorance
ofphilosophyandoftheology.Mostpeopleprobablyare
ignorantofphilosophyandtheology,andtheyarenot
chargedwithanysortofirresponsiblebehavior.Butignorance
becomesirresponsiblewhenitisnotacknowledgedandthe
individualspeaksauthoritativelyaboutatopicthattheydo
notknowanythingabout.
ItshouldbenotedthatProfessorDawkinshasalotof
company.Famousatheisticscientistsroutinelyspeakin
ignoranceofphilosophyofreligion,yetbecauseoftheir
eminenceasscientists,themassesthinkthattheyhavea
worthyopiniontooffer,when,infact,theyaremerely
speakingaslaymen.Ofcourse,ascientistmaybroachother
fields.Anindividualcanspeakaboutanythingthattheywould
like.But,ifyouwanttoresponsiblyrepresentapositionin
frontofanaudience,youneedtobetentativeandrelaythat
youarenotanexpertaboutthetopicofwhichyouare
speaking.Justasitwouldbeirresponsibleforachemistto
speakauthoritativelyaboutcosmology,soalsoitis
irresponsibleforascientisttospeakauthoritativelyabout
philosophyorabouttheology.
IdonotwishtopaintthisasachargethatIholdexclusively
againstatheisticscientists.Ionceheardaman,whose
expertisewasintheology,informhisaudiencethattherewas
noadequatemechanismfortherangeofadaptation
proposedinTheoryofEvolution.Whetherthistheologianwas
correctinhisassessmentisirrelevant.Itisirresponsibletouse
yourcloutasinonefieldandspeakauthoritativelyabout
another.
Thisisalltosaythatsimpleignoranceisfine.Butwhenone
ignoresthatignoranceandspeaksauthoritativelyanyway,
thatisnotfine.
IntentionalStrawman
Oftenwhenrepresentingwhatopponentsbelievetoan
audience,oreveninadebatesetting,peoplewillbeginto
constructillegitimateversionsofwhattheiropponent
believes,andthencriticizingthatillegitimateversion.Thisis
referredtoonapopularlevelasastrawman.Ifyouare
settingupastrawman,thenyouaremisrepresentingyour
opponentjusttocircumventthemorechallengingandrobust
versionoftheirproposition.Thissortofthingemerges
regularlyindialogue.IfIpresentaparticularviewwithwhich
apersondisagrees,theymightbekeentosummarizeitina
waythatismorevulnerabletologicalcriticismandisclearly
guiltyofsomesortoferror.Thestrawmanisactuallyquitea
powerfulrhetoricalresourcethatmanydebatersorreligious
apologistshaveemployed.
Ifabrilliantscientistpresentsathorough,detailedand
defensibleinterpretationofthedataofscience,askilled
rhetoricianmaypullafewsentencesoutoftheirpresentation
andre-presenttheirinterpretationinawaythatisvery
unsympathetic.Anyviewthatiscomplicatedhasthecapacity
tobeoversimplifiedbyanti-scientificrhetoricians.Ofcourse,
inthiscase,whatIamthinkingofistheconflictbetweenthe
TheoryofEvolutionandcertaincreationscienceministries.
SincetheChristianaudienceishopingtofindsomething
wrongwiththepresentationoftheevolutionarybiologist,
theywillbequicklytakeninbytheoversimplificationoftheir
presentation.
Itshouldalsobenotedthateverystancethatisinthe
publicarenahasbeenmischaracterizedandmisunderstood
bypeoplewhowantaneasywaytorefuteit.The
contemporarywesternsocietyisobsessedwith
oversimplifyingsoundbites,one-linersandmemes,whichare
oftenmeanttoalleviatethedesireforcriticalexamination.
Theproblemisthatthereismorelatitudetoasocialissue,a
philosophicalquagmireoratheologicaldoctrinethanour
favoriteone-liner.Ourfavoriteone-linermaymakeuslaugh,
butwecannotthinkthatbecausewehavethissoundbite
memorized,thatweunderstandtheissue.Thereisdepthto
theseissues.
Wecanuseaone-lineras,perhaps,anintroductiontoa
particularissue.Butitshouldbetentativeandopento
correction.Thediscoveryofaone-linerthatseemstoexpose
acertainpropositionshouldnotinclineustothinkthatwe
nowunderstandtheissue.Itshouldigniteinusadesirefor
understanding.Doesthisparticularlineaccuratelyrepresent
whatourintellectualopponentsreallybelieve?Isitan
accuratesummationoftheirbeliefs,orisitastrawman?
Asageneralprinciple,Itendtothinkthatitisbettertoonly
representaparticularbeliefinthewaythattheadherentsto
thebeliefwouldrepresentit.However,theremaybe
exceptionstothisrule.IfIfollowapropositiontoits’logical
conclusion,andtheadherentfindtheconclusionunsavory,
thenobviouslyIwouldrepresentitinawaythatdiffersfrom
theirtreatmentoftheissue.Thatisnotastrawman,somuch
asitishonestresearchandlogicalthought.Ontheother
hand,ifItakethatpropositionanddistortitsothatitno
longerreflectswhattheadherenttothepropositionsays,
thenIamconstructingastrawman.
Thusthereisvalueincriticalresearchandscrutiny.They
helpustoavoidmisrepresentationsofopposingpositions.
Untilthispoint,IamafraidthatIhavespokenprimarilyof
propositionallogicratherthanapplyingexamplesofthese
misrepresentations.Weseethesemisrepresentationsin
otherreligions,inChristendom,andevenwithinthebodyof
Christ.
HowdoMuslimsrepresentChristianity?
IfyouweretoencounteraMuslimwholivedinanIslamic
countryorevenanIslamiccommunityhereintheUnited
States,youwouldprobablybecorrectinthinkingthathehas
neverencounteredaneducatedChristianwhocouldproperly
summarizeChristiantheologyforhim.Thatisnottosaythat
thisisademeritexclusivetoIslam.Christians,too,oftenfind
themselvesinChristianbubblesanddonothaveanaccurate
representationofIslamictheology.Soifyouwereto
encountersuchaman,hewouldprobablyposequestionsto
youthatpresupposedfundamentalmisunderstandingsabout
whatwebelieveconcerningthedeityofChristandthetrinity.
ForMuslimsbelievethatJesuswasnotGod.Theyreverehim
asaprophetandamessengerofGodwhowascalledto
restoretheJewstoproperworship.Justasthedutyofany
prophetistorestorethepeopletowhomtheyarepreaching
toproperworship,soalsoJesuswastryingtorestoretheJews
toproperworship.But,hewasjustaman.Hewasnotdivine.
HewasnotGod.
Infact,theIslamicconceptionofthedeityofChristwould
beakintoPagandeities.AsChristians,weareworshipping
somethingthatishereonearth,turningourattentionaway
fromGod,andtothatwhichisoftheearth.Weare
worshippingthecreatureratherthantheCreator,inIslamic
thought.Afterall,Jesusclaimedandrepresentedthefullness
ofahumanbeing.ThisiswhereIslamandChristianitymeet.
TheyconvergeatthehumanityofJesus,andIslamposes
thesequestionstoChristians.Theyposethesechallenges,
which,inIslamicthought,uprootChristiantheology.
Thelineofreasoningwillusuallylooksomethinglikethis.If
JesuswasGod,howisitthathecouldgethungry?Godcould
notbecomehungry.Godhasnoneedofanything.HeisGod.
Further,ifJesusisGod,howisitthathecouldbelackingin
knowledge?Hedidnot,afterall,knowthedayofhissecond
coming(Mark13:32).Hecouldnotperformanymiraclesin
hishometown(Mark6:5).Further,andthisisprobablythe
mostcriticalpoint:Jesusdied.HowcouldGoddie?Essential
attributesofGodarethatheisbothomniscient(heknows
everything)andomnipotent(hecandoanything),meaning
thatonecouldnotkillGodorpreventhimfromperforming
miracles.SohowcouldJesusnotknoweverything?Howcan
henotperformmiracles?Howcouldhebecomehungry?
Theerrorinthissortofthinkingisthatitdoesnotdefine
thedeityofChristinChristianterms.ItdefinesthemIslamic
terms.ItassumesthatifJesusisGod,thenDocetismistrue.
DocetismisanancientChristologicalheresy,whichasserts
thatJesuswasfullyGod,butdidnothaveanyhuman
attributes.Thus,hedidnotgethungry.Hewasnever
tempted.Heneverdied.ButthatisnottheclassicalChristian
beliefaboutJesus.Rather,whenwecharacterizeJesus,we
maintainthathewasbothfullymanandfullyGod.Thus,he
becamehungryandhewassusceptibletodeathbecausehe
wasentirelyaman.Hehadafullhumannature.Thatis
orthodoxandtraditionalChristianbelief.
Whilehewasonearth,itwasoftenthecasethatmuchof
hispersonwassubliminal,underlyinghisconsciouslife.The
majorityofhumanknowledgeandmemoryissubliminaland
notpresentintheconsciouslife.Ifitwerenotsubliminal,we
wouldprobablybeoverwhelmedwithknowledgeandlose
oursanity.So,thedivineaspectsofJesus,whilehestill
possessedthem,weresubliminal.
Iamafraidthatthismisrepresentation,whilenot
intentional,stiflescommunicationbetweenChristiansand
Muslims.ChristiansandMuslimsareforcedtotalkpasteach
otherbecausetheydonotunderstandwhattheotherperson
issaying.WhentheChristiansaysthatJesusisGod,the
MuslimthinksthatheisassertingsomeformofDocetism.
TheOnenessPentecostalunderstandingofthetrinity.
Youmayhaveneverevenencounteredthisgrouporknow
whotheyare.IamnotwritingnowaboutPentecostalism,
thatis,thebroadgroupwithinthebodyofChristof
charismaticbelievers.Rather,IamwritingaboutOneness
Pentecostalism.OnenessPentecostalismisveryuniquein
theirdenialofthetrinity,fortheyaffirmthedeityofChrist.
Theydothisbyemployingwhatisknownasmodalism.
ModalismisanotherancientChristologicalheresy,which
statesthatGodisnotthreepersons,butratherisoneperson.
TheFather,theSon,andtheHolySpiritarejust
manifestationsormodesthatGodtakes,andtheyareall
namedJesus.Justasamancanbeafather,ason,andan
employee,soalsoJesusistheFather,theSon,andtheHoly
Spirit.Thereisastrongemphasisonunitarianisminthese
congregations.
Infact,ifonehasbeenbaptizedintheTrinitarianformula,
“inthenameoftheFather,theSon,andtheHolySpirit,”
(Matthew28:19),theyinsistthatonemustbere-baptizedto
excludethetrinity,byrecitingthewords,“inthenameof
Jesus,”(Acts2:38).Inthisway,thealignmentofthebeliever
withthebodyofChristcomeswiththeembraceofmodalism,
andthedenialofthetrinity.Further,ifoneisnotbaptized
intomodalism,thenoneisnotreallysaved.Ifwhenyouare
baptized,thewords“inthenameofJesus,”werenotrecited
overthebaptismaltank,youarestillinyoursins.
Thereasonforthisemphasisupondenyingthetrinityis
rootedinafundamentalmisunderstandingofwhatthetrinity
is.TheOnenessPentecostalchurchregardsthetrinityasakin
toPaganidolatry.SowhenIsaiahcalledapostateIsraelinto
submissiontoGodandtoleavetheiridolsbehind,hewas
indictingIsraelwithacrimethatissimilartowhatTrinitarians
areguiltyof.Thatistosaythatthetrinityisseenasaformof
idolatry.Itisseenasakintotheworshipofmultiplegods.
Indeed,inOnenessPentecostalthought,itistheworshipof
multiplegods.
IfyouweretoaskatypicalOnenessPentecostalhowthey
couldprovetheirpositionbiblically,theywouldappealtothe
shema,thethesisstatementonthepaperofJudaism.
Deuteronomy6:4,whichreads,“Hear,OIsrael!TheLORDis
ourGod,theLORDisone!”OrIsaiah43:10,whichreads,
“BeforeMetherewasnoGodformed,andtherewillbenone
afterMe.”
Onpage18ofTheOnenessofGodbyDr.DavidBernard,
thePresidentoftheUnitedPentecostalChurch,heargues
thatthesedeclarationsofmonotheismaredenialsofthe
trinity,andonpage16,drawsadistinctionbetween
monotheismandthetrinity.Withthismindsetattheheight
oftheOnenessPentecostalchurch,onecanseehowitseeps
downintothepresuppositionsoftheparishioners.Most
OnenessPentecostalsthatweencounterwillthinkthatthe
doctrineofthetrinityistheviewthattherearethreegods.
Thiswouldseemtoalsoshutdowndiscussion,forthereis
noTrinitarianwhobelievesthattherearethreegods.Dr.
BernardissimplynotallowingtheTrinitariantodefinetheir
terms.Heisconstructingastrawman.Hehasrendereda
cartoonversionofthedoctrinethatiseasiertorefutethan
thedoctrineofthetrinity.Unfortunately,thishascausedus
tohaveconversationwithourOnenessPentecostalfriends
whereinwearesimplytalkingpasteachother.Whentheysay
trinityandwesaytrinity,weareintendingtocommunicate
differentthings.Progressisnevermadebecausenobodyis
willingtolistentotheotherpersonorunderstandwhatour
intellectualopponentsmean.
TheArminianUnderstandingofCalvinism
Idonotwanttousetoomuchspacewritingaboutthese
verythoroughandnuancedtheologicalstances,soIwill
presentthemostconcisesummariesthatIcanwhilestill
respectfullyrepresentingbothposition.Atits’core,Calvinist
theologyteachesthatGodaloneisresponsibleforsalvation.
Godchooseswhowillbesavedanddrawshispeopletohim,
andeverybodywhohechooseswillcometohiminevitably.In
contrast,thecoreofArminiantheologyteachesthatGodis
activelytryingtosaveeverybody,butonlysomepeople
respondtohim.Salvation,then,istheresponsibilityofboth
God,whoinitiatessalvation,andman,whomustrespond.I
noteagainthattheseareverythoroughandnuancedviews
containingdeepexpositionsandIsimplydonothavethe
spacetodeeplyexpounduponthem.
Butthereareseveralmisguidedconceptionsofand
objectionstoCalvinisttheologythatArminiansmaintain,and
theyareoftensurfacelevelobjections.Theseobjectionsare
basedontheinitialmoralreflexthatpeoplewillhave.After
all,howisitthatGodcouldimpugnourfreedomofthewill
anddragusintoHeaven,kickingandscreaming?Howcould
heoverrideourfreewillinsuchaway?Commonwisdom
maintainsthatwecannothavelovewithoutfreedomofthe
will.SoifCalvinismdeniesfreedomofthewill,thenithasa
seriousproblem,becauseonecannotloveunlessitisfreely
chosen.
Consideringhownuancedandcarefulthesedoctrinesare
constructed,itisimportantthatwenotfindourselvesguilty
over-simplification,forthatwillbelikelytoshutdownthe
linesofcommunication.CalvinismdoesnotsuggestthatGod
dragspeopleintoHeaven,kickingandscreamingagainsttheir
will.ItalsodoesnotsuggestthatGoddeniespeoplefreedom
ofthewill.Rather,itsuggeststhatmankindistotally
depraved(Romans3:10),andwouldneverseekafterGod.
TheyhavefreedomofthewilltochooseGod.Theyhavethat
optionavailabletothem.Buttheyfinditrepugnant.Wewill
alwayschooseaplateofcookiesinsteadofaplateofliverand
onions.Liverandonionsarerepugnanttous.Sothesame,
thenaturalmanhatesthethingsofGod(1Corinthians2:14).
Calvinisttheologysuggeststhatthenaturalmanwouldnever
freelychooseGod.Whilehehasfreewill,heneverusesitfor
God’sglory,butforhisownlustfulpursuits.
ThismightseemtolendsupporttothememeofGod
draggingpeopleintoHeaven,kickingandscreaming,against
theirwill.Forhowcanslavesofsin(John8:34)becameslaves
ofrighteousness?IfmanwillneverfreelychooseGod,how
doesGodbringthemintohispresence?Well,Calvinist
theologycertaindoesnotsuggestthatGoddoesitagainst
theirwill.Rather,Godchangestheirwill.Hechangesthem.
Hegivesthemanewheart.Thisnewheartisinclinedtolove
him.
IftheArminianandtheCalvinistaregoingtodialogue,they
needtounderstandthenuancesoftheirrespectiveviews.
Theyneedtolistentoeachother.Calvinismdoesnotdeny
freedomofthewill.ItdoesnotsuggestthatGoddragspeople
intoHeaven,kickingandscreaming,againsttheirwill.These
arecaricatures.Theyarethecartoonversionofreality.They
areunhelpful,andwetrulyneedtoavoidthatsortof
characterizationandallowourintellectualopponentsto
definetheirownterms.
Christianstendtomisrepresentevolution.
Scientistshaveaproclivitytowardwieldingtheirexpertise
toshowthattheChristianfaithhasbeenmistaken.The
secularworldwillrigthismatch,posturingitasfaithversus
reasonorChristianityversusscience.Itturnsoutthatthishas
proventobeastrokeofgeniusiftheiraimwastodiscredit
theChristianfaith,forChristianstendstofallrightinlinewith
thismodel.Whenthesecularscientistsays,“itisfaithversus
science,andsciencewins,”theChristianjustacceptsthis
dichotomy.Theyaffirmthatitisfaithversusscience.Theyjust
saythatfaithwins.Well,Iamafraidthatthisisnottoo
helpful.
Whilethereareverysophisticatedtreatmentscriticizingthe
TheoryofEvolution,manyChristiansjustdonotknowhowto
dealwithit.Theywillclingontolittleone-linersthatthey
thinkarejustsodevastatingtothistheory.Theypointout
observationsthataresoobviousthatitisawonder,orevena
miracle,thatanyscientistcouldpossiblymissit.Asixteenyear-old,ponderingtheTheoryofEvolution,aloneinhis
bedroomcouldthinkofthisobjection,andyetthespecialists
inthisfieldhavemissedit.
YoumayalreadyknowwhatIamgoingtowrite.Butmany
ChristiansthinkthattheycanrefutetheTheoryofEvolution
simplybypointingtothemonkeysinthezoo.Ifweevolved
frommonkeys,thenwhyintheworlddomonkeysstillexist
today?Whyhavethemonkeysinthezoonotevolvedinto
humanbeingsyet?Dotheyawaittheirtransformation?Are
themonkeysinthezoogoingtoevolveintohumanbeingsat
somepointinthefuture?ManyChristiansthinkthatthisline
ofreasoningisdetrimentaltotheTheoryofEvolution.
Theanswerisquitesimple.Thereasonthattherearestill
monkeysinthezooisthattheTheoryofEvolutiondoesnot
proposethatweevolvedfrommonkeysinthezoo.Rather,it
proposesthatweevolvedmonkey-likecreatures,whichwere
similartoourmodernmonkeys.Ourmodernmonkeysjust
comefromadifferentstrain.Sotheexistenceof
contemporarymonkeysisquiteconsistentwiththeTheoryof
Evolution.
ThisisnotanendorsementoftheTheoryofEvolution.This
istopointoutthatChristiansaredoingthemselvesa
disservicebyplungingintoignoranceandclingingtotheir
favoriteone-liner.Theyaredoingadisservicetoanybodywho
hasascientificeducationandyetisconsideringtheChristian
faith.Christiansneedtodisassociatethemselveswith
ignorance.Christiansneedtorepudiateanti-intellectualism.
Theyneedtofleefromtherhetoricandvainbleatingofcritics
whodonotknowwhattheyaretalkingabout.Ifyouwantto
representascientifictheory,readabookaboutit.Seekto
understandit,andthenseektounderstandtheproblemswith
it.Donotjustassumethatyouknoweverythingbecauseyou
havememorizedaone-liner.
ChristopherHitchensmisrepresentsthemoralargument.
ThelateChristopherHitchenswouldregularlyengagewith
theistsofallstripesindebatesthroughoutthelatterportion
ofhiscareer.Hewouldsometimesemitdisdainforhis
intellectualopponent,andothertimes,hewouldseemto
emitcharityorevenaninklingofpraise.Oftenthroughoutthe
courseofthedebates,thetheistwouldpresentwhatis
knownasthemoralargumentfortheexistenceofGod.The
moralargument,ifImaybeasconciseaspossible,suggests
thatifGoddoesnotexist,thenobjectivemoralvaluesand
dutiesdonotexist.Ifatheismistrue,thenallmoralityisjust
basedonpersonalopinion.MensuchasProfessorRichard
Dawkinsandotherpopularlevelatheistsconcedethispoint.
Theyjustmaintainthatmoralityisanillusion.Itishelpful,but
notobjectiveordeeplymeaningful.
Hitchens,ontheotherhand,wasresoluteinhisdesperate
clingingtohismoralprecepts.Hewouldnotsurrenderthat
territorytohistheisticcounterpart.Butwhenhechallenged
thepremisethatifGoddoesnotexist,thenobjectivemoral
valuesanddutiesdonotexist,heseemedtomisrepresent
andmisunderstandtheargument.Hedidthisinseveralofhis
debates.Hesaidsomethingalongthelinesof,“Nameamoral
actionthatatheistcandothatanatheistcannotdo.”His
implicationwasthatatheistscanbegoodpeople,too,which
wouldseemtoshutdowntheargument.
Butthisisjusttomisunderstandtheargument.Forthe
argumentisnotsuggestingthatatheistscannotbegood
people.MostChristiansaffirmthatatheistscanbegood
people.Rather,itistosuggestthattheycannotjustifywhy
theyaregoodpeople.ForifthereisnoGod,thenthereisno
standardofmoralitythatisbeyondhumanity.Themeritof
thisargumentisirrelevant,forourpurposes.
Oursispurelyaconceptualquestion.Mr.Hitchens
propagatedaconfusedinterpretationofthatargument,and
thisissomethingthatisoftenrepresentedamongatheists.
Atheistsareverykeentorespondtothemoralargumentby
sayingthattheycanbegoodpeople.Inthisway,thetheist
andtheatheistarejusttalkingpasteachother.Theatheistis
notreallymakinganefforttounderstandtheviewthatis
presentedbeforethem.
Conclusion
Iofferthisoverviewofafewofthemisrepresentationsthat
occurwithintherealmofreligiousdialoguesothatyoumay
understandhowprevalentthisproblemis.Weneedtoensure
thatweunderstandwhatotherpeoplearesayingtous.Itis
notsufficientforustojustappealtoourfavoriteone-liner.If
wedothat,thennoprogressisbeingmadeandwearejust
talkingpasteachother.Secondly,weneedtoensurethatthe
otherpersonunderstandwhatwearesaying,forinthecase
oftheOnenessPentecostal,wewouldbeusingthesame
word,trinity,andconveyingdifferentmeaning.Itisimportant
forustoexamineourapproachindealingwithpeopleof
variousviews,lestwerepelthemfromtheChristianfaithin
ourignorance.
Chapter4–Shouldwebeoffendedbydisagreements?
Ifsomebodycameintoyourhomeandstartedlecturingyou
aboutallofthedemeritsofyourwifeandyourmarriage,how
wouldyoureact?Thisindividualinformsyouthatyourwifeis
unattractive,hasgainedweightthroughoutthelastfewyears
andthatyoumustcertainlybedisappointedintheperson
thatshehasdevelopedinto.Whenyoumarriedher,youdid
notexpectthatshewouldbecomethepersonthatshehas,so
thisindividualaccuses.
Asyousittherelisteningtohim,youarepatientlytaking
notesashebeginstotellyouabouthowinsufferableher
personalityis.Sheisquicktoangerandhaspoor
comprehension.Youlistenquietly,noddingallthewhile,not
necessarilyinaffirmationofthepropositionsthattheyare
submitting,buttoletthemknowthatyouarefollowingalong.
Thenthisindividualtellsyouthatyourwifeisaharlot.She
isradicallyunfaithfultoyouandeverythingthatshetellsyou
isalie.Shedoesnotevenhaveajob,assheclaims.Shejust
usesthatasacovertovisitherboyfriends,whogiveher
moneysothatshecanfoolyouintothinkingthatshehasa
job.Thenthispersonletsyouknowthatyouarenotthefirst
personhehasrelayedthisinformationto.Hehasletallof
yourfriendsknowaboutthesediscoveriesofhis.Wouldthe
discussionthatensueswiththatpersonbedevoidof
emotionalleanings?Wouldyouberational,calmand
collected?Wouldyounotbeoffended?
Ithinkthatmostpeoplewouldbeoffended,andthiswould
bejustified.Thisindividualislyingaboutsomebodywhoyou
careforandruiningherreputation.Theyhavesomesortof
personalproblemwithherandhavesetoutonasmear
campaign,laboringtodestroyherfriendships,herreputation,
andevenhermarriage.Ithinkthatanybodywouldinvariably
beoffendedevenifitwerenotaspouse.Evenifwereafriend
oraneighbor,itisjustoffensivematerial.
Supposewithmeforamomentthough,thatthisindividual
wasnottryingtosmearyourwife.Hewastellingyouthese
thingsoutofsincerity.Heactuallybelievedthattheywere
true,andhethoughtthathewashelpingyoubyexposingthis
problemsothatyoucandealwithit.Whilemanypeople
wouldstillemitthesameanger,itmightbethecasethata
calmerandmorereasonedapproachwouldbewarranted.If
thispersonisbeingsincere,thentheyarestillwrongand
behavingirresponsibly,andyouwouldstillbejustifiedin
takingoffense,butatthesametime,thatwouldwarrantabit
ofadifferentresponse.
Youmightbemoreinclinedtodiscusstheirreasoningwith
themandhelpthemtounderstandwhattheyhaveperceived
andwhytheyareincorrect.Youmightalsourgethemtobe
morecarefulintheirmusings,impulsesandespeciallytheir
gossip.Thispersonwascertainlyirresponsibleandimmoral,
butitwasnotassevereasthepersonwhowasmalevolently
smearingyourwife.However,inbothcases,youwerestill
offended.
Thismightbeapictureofthereligiousmindsetwhen
peoplebelievethatGodisunderattack.Ifanindividualwere
toassertthatJesusisnotreallyGod,orthathewasoutofhis
mind,orthathewasaliar,orasinner,theChristianwould
perceivethatasanaffrontuponthecharacterofGod.Thisis
offensivetotheChristianbecausecentraltotheChristian
faithistherelationshipthatwehavewithChrist.Christisthe
LordofGlory(1Corinthians2:8),hehasanamethatisabove
everyname,andtohim,everykneewillbowandtonguewill
confessthatheisLord(Philippians2:10-11).HeistheCreator
ofallthings(John1:3).HeisGodAlmighty.Atthesametime,
heisafriendofsinners(Matthew9:10-13)andhehascalled
us,asindividuals,intopersonalrelationshipwithhimself.For
thatreason,theChristianloveshim.TheChristianwantstodo
hiswill.
AstheWestminsterCatechismsays,“Thechiefendofman
istoglorifyGodandenjoyhimforever.”Oneofthecentral
tenetsofProtestanttheologyisSoliDeoGloria–GlorytoGod
alone.WewantChristtobeesteemedandlovedandrevered,
forthatiswhatheisworth.Sowhenpeoplesmearhim,this
strikestheChristianasdeeplyoffensive.Hence,wedevelop
righteousindignationwhenpeoplesmearChrist.Thatiswhy
manypeopleareoffendedaboutreligiousmatters.Itisan
affronttothecharacterofGod.
IsThisPersonTryingToOffendYou?
PeoplethroughouttheworldandevenwithinChristendom
havedivergentviewsaboutwhoGodis.Thesubjectof
theologyproper,thatis,studyingthenatureofGod,isquite
broadandthereareanumberofdifferentschoolsofthought.
ThereareevenmoreschoolsofthoughtconcerninghowGod
relatestotheworldandwhathehasdone.Itouchedupona
fewofthesedivergencesinthelastchapter.Somethinkthat
Godhasendowedmanwiththecapacitytoturntohimin
savingfaith,whileothersthinkthatmanistotallydepraved
andincapableofturningtoGod.Peoplehavedifferentviews
anddifferentinterpretationofthebiblicaldata.Also,insome
cases,peopledrawtheirviewsfromothersourcesthatthey
regardasauthoritative,anddisregardtheauthorityofthe
biblicaldata.Thiswouldclassifysomebodyasanadherentof
adifferentreligion(orattheveryleast,arenditionof
Christianitythatisfaroutsideofthemainstreamandisnot
worththename).
Thisisjusttosaythattherearepeoplewhohavedifferent
views,drawnfromarangeofdifferentsources.Weshould
expectthattherewouldbepeoplewhodisagreewithuseven
aboutcrucialandcentraltopicsthatareneartoourheart.We
needtoexpectthatpeoplewouldbecriticaloftheauthority
oftheBible.TheremayevenbeChristianswhothinkthatGod
isamoralmonsterintheBible.Weshouldexpectthatpeople
wouldchallengedoctrinesthatwehaveheldfirmly
throughoutthecourseofourlives,andhavebeentaught
sincechildhood.
Whatweneedtounderstand,though,isthatoftenthe
peoplewhopromotetheseviewsarenotactivelytryingto
offensive.Theyarenotthepersonwhoissmearingyourwife
outofmalevolence.Theyarethepersonwhoissmearingyour
wifeoutofignoranceandmisunderstanding.Theyarenot
tryingtobeoffensive.Attheveryleast,theydeserveacalm
andreasonedresponsetotheissues.Theydeservetobe
engagedwithonanintellectuallevel,andeventoallowtheir
voicetobeheard.
MostwesternChristiansaffirmthesocialpreceptsknown
asfreedomofspeechandfreedomofreligion.Theseentail
thattherewillexistpeoplewhowanttohavealternative
religiousexpressions.Thatisevenpresupposedinthe
preachingofthegospel.Wearecalledtopreachthegospelto
allnations(Matthew28:19).Thispresupposesthatwewill
encounterthosewithwhomwedisagree.Suchanindividualis
oftennottryingtobeoffensive.Theyarejustexpressingtheir
religionordenominationreflectiveofwhattheythinkis
correct.Inthisway,weneedtodemonstrateameasureof
toleranceandunderstanding.
Isthisrighteousindignationorpride?
Iappliedtheillustrationofthewifebeingcriticizedto
underlinethepointthatthereisanoccasionfortaking
offenseandforhavingrighteousindignation.Thereisreally
nothingwrongwiththatwhenitisinthecorrectcontext.
Jesushadrighteousindignationaswell.Thereis,however,a
firmbutoftenoverlookedlinebetweenrighteousindignation
andpride.Whenweareengaginginreligiousdiscourse,itis
oftenthecasethatweareoffendedthatsomebodywould
suggestthatwewerewrong,andtheyareright.
Ifsomebodyissuggestingthatwearewrong,andtheyare
right,thentheyareimpugningourknowledgeoftheBible.
Theyarecallingintoquestionthemanyyearsthatwehave
spentinthoroughstudyoftherelevantissues.Theyare
challengingtheteachersoftheScripturethatwehaveknown
foryears,andwhowetrustandhavecometolove.Thisisthe
waythatpeoplethinkaboutreligiousissues.Thisdiscourse
maynotbeattheforefrontoftheirminds,butdoctrinesare
oftenundergirdedbythisemotionalpride.
Forpeopletendtoidentifythemselveswiththeirparticular
nuancesoftheChristianfaith.Theyareadvocatesofa
particularview.Ifanintellectualopponentistocallthatview
intoquestion,thentheyarealsoquestioningtheirdutyand
theirstanceinthebodyofChrist.Itisnotsomuchanissueof
righteousindignation.Youhavecrossedoverfromrighteous
indignationintopride.Youarenowsinfullyangryand
unwillingtolisten,notbecauseGodisbeingcriticized.Not
becausethereisanaffrontagainsttheAlmighty.Butyouare
offendedbecausesomebodyhascalledyourcredentialsand
yourstandingintoquestion.
But,bytakingthestanceofprideandnotallowingaview
thatyouespousetobequestioned,youhavemadeyourself
impossibletobereasonedwith.Youareakintothemanwho
willnotlistenwhenyourfriendsgatherandtellyouthatthey
foundyourwifehavinganaffair.Thisisanaffronttoyour
prideandyoujustwillnotcomply.
Ifyoufindyourselfoffendedbyopposingviews,thenthere
aretwofundamentalquestionsthatneedtobeasked,and
bothofthesequestionshavespiritualovertones.First,are
youmotivatedbypride,orareyoumotivatedbyrighteous
indignation?Second,isyourpridepreventingyoufrom
honestlyexaminingthebiblicaldataandlisteningtowhat
peoplehavetosay?Idonotwantyoutothinkthatthe
majorityofpeoplehaverighteousindignationwhileonlya
scarcefewarepridefulintheirresistance.Isuggestthatmany
areprideful.Manyareunwillingtolistenbecauseitisa
challengetothemandtotheirbeliefs.Thequestionis
whetheryouareamongtheirnumber.
Otherpeopleareoffendedtoo.
Whilewesympathizewithourselves,andworryabouthow
offendedwearebyaparticularproposition,itshouldbe
notedthatthepeoplewithwhomwearecommunicatingare
probablyoffendedtoo.Bothpartiesareengaginginthis
dialoguewithoneanotherandgrowingmoreoffendedas
eachmomentpasses.Bothdesperatelywanttoconvincethe
otherpersonthattheirperspectiveisthecorrectone,andas
eachlogicalargumentproveslimitedinits’persuasive
capacity,theybecomemoreoffended.Thatiswhypeople
oftenbeginapplyingderogatorynamestotheirintellectual
opponent.Theyfindthemselvesfrustratedbythefactthat
thispersonwillnotbudge.Yettheyarealsounawarethatthe
otherpersonisequallyfrustrated.
IhaveengagedindialoguewithMuslimswhoIknewwere
offendedbythethingsthatIwassaying.Iwasnottryingtobe
offensive,andIwasnotmaintainingamean-spirited
disposition.IwasjustexpressingclassicalChristiantheology,
andthatisoffensivebecauseitchallengestheverycoreof
Islamictheology.Likewise,Islamictheologychallengesthe
verycoreofChristiantheology.Therearecertainlythings
aboutwhichweagree,butwealsodisagreeatafundamental
level.
Formetoproposethatmyinterpretationofthis
disagreementiscorrect,isoffensive,andislikelytocause
peopletobeangry.Atthesametime,itwillcausethe
Christiantobecomeangryaswell.TheChristianperceivesthe
Muslimsasonewhoisjustsostiff-neckedandclosedtothe
truth.Theirtraditionalvaluesandassumptionsimpaletheir
abilitytohearthegospel.Theyareblinded.Atthesametime,
theMuslimislookingtotheChristianandthinkingthatthey
arewrappedupinidolatry,worshippingacreatedthing,and
encouragingtheMuslimtodolikewise.Bothoftheseparties
areoffendedandangryatthepropositionthattheyneedto
altertheirreligiousbeliefstoalignmorecloselywithwhat
theirrespectiveintellectualopponentissuggesting.Bothmay
havewhattheythinkisrighteousindignation.
Aswehavethesedialoguesandasweworkthroughour
ownemotionalstruggle,weneedtorecognizethattheperson
withwhomwearespeakingishavingtheirownpersonal
emotionalstruggleaswell.Theyarefrustrated.Theyare
offended.WhenIsaythatweshouldrecognizethat,Idonot
meanthatweshouldtauntthemwithitinanefforttoscore
debatepoints.
Rather,Iamsuggestingthatweneedtobesympathetic
withwhatotherpeoplearethinkingandfeeling.Ifwedonot,
thenwearelikelytorepelthemfromourperspective.Inthe
caseofadherentstootherreligions,thiswouldbe
detrimental,forwewanttohelpthemtohearthegospel.The
offensethatyoutakeatapropositionisparalleltothe
offensethatyourintellectualopponenttakesatthesame
proposition.
Somepeoplereallyareintentionallytryingtobeoffensive.
Theillustrationoftheindividualwhoissmearingyourwife
outofmalevolencemayrunparalleltosomeofthepeople
whowemayencounter.Therereallyarepeopleoutthere
whodisliketheChristianfaith,whohateGod,hateeverything
thatChristiansstandfor,orperhapsevenmerelyhatesyour
particulardenominationalnuances,andtheyexpressthat
hatredtoyou.TheysmearyourconceptionofGodinaway
thatisblatantlyoffensive.Wehaveallencounteredpeople
likethis.Thepictureoftheangryatheistcomestomind(butI
willwriteabouttheangryatheistatlengthinanother
chapter).
Thequestionofhowweshouldreacttosuchaperson
mightprovokeanumberofdifferentresponses.Thereare
certainlydifferentapproachesfordifferentsituations.As
Proverbs26:4-5reads,“Donotanswerafoolaccordingtohis
folly,oryouwillalsobelikehim.Answerafoolaccordingto
hisfolly,lesthebewiseinhisowneyes.”Theseareclearly
differentpreceptsmeantfordifferentsituations,andthewise
manwillknowwhichsituationtheseprinciplesapplyto.
Therearetimeswherein,asversefourindicates,weshould
justwalkawayfromthesituation.Thereisnopointinarguing
withapersonandfollowingeverytrainofthoughtthatthey
mightconjureup.Ifanindividualrepeatedlycomestoyou
withaccusationsaboutyourwife,youwouldnotbelikelyto
standonyourporchandarguewithhimeverysingletime.
Wisdomwoulddictatethatyoushuttheproverbialdooron
himandsimplydenytheinvitationtoargue.Youaregetting
nowherewiththatindividual.
Ontheotherhand,versefivesuggeststhatthereare
situationswhereweshouldarguewithsuchanindividual.
Perhapswewouldwanttoarguewiththisindividualthefirst
timethattheybroachedthesubject.Why?Thetextreads,
“lesttheybewiseintheirowneyes.”Thefoolishperson
needstohavetheirfollyexposed.Weneedtodisarmthem.If
thisindividualtellsyouthatyourwifedoesnotreallyhavea
job,thenyouwouldtellthemthatyousometimesvisitherat
workandyouhaveevidencethatthisemployerhasdeposited
moneyintoheraccountonaregularbasis.Youwouldshut
downtheseargumentsanddisarmthisindividualsothathe
doesnotthinkthatheiswiseforparadingnonsenseatyour
door.
Similarly,whensomebodyapproachesyouandisangrily
attackingChristiantheology,andisjusttryingtobeoffensive,
thereareoccasionstowalkawayfromtheargument,but
therearealsooccasionstoshutdowntheirargumentand
disarmtheskeptic.AsPaulwrote,“Wearedestroying
speculationsandeveryloftythingraisedupagainstthe
knowledgeofGod,andwearetakingeverythoughtcaptiveto
theobedienceofChrist.”(2Corinthians10:5).
Itissufficienttodestroyanargumentsothatwecan
preventthefoolfrombeingwiseinhisowneyes.Onthe
otherhand,wewouldnotcontinuallywasteourtime
destroyingtheargument,overandoveragain,lestwebelike
thefool.Wisdomanddiscernmentneedtobeourguidesas
tohowwedealwiththesituation.Donotallowyourwisdom
anddiscernmentbedetainedbythefactthatthematerial
beingpresentedisoffensive.
Yourpersonaleducation.
Aswelearnthatdisagreementsarepartoflife,andlearnto
engagewithoffensivematerialwithoutbeingpersonally
offended,Ithinkthatwewillfindourintellectwillbe
nurtured.Wewillbegintolearnmoreaboutthevarious
nuancesoftheviewsbeingpresented.However,Iamnotsure
howwecanapplythisangletotheillustrationoftheman
smearingyourwife,forobviouslywearenotinterestedin
learningaboutsuchthings.Butinthecaseofreligious
dialogue,ifwecanreallystepbackandbeobjective,not
takingeverythingsopersonally,wewilldiscoverthatthereis
tremendousintellectualgroundtobecovered.
Recallthefrequentmisrepresentationsthatwerecovered
inChapter3.Wewouldneverevenrealizethattheindividual
wasoperatingunderafaultyunderstandingofChristian
theologyifwedidnottalkwiththem.Ifwejustbecame
offendedandstormedoff,orclosedthedialogue,wewould
neverhavetheopportunitytorealizethatthatOneness
Pentecostalisoperatingwithadifferentdefinitionofthe
trinity.WewouldneverrealizethattheMuslimisassuming
thatwehaveDoceticChristology.Weimpairnotonlyability
toconversewiththeseindividualsandtosharethegospel
withthem,butalsoourownminds.Wearestiflingour
education.
Educationofthevariousreligiousstancesoftencomesasa
consequenceofspeakingwithindividualsabouttheirbeliefs.
IfIallowaOnenessPentecostaltofullyoutlinetheirbeliefs
aboutGodandabouttheTrinitarianbaptism,thenIam
learningwhatthisparticulargroupbelievesaboutGod.
Likewise,aMuslimcouldteachmealotaboutthewaythey
viewthehadithliterature.Dotheybelieveallofit?Howdo
theydiscernwhatistrueandwhatisnottrue?Further,a
MuslimcouldteachmewhattheclassicalIslamicresponsesto
Christianchallengesare.Thereisalotthatcanbegleanedby
havingconversationswithotherpeopleandputtingasideour
emotion.
Onemightbeinclinedtosuggestthattheyalreadyknowall
ofthesethings.TheyhavereadwhatOnenessPentecostals
believeinbooks.TheyhaveheardwhatMuslimsbelieve
aboutthehadithliterature,andtheyarenotimpressed.They
knowallofthesethings.Well,whenyoubegintotakea
stanceofarrogance,andassumethatyouknoweverything,
thenyouaretrulyimpairingyoureducation.Thepersonwho
knowseverythinghasnothingelsetolearn.Buttheperson
whoadmitsthattheyknowlittlehasanentireworldof
knowledgeandinsighttobeexplored.Whichareyou?The
peopleouttherewithdifferentviewsofreligionarethe
carriersofthatknowledgeandinsight.Donotletyour
emotionsruleoveryouanddeterminewhatyouarewillingto
learn.
Teachothersaboutthecontroversy.
IfIweretosendagroupofevangelistsintoanIslamic
communitytojustsharethegospel,itwouldbeexpectedof
methatIexplaintothemwhattheyshouldexpectwhenthey
gothere.Ishouldexplainwhatsortofobjectionstheywill
raiseandbeliefstheywouldencounter.Thatisnottosaythat
theycanspeakauthoritativelyaboutwhateverysingleperson
willbelieve,butratherthatIcanmakeageneralestimation
basedonmyknowledgeofIslamandinteractionswith
Muslims.
TheycanexpectanalternativeviewofJesus,andchallenges
thatpertaintothehumanityofJesus,suchasaskinghowitis
thatGodcoulddie.TheymightbetoldthattheBiblehasbeen
corrupted,andwhiletheoriginalgospelswereinspiredof
God,theQur’anhasabrogatedthosedocuments.Theseare
thingsthatIwouldwantmyteamofevangeliststoknow
beforesettingoff.Now,theycertainlycouldgointothat
villageblind.Theycouldgoinnotknowinganythingabout
whattheybelieved.But,Icansaythattheywouldprobably
reachmorepeopleiftheyknewhowtoanswerthese
objections.
TheywillknowhowtoanswertheseobjectionsifIteach
themhowtoanswertheseobjections.Theyaredrawingfrom
theexperientialknowledgethatIhaveininteractingwith
Islam.WhenIbecomevulnerabletothesediscussions,and
whenIputasidemypersonalemotions,whenIstopbeing
offended,thenIcanlearnfromthesepeople.WhenIlearn
whattheseindividualsbelieveandwhattheirobjectionsare,
thenImayteachotherswhatIlearned.Now,whenmyteam
encountersMuslims,theyhaveageneralideaofwhatthe
mannerofobjectionswillbe,andthisisbecauseIdidnot
allowmyselftobeoffended.IfIwasoffended,thenIputit
asideandjustlistened.
Thisistosaythatmycapacitytointeractwithotherpeople
willstandforthebenefitofotherChristians.Mycapacityto
readbookswithwhichIdisagreecanbenefitthebodyof
ChristasIteachotherpeopleabouttheseviewsandhowthey
caninteractwiththem,witnesstothem,anddrawthemto
savingfaithinChrist,undertheprovidenceoftheHolySpirit.
TheChristianwhoiswillingtolistentothosewithwhomthey
disagreewillalsobetheleaderandtheteacherinthechurch.
TheywillbetheonewhoisequippingotherChristians.IfItalk
toatheistsoften,myfriendswillturntomewhentheyare
strugglingwithaquestionpertainingtoatheism.IfIwantto
beanassettoChristians,thenIneedtodonothinglessthan
talkandlistenandread.
Youwillbeabletocurdledoubt.
Christianssometimesfindthattheyhavenaggingquestions
intheirmind.Theyfindthattheyhavedoubtsabouttheir
faith.Whenthosequestionsgounanswered,theyare
sometimestragicallycatastrophictothefaith.Christianslose
theirfaithandlosetheirwaybecausetheydidnotknowthe
answertoaparticularquestion.Ontheotherhand,ifyou
knowtheanswertothequestion,thendoubtaboutthat
questionsimplywillnotarise.Onedoesnotworryabout
questionstowhichtheyhavetheanswer.Justasaphysicist
willnotstayupallnightvigorouslytryingtosolveaproblem
thathealreadyhasananswerto,soalsotheChristianwillnot
worryaboutthequestionforwhichtheyalreadyhavean
answer.
Butthemethodforobtainingtheanswerstothese
questionsissimplytotalktopeoplewithwhomwedisagree
andtoreadbookswithwhichwedisagree.Notonly
opponentsoftheChristianfaith,butalsomembersofother
denominations.Wecanlearnaboutourownfaithandour
ownbeliefsbyunderstandingtheobjectionsthatpeoplehave
tothem,andthencomingtounderstandtheanswerstothese
objections.
Ifwearetounderstandtheobjections,however,weneed
tounderstandthemintheirpropercontext.Weneedtohear
ourintellectualopponentsrepresenttheirownobjections.
Onlywhenwetrulyunderstandwhattheyaresayingwillwe
understandhowtoanswerthisobjection.Forexample,ifa
personbelievesthatwaterbaptismwashesawaysins,they
mightobjecttothedoctrineofjustificationbyfaithalone
becausetheythinkthatitimpliesthatoneneednotbe
baptized,orthatitisnotacommand.However,onlybytaking
totheclassicalProtestantwilltheycometounderstandthey
dobelievethatonedoesneedtobebaptizedinwater.But
theysimplydenythatthisbaptismwashesawaysins.Itisstill
necessary,butonlynecessaryinthecontextofobedience.
Buttheproponentoftheformerviewwillnotunderstand
thatjustificationbyfaithaloneisaverynuancedandcareful
doctrinethatmakesprovisionforallofthetextofScriptureto
speakandspeakinits’context.Ifonewantstotrulyaddress
justificationbyfaithalone,oneneedstoseekoutoneofits’
advocatesandallowthemtoexplainthedoctrineontheir
ownterms.Evenifitisoffensivetoyouthatsomebodywould
challengeyourbeliefsthatyouhaveheldthroughoutyour
lifetime,itisimportanttoputthatemotionasideandlet
peoplespeak.Onlywhenyouunderstandthesevariousviews
willyouunderstandhowtoanswerquestionsandobjections
pertainingtothem.
Howelsewillwereachpeople?
IfIalloweverythingthatanindividualsaystooffendme,
andshutdowntheconversation,itseemsunthinkablethatI
wouldbeabletocommunicatewiththem.IfIdonotwantto
hearwhattheysay,thencertainly,theywillnotwanttohear
whatIsay.Wearemutuallyoffendedbyoneanotherand
mutuallyunabletocommunicate.Thisannulsourabilityto
sharethegospelorhelpourbrotherinChristtocometo
adoptabiblicalview.Ifaproponentofjustificationbyfaith
aloneistohelptheirfriendwhothinksthatwaterbaptism
washesawaysins,theyneedtobewillingtolistentothem.If
Iallowmyemotionalreactionthisoffensivematerialto
interrupttheconversation,Iwillnotbeabletoreachthis
individual.
IfIwanttosharethegospelwithsomebody,Ineedtolisten
towhattheyhavetosay.Icannotjustwaitformyturnto
speak.Icannotjusttellthemtokeepquiet.Thatrepels
people.Peoplethinkthatyouarejustbeingprideful,even
thoughyoumaybemotivatedbypiety.Despitethatsome
materialandsomecontentreallyisoffensive,weneedto
rememberthatanindividualwhohasbeenmadeintheimage
ofGodisespousingthisoffensivematerial.
Thisoffensivematerialistheproductofalifetimeof
thought,tradition,anddevelopment.Itisdeeplyheldand
clungto.Weneedtorememberthatwearereaching
individuals,notrespondingtopropositions.Sowhileacertain
propositionmaybeoffensivetous,weneedtowadethrough
that.Weneedtohavethestrengthtoputouremotional
endeavorsasideandlistentothem,evenifitmaybedifficult.
AsChristians,weneedtopersistthroughdifficultcontentso
thatwemayrelatetotheemotionalstrugglesthatpeople
have,understandwhotheyareandsharethegospel.
Chapter5–Youmaybewrong.
Thanksgivingdinnerandothermajorholidayswherethe
extendedfamilycongregatesoftenprovidesample
opportunityforargumentationaboutarangeofissues.After
all,extendedfamilyencompassesthosewithwhomwe
engageeverynowandthen,butwedonotnecessarilyshare
similartraditionalvaluesordiscoursesofthought.In
extendedfamily,theremaybepeoplewhoholdfirmlytoa
politicaldispositionthatyouhappentofindrepugnant.You
lookforwardtotheencountersothatyoumightmakeanoffhandedcommentaboutPresidentBarackObama,andthat
willinevitablysparktheflamesofargumentation.
Youwillsittherearguingforthreehoursoverpieabout
whetherObamawasborninthegreatnationofKenyaor
whetherheisanAmericancitizen.Fromthis,therewill
emergeothertopics,suchasguncontrol.Youwillciteyour
favoriteregionwhereguncontrolisenforced,andcrimeis
high,andhewillcitehisfavoriteregionwhereguncontrolis
enforcedandcrimeislow.Therestofthefamilywillhave
migratedtoanotherroominthehousebecausetheyaretired
ofthebickering,butbothofyoufinditexhilarating.Youare
engagingwitheachother’sarguments,tryingtoremember
thetalkingpointsthatwererecitedonthatradioshowthat
coverstherelevantissues.
Youwaitforthemomentthatyouwouldleaveyourrelative
withnothingtosay.Youwouldmountsuchapotent
argumentthatlogicdictatesthatheabandonshisliberalism
andconcedetoyouthatperhapsitismorereasonabletobea
conservative.Hewouldtellyouthatyouexposedallofhis
flawedargumentation,andthathesurrendershisprideand
hisintellectualstandingtoyou.Thenheventuresintothe
roomwheretherestofyourfamilyisanddeclaresthatyou
wontheargument,andtheyofferaroundofapplause,forall
ofthemhaveemployedtheirintellectualwitsagainstthis
individualandhavealwaysfallenshort.Butyoudecisively
wontheargument.
Thatconclusiontothediscussionmightstrikeyouasa
fantasy.Forpeoplescarcelyarewillingtoadmitthatthey
werewrong.Peoplearescarcelyleftspeechless.Ifyouare
veryquickonyourfeet,thenperhapsyoumightbeableto
leaveanotherpersonspeechless.Butthatoftenjustdoesnot
happen.
Typically,ifsomebodyiswrong,itemergesastheybeginto
repeattheirinitialargument,rephrasingitinawaythatis
confusing,sothatitisdifficulttounderstandwhattheyare
saying.Theymightsummonafewdevices,suchasared
herring,wheretheyjustchangethetopictosomethingminor
togetyouoffthescentoftheoriginalargument.Eitherway,
itisveryunlikelythatanindividualwouldbeleftstumped.
Evenfartheroutthere,wewouldfindanindividualadmitting
thattheywerewrong,andyouwereright.
Aftervociferouslydefendingtheirpositionforhours,or
evenexpressingadissidentviewforafewmoments,most
peoplewouldnotbewillingtoadmitthattheywerewrong
aboutaparticularissue.However,Iwouldliketosuggestthat
thereasonforthisisnotnecessarilybecauseofthestrength
oftheirparticularstance.Therewouldcertainlybean
elementofthat.Buttherecomestoapointwhereifyou
expressaviewandrelaywithallofyourmightthatitisa
robustview,andunderstandwhatyourintellectualopponent
issaying,therecomestoapointwheretheargumentmayas
welldwindledown.Butthereisaveryspecificreasonthat
theydonot.
Itisnotanissueofcompetingviews.Rather,itisanissueof
competingindividuals.Itisyouagainstme,andIamnotgoing
toallowyoutothinkthatyouaresmarterthanI,orthatyou
haveresearchedmorethanIhave.Afloodofemotionsand
pridebegintoovertakebotherindividuals,andbothfindit
inconceivabletoadmitthatperhapstheywerewrong.
Yet,let’ssupposetogetherforamomentthatafewweeks
afterthisdiscussion,youcameacrosscertaininformation
revealingthatthePresidentwasnotborninKenya.Inthis
situation,theevidencethatisrevealedtoyouisirrefutable,
beyondallpossibleconspiracytheoriesthatonemightbe
inclinedtoward.
Youareforcedtotheconclusionthathewasnotbornin
Kenya.Butinthissituation,youwouldhavetheadditional
consideration.Itisnolongeranissueofexaminingthedata.
Youareconfrontedwiththerealitythatthisrelativewasright
andyouwerewrong.Youarehumbledbeforethisman,for
thisisnolongeranissueoverwhetherObamawasbornin
Kenya.Priortoengagingwiththisrelativeofyours,youcould
haveeasilydroppedthatbeliefanditwouldnotmatter.Now,
itisamatterofyourpride.
Yourproblemisthatthisdiscourseisnolongeraquestfor
truthandunderstanding.Youmayhaveaninklingofthatin
thedeeprecessesofyourmind,butattheforefront,youare
assertingyourintellectualprowessbeforeanotherindividual.
Youareconfrontedbyyourownpride.
Combatpridewithhumility.
Considerforamomentthescopeofthedamageofpride.
Ifyouwanttoenforceyourintellectualstandingoryour
strengthasanindividual,themostcommonapproachisby
contrast.Youcontrastyourselfagainstsomebodyelseand
revealhowmuchbetteryouarethanthey.Intheexample
above,youweretryingtocontrastyourintelligenceagainst
thatofanotherindividual.
Inthecaseofadultery,amanmayfeelprideoverthe
husbandofhisnewgirlfriend.Shehasdecidedthatheisa
betterman.Thatisalsowhyworkingmenfeelspitetoward
theirsupervisor.Byvirtueofbeingtheirsupervisor,theyhave
assumedastanceofsuperiority.Thus,theworkingmanwillbe
keentoelevatehimselfinotherways,byrevealingthe
incompetenceofthebossincontrastwithhim.Peopledonot
wanttobeshamed.Theywanttheworldtoknowthatthey
havesomethingofvaluetocontribute.Indeed,bosseswill
likewiseindulgeinprideastheycondescendtheworkingman,
contrastingtheirstandingintheworkplace.Prideis
manifestedmostcommonlyintheformofacontrast.That
contrastwillinvolveshamingotherindividualsbyshowing
themhowmuchbetteryouare.
Itseemstome,though,thatpridehasinsatiableappetite.
Asanindividualindulgesinpridemore,theycontinuetoclimb
theladderofambition,hopingthattheirpridewillfinallybe
satisfiedwhentheygettothetop.Butastheyclimbhigher
andhigher,thetopseemsfurtheraway,andtheyneverreach
it.Thepridefulpersonalwayswantsmore.Theyalwayswant
tosetthemselvesupasthebest.Iftheycannotset
themselvesupasthebest,thentheywillmockandridicule
thebestsothattheycanfeellikeinsomehiddenways,they
trulyarethebest.
WeseethisattitudeintheNewTestamentamongthe
disciplesaswell.AstheyarefollowingJesus,theybegan
arguingamongstthemselves,tryingtodeterminewhom
amongthemwasthegreatestdisciple.Whohealedthemost
people?Whosummonedmorefaithofthemasses?Who
identifiedJesusastheChrist,wheneveryoneelsewas
faithless?Whowalkedonwater?Whowasgiventhekeysto
thekingdomofheaven?ItseemstomethatPeterwas
probablywinningthisargument.
ButthenJesusturnedtothemandrepliedwhatwefindin
Luke9:48,“Theonewhoisleastamongyou,thisistheone
whowillbegreat.”Jesusrenderedthiscalltohumilityand
spiritualmaturity.Theonewhoreduceshimselftotheservice
ofothers,whothinksnothingofhimself,whoconcedesallof
hisprideandallofhisworthtoanother,thisistheonewhois
trulygreat.
Perhapstheclearestexampleofthisrealityisinthe
characterandbehaviorofChrist.Philippians2:9-10tellsus
thathehasanamethatishighlyexaltedsothateveryknee
willbowandtongueconfessthatheisLord.Psalm24:1,“The
earthandallitcontainsistheLord’s.”Verse10,“Whoisthis
Kingofglory?TheLordofHosts,YHWH,heistheKingof
Glory.”JesusislikewisecalledthisLordofGloryin1
Corinthians2:8.Theonewhocreatedtheheavensandthe
earth(John1:3),theonewhoownsthem,whoisthekingof
glory,whoisthelordofglory,theonewhoexplainsthe
Father(John1:18),howdidheinteractintheworld?When
thislordofglorywasborn,tookonhumanflesh,howdidhe
interactintheworld?
Hedidnotcomeasonewhoinheritstheworld’slargest
kingdom.HecouldhavecomeasthesonofCaesar,toturn
theRomansandtheGentilestoGod.Hecouldhavecomeinto
afamilyofwealth,andtaughtaboutGodsurroundedby
armedguards,wearingbeautifulrobesandthenreturningto
hislifeofluxury.Hecouldhavedonethat,andhewouldnot
havebeendoinganythingwrong,becauseheisGod,heisthe
lordofgloryandhecandoanythinghewants.Everythingis
his.Heownseverything.
Instead,whatdowesee?WhensomebodyaskedJesusif
theycouldjoinhiminMatthewchaptereight,whatdowe
see?TheywanttofollowJesuswhereverhegoesandpreach
themessageofkingdomthatJesuswasproclaiming.Whatdid
hesayinversetwenty?“Thefoxeshaveholes,andthebirds
oftheairhavenests,buttheSonofManhasnowheretolay
hishead.”I’msorry,what?TheSonofManhasnowhereto
layhishead?HeisGodalmighty.Theworldandeverythingin
itbelongstohim.HeistheradianceofGod’sgloryandthe
exactrepresentationofhisnature(Hebrews1:3).Heisthe
lordofglory,thekingofglory,andhehasnowheretolayhis
head?
HesubmittedallofhispridetothewillofFathersothathe
couldsavehispeopletotheuttermost(Hebrews7:25).If
Christ,whoisworthinfinitelymorethanweare,couldsubmit
hisprideandhavethismindofhumility,howisitthatwe
cannotdothesame?ThusPaulcommandsus,“Havethis
attitudeinyourselveswhichwasinChristJesus,”(Philippians
2:5)andheoutlinesthehumilityofChrist,thecondescension
ofGodtoman.
Ifwearetoadoptthismodelofhumility,wemust“do
nothingfromselfishnessoremptyconceit,butwithhumility
ofmindregardoneanotherasmoreimportantthan
yourselves.”Inourdiscussionswithoneanother,weneedto
putprideaside.Submitourpridetotheworthofthisother
individual.Thatisnottosaythatourstanceiswrong.Butit
willfreeusfromtheemotionalgraspthatpridehasoverus.
Prideisavirus.Itwillpreventyoufromconsideringthe
possibilitythatyoumightwrongandincapacitateyour
researchandthinking.Youwillnolongerbeabletothink
aboutthedataobjectively,butwillbeplaguedwiththe
notionthatyoumightbewrong.Butperhapsyouarewrong.
Submityourselftohumilityandtotheattitudethatwasalso
inChristJesus.
Trytoproveyourselfwrong.
Wearenaturallyinclinedtoadoptapositionofnonobjectivity,andsearchforwaystoaffirmthatwewereright
allalong.Ifwehavebelievedthroughoutthecourseofhis
presidencythatPresidentObamawasborninKenya,thenwe
willlookforevidencetoprovethathewas,infact,bornin
Kenya.Whenweencounterevidencetothecontrary,wewill
eitherignorance,questionthecredibilityofit,orfindawayin
whichthatstrandofevidencecanbeinterpretedsothatitfits
intoourparadigm.Thisiswhatweseewhenweencounter
peoplewhobelievethattheearthisflat.Satelliteimagesare
theproductofaconspiracymeanttoconcealthetrueshape
oftheearth.Theadvocatewilllabortopresentcontrived
explanationsofhowitallmakessense.
Thismindsetisnotuniquetotheflatearthmovement.It
justhappenstobethecasethatwhenweseethisbehaviorin
theseindividuals,weinstantlyrecognizewhattheyaredoing.
Butwhenweapplyidenticaltactics,wedonotrealizewhat
wearedoing.Peoplefrequentlydoresearchthatdonotmeet
thecanonsofobjectivity.Theyhavewhatisknownasa
confirmationbias.Thisistosaythattheydoresearchinaway
thatconformstowhattheyalreadybelievetobetrue.The
samesortofthinghappenswhenexaminingthebiblicaldata.
Withinmanydenominations,peoplearetoldwhatto
believeabouttheBiblebeforetheyeveropenit.Theyaretold
thattheBibleteachescertainprecepts,sothatwhentheydo
openittoseewhatitsays,theyhavethesenotionsalready
establishedintheirmind.Butthesenotionsarestrictlynot
derivedfromthetext.Aswestruggletoexegetethetextthe
guardianoftraditionthatlurkswithinoursubconscioustells
ushowtocontortthistowhatwealreadybelieve.
Apersonwhobelievesthatwaterbaptismwashesaway
sins,forexample,willreadRomans3-5,andstruggleto
determinewhatPaulwastalkingabout.Theywillload
conceptsintoPaul’swordsthatheneverintended.Whenhe
said,“Faithiscreditedasrighteousness,”(Romans4:5)they
willcontriveadefinitionoffaiththatcorrespondsto
somethinglike,“faithandobedience.”Suchanindividual
wouldthenbeguiltyofconfirmationbias.Theyarelookingfor
waystocontortthetexttofittheirpreconceivedviews.
Whentheyarepracticingtheirexegesis,theyhavetwo
tasksinmind.First,theyaretryingtofiteverythingintotheir
paradigm.Second,theyaretryingtoprovethattheir
paradigmistrue.Thentheyfindwaystodoit,because
anybodywhotreatstheBibleasasourceforconfirmingtheir
viewswillsucceed.Itiseasyenoughtotakealineoutof
context.SuchapersonisinterpretingtheBiblethroughthe
lensoftheirpreconceptions.Instead,theyneedtointerpret
theirpreconceptionsthroughthelensoftheBible.Theformer
leadstoareformationofthebiblicaldata.Thelatterleadsto
areformationofourpreconceptions.Wehavetoallowthe
texttoworkonus,foritispowerfulandactive(Hebrews
4:12).ButwehavetoletGodspeak.IfweforceGodtosay
whatwearealreadysaying,thenitisnolongerGodwhois
speaking,butus.
Thus,atrulyobjectiveinvestigationofthedataisnotone
thatlaborstoprovethepreconceptionsoftheindividual.Yet,
itseemstomethatthisisunavoidable.Peoplecannothelp
butlookintotheBiblewiththissortofmentality.Evenifwe
areawareofthebaggagethatweareloadingintothetext,it
isinconceivablethatwedropthatbaggage.Afundamental
aspecttohumanityisthatweinterpreteverythingthrough
thelensofpreviousexperiences.
Perhapsitisnotenoughtosaythatweareawareofthese
preconceptions.Perhapsifwewanttoeventhescalesof
objectivity,weneedtodoaninvestigationofrelevanttexts
andtrytoproveourselveswrong.Thepersonwhobelieves
thatwaterbaptismwashesawaysinsshoulddiveintoRomans
3-5andtrytoprovethattheirviewiswrong.Theyshoulddoa
wordstudyandreadthetextcloselywiththeendinmindof
provingthatsalvationcomesbyfaithalonetotheexclusionof
waterbaptism.Ifyoucangetyourselfintothatmindsetand
approachthetextwiththatgoalinmind,youwillfindyourself
learningnewthingsandnoticingwhatthetextsays,andwhat
youmayhaveignoredormissed.
Itwillalsoteachyouconsistency.Ifyoucomeacrossa
difficultconcept,suchas“faithiscreditedasrighteousness,”
andyoulabortoredefinewhatfaithissothatitfitsintoyour
doctrine,thenyouwillhavetoequallyandconsistently
redefinewordsasyouworkonthisprojecttoprovethatyou
arewrong.Inpracticingthisconsistency,itwillemergethat
thewaythatyouinterpretScriptureisverycontrived,forany
timeyouencounteratroublingpassage,youtrytocontortit
orinterpretitsothatitalignswithyourpreconceivedbeliefs.
Itisnotenoughtoknowtherulesofinterpretation.You
mayalreadyknowthatinunderstandingtheBible,wehaveto
understandwhattheauthororiginallyintended.Youmay
alreadyknowthat.Butifyoudonotpracticethat,therulesof
interpretationbecomeuseless.Itbecomesapplicabletoyou
thatyounullifythewordofGodbyyourtraditions(Mark
7:13).Whenyoutrytoproveyourselfwrong,youwillbeginto
seealloftheerrorsinthewaythatyouapproachScripture.
Yourconfirmationbiaswillemergebeforeyoureyesandyou
willseetheneedtooverhaulyourapproachandreverenceto
theBible.YouwilldesiretosubmitallofyourbeliefstoGod,
bycontrastingyourbeliefsagainsthisword.
Understandyourselfandunderstandhowmuchyouwant
yourbeliefstobetrue.Yourcommitmenttothemmaybe
guidingyourinterpretativemaneuvers.Measureyour
interpretativemaneuvers.Employthemtoprovethatyou
werewrong.Choosesomedenominationaldifferencewithin
thebodyofChristandprovethatyouwerewrong.Youwill
seetheconfirmationbiasandtheerrorsinthewaythatyou
approachtheBible.
Seekouttheologians.
Howdopeopleofopposingviewscometotheir
conclusions?Youmayhavehadtheopportunitytoaskoneof
themandyouhavefoundtheirresponsesunsophisticatedor
lackinginsomeway.Thatisoftenthecase,aswecannot
expecteverybodyaroundustobetheologiansorexpertsin
thefield.Thismayoffertheimpressionthatourpositionis
quiterobust,becausewehaveneverencounteredanybody
whoknowswhatquestionstoask,norhowtoproperly
articulatetheparticularview.
Mormonsmissionaries,likewise,oftendonotencounter
muchresistance.IspokewithafewMormonswhotoldme
thattheyreallyhaveneverhadtheirfaithchallengednorever
heardargumentsagainsttheirpositionthatwereparticularly
overwhelming.Now,thismaybeasimplecaseof
confirmationbias.ButIthinkthisisabelievablestory.Many
ChristianshavenoideahowtoarticulatebasicChristian
theology.So,ifyouhaveneverbeenchallengedwith
resistance,youaresortofliketheMormonmissionary.It
mightnotbethatthisisattributedtothestrengthofyour
position,butrathertothesimplefactthatmanyChristiansdo
notknowhowtooutlinewhattheybelieveandwhythey
believeit.
Consequently,again,Iwouldimploreyoutoadoptastance
ofhumilityandacknowledgethatthereareapologistsout
therewhomaybeabletoansweryourquestionsandeven
posequestionsthatyoudonotknowtheanswerto.The
questioniswhetherweshouldbothertoseekthemout.For
thesakeofunderstandingotherpeople,weshouldallow
themtodefinetheirowntermsandtolistentothemasthey
representtheirverynuancedandcarefulview.Thatistrue.
However,forthesakeofdiscoveringthemostthorough
defenseofaparticularview,weneedtoseekoutthemost
armedapologistofthatview.
IfIwanttoheararobustdefenseofwhyCalvinismistrue,I
wouldnotlistentoNormGeisler’ssummaryofCalvinism.I
wouldnotseekoutaguyontheInternettofillinmygapsof
knowledge.IwouldreadDr.RCSproul’sbookChosenByGod
orDr.JamesWhite’sbookThePotter’sFreedom.Iwould
allowmensuchasthesetostandasrepresentativesof
Calvinistthought.Astheystandassomeofthemostarmed
examplesofapologistswhodefendCalvinism,itwouldserve
mewelltobringmyunderstandingofCalvinismandmy
objectionstothem.Iwouldwanttoreadtheirbooksand
watchtheirlectures.Theproperenunciationofaviewneeds
tobefromtheexpertdefendersofthatview.Itwouldbea
mistakeforustothinkthatweunderstandsomethingjust
becauseweencounteredafriendwhooutlinedit.
Further,listeningtowhatexpertshavetosaywouldusher
infeelingsofhumilityformanyofus.Wewouldcometo
realizethattherearemanythingsthatwejustdonotknow.
Theycanhandleourobjectionsmoresoundlyandeasilythan
wewouldhaveimagined.Theywillpointoutthatwhatwe
thoughtweredetrimentalobjectionswerereallysurfacelevel
misunderstandings.
WilltheChristianfaithunravel?
Iextinguishedmuchspaceinrelayingthepointthatpeople
donotwanttobeprovenwrongbecausetheyareproud.But
intherealmofreligiousdiscourse,anothermotiveemerges
thatpreventspeoplefromadmittingthattheymightbe
wrongaboutsomething.Incompromisingacertainelement
oftheirfaith,theybegintoworrythattheywillseetheentire
systemoffaithcollapsearoundthem.Itwouldbeviewedas
sortoflikeahouseofcards.Ifyouremoveonecard,the
entirehousewillcollapse.Inthisway,everythingisviewedas
anessentialelement.
Ithinkthatanybodywhohasspenttheirlifeinatraditional
mindsetcanfindthattheyrelatecloselytothisfear.Thiscan
beattributetothefactthatpeoplecametobelieveevery
tenetoftheirfaithinpreciselythesameway.Theycameto
believeinthetrinity,whichisacardinaldoctrine,inthesame
waythattheybelieveinacertaintenetofeschatology,which
isnotacardinaldoctrine,inthesameway.Their
epistemologywasidenticalinbothcases.Theylearnedabout
thesedoctrinesbecausesomebodytoldthem,andtheymade
anemotionalcommitmenttothem.Theyfoundtheminthe
Bible(viaconfirmationbias)andfeelcompelledtodefend
them.Ifoneoftheirviewsischallenged,itbecomes
inexplicablewhyallofthemwouldnotbechallenged.For
theirvariousbeliefsdidnotcomeaboutslowly,asthey
learnedmore,butrather,quiterapidly,astheyadoptedthe
traditionthattheyfoundthemselvesin.
Thismeansthatifonebeliefisproventobewrong,then
thereisnoreasonthattheotherscannotbeproventobe
wrongaswell.Theyareallestablishedbytraditionalvalues
andpreceptsratherthanbythebiblicaldata.Theirtradition
andtheirpastinformalloftheirbeliefs.Inthisway,itmight
besaidthatthebeliefsofapersoncomeasaunifiedwhole.
Withoutone,everythingelsecollapseswithit.Thusaperson
broughtupinaparticularsystemthatisnotderivedfromthe
biblicaldatawillfindthattheirbeliefsaresortoflikeahouse
ofcards.Ifoneispluckedout,theentirehousecollapses.
ButIthinkthatamoreadequatemodelofChristian
theologyismoreoflikeaspider’sweb.Therearecertain
strandsofthewebintheverycenterthatiftheyareplucked
out,everythingwillcomeapart.But,therearealsobeliefson
theouterlayer,whichiftheyarepluckedout,thecoreof
Christianitywillstillbethere.Thus,thecoreofChristianityis
notcontingentuponallofourparticularbeliefsbeingtrue.
Icouldbelieveinwhatisknownasamillennialism,which
oftenmaintainsthattheeschatologicaleventsoutlinedinthe
bookofRevelationwereactuallyfulfilledinAD70atthe
destructionofJerusalem.ButifIfindthatthisbeliefiswrong,
andthatsomeothereschatologicalviewistrue,myChristian
faithwouldnotunravel.Itwouldjustbethatonestrandon
theouterlayerhadbeenpluckedout,andthisdoesnotreally
challengeanything.
Ontheotherhand,wewouldfindfundamentalbeliefsat
thecoreoftheweb.Wewouldfindbeliefssuchasthedeity
ofChrist,orsalvationbyfaithalone,orJesus’sdeathonthe
crossforoursins.Thesearestrands,whichifpluckedout,
woulduproottheChristianfaithandleaveyouwith
somethingthatisverydifferentfromwhattheapostlesleft
behind.Youwouldnolongerbeadvocatingaconceptionof
Christianity.Youwouldbeadvocatingsomethingdifferent
fromChristianity.ButthesupermajorityofourChristian
theologyisnotatthecoreoftheweb,butisontheouter
layer.SoweneednotfearthatwearebetrayingtheChristian
faithbyconsideringthatoneoftheseouterstrandsmaybe
incorrect.
Withinthatframework,Christiansshouldfeelfreeto
exploretheBibleandtodeterminewhatitreveals.Thatisnot
tosaythatweshouldnottestoutthecoredoctrines.We
certainlyshould.But,ifthecoredoctrinesofthefaithare
removed,wewillbeleftwithsomethingthatislessthan
Christianity.TheChristianfaithwouldbeproventobefalse.
Thatisnotthecasewithmostofourbeliefs.Mostofour
beliefsaresecondary.
Whenwemisunderstandthedifferencebetweensecondary
beliefsandcorebeliefs,wewillbeledtovigorouslydefendall
ofourbeliefsasthoughtheywereallcorebeliefs.Wewill
neverlistentootherpeopleandneverwonderifwemightbe
wrong.Indeed,itseemslikethisapproachmayleadpeople
intoapostasy.Forifyouhavethemindsetthatallofyour
beliefsarecorebeliefs,theneverythingchallengesyourfaith.
YourfaithwillbeshakeneverytimeyouopenuptheBible,
andeverytimeyouengageinalightconversationabout
religion.Onecanseehowthisapproachwouldbecome
frustrating.
Further,itseverelyimpairsourcapacitytoengagewith
otherpeopleandtoobjectivelyanalyzetheevidence.Ifthe
biblicaldatasuggeststhatwearewrong,weneedtobe
receptivetohearingthat.Wecannotbesodefensiveand
angryaboutourparticulartraditionalvaluesthatwedonot
hearanythingthatotherpeoplearesaying.Sinceourfaithis
asweakasahouseofcards,wejustcannotlistentoothers.
But,ifyourfaithismorelikeaspider'sweb,thenyouwill
beinclinedtolistentoothers.Youwillbeinclinedtothink
rationallyaboutthebeliefsthatyouhold.Youwillbeinclined
tothinkthatperhapsyourviewsoneschatology,orwater
baptismwashingawaysins,couldbecompromised,andthe
Christianfaithwouldnotcollapse.TheChristianfaithisone
thatisnuancedverycarefullysothatitwillwithstandthe
criticismsthatareoutthere.WhenweredefinetheChristian
faithsothatitisidenticaltoourtraditionalvalues,weweaken
it.ThisisbecausethetraditionthatGodestablishedismuch
strongerthanthetraditionthatwehaveestablished.We
needtounderstandthedistinctionbetweensecondarybeliefs
andcorebeliefs.Ifwedothat,wewillbemorereceptiveto
criticism,morelikelytounderstandwhenwearemistaken.
Chapter6-WhatIsAHeretic?
AmonthafteryourdiscussionaboutthePresidentover
Thanksgivingdinner,youareconfrontedwiththeprospectof
havingfamilyovertocelebratetheoldtraditionofwinter
solstice,emergingasChristmasforthewesterners.Ofcourse,
youknowthatyouneednotworryaboutcontinuingthe
argumentwiththerelativefromThanksgiving,ashe
announcedthathewouldbeattendingthefeastatanother
relative'shome.Butthereisarelativeofyourswhoisafellow
Christianwhoyouhavenotseenforawhileandyoulook
forwardtoengagingthisindividualinconversationaboutthe
BibleandtheChristianlife.
However,asyoubegintodialoguewithhim,youfind
yourselfcurlingyournoseindisgustathisassumptions,forhe
apparentlyrevealshimselftobeaCalvinist.Youhavespoken
withseveralCalvinistsontheInternet,andtheyarealways
quitefrustrating.Thefrustrationthatyouhavehadin
previousconversationseruptsasyouhearhimspeaking.He
revealsthathedoesnothavethesameconceptionoffreewill
asyoudo.HerevealsthathethinksthatGodchoosestheone
whowillbesaved.
Asyourresponsespillsoutofyourmouth,youdonoteven
realizethatyouareactivelydisplayingmoredisdainandmore
angerthanyouwerefortheliberalthatyouencounteredat
Thanksgiving.Afterall,thatwasjustintellectualjousting.But
thispersonissayingthingsaboutGodthatareforeigntoyour
earsandthatyoudonotunderstand.Heiscitingpassages
fromtheBibleanddevelopingatheologicaltreatmentofthe
issuesthatyouhavejustneverheardofbefore.Itisnotso
muchthatitisnewasmuchasyourdistasteforthemoral
implicationsofwhatthispersonissaying.
Thisleadsyoutomakeseveraloff-handedcommentsabout
howyouwanttothrowup,orhowfoolishofasystemthis
was.Atthisjuncture,ifthisindividualwereheedingwisdom,
hewouldprobablyjuststopengagingwithyou.Buthedoes
not,asthatcanbeadifficultthingtodo,especiallywhenthe
optiontowalkawayfromtheconversationisnotreally
available,suchasinthecaseofthedinnertable.Itisatthis
pointthatyouthrowoutthewordheretic.Youpointyour
indexfingerinhisdirectionanddeclarethatheisespousinga
viewthatisheretical.
Thismannerinwhichyouhaveemployedthiswordisnota
characterizationthatwedonotseewithinChristendom
today.Whilethewordhereticisapowerfulweapon,itisalso
aheavysword,andmostdonotknowhowtowielditorhow
toswingit.Itisaveryparticularcategorythatcannotjustbe
appliedtoanyonewithwhomyoudisagree.Itcannotbeused
asanexpressionofemotion.Itcannotbeusedasaninsult,
akintocallingsomebodyanidiot.Thatisnotwhatahereticis.
Ahereticisnotapersonthatyoudislikenorisitapersonwho
hastreatedyoupoorly.Ahereticisnotapersonwithwhom
youdisagreeaboutasecondarytheologicalissue.
WhilethereareChristiansthatIhaveencounteredwhouse
thewordheresyasfreely,therearealsoChristianswhodo
notevenknowwhatthewordmeans.Theyhaveneverheard
itbefore.Now,thefactthatsomebodyhasneverheardthe
wordheresybeforeisindicativethattheyhavenotstudied
churchhistoryinanycapacity.Iftheyhad,thisbasicterm
wouldhaveemerged.ButIwillnotdigressintothat.The
dictationofwisdomwillleadustoabstainfrombothofthese
severities.Itisimportanttoknowwhattheancientheresies
weresothatwhentheyarise,wewillbeabletoidentifythem
andrecallhowthechurchofpreviousgenerationsreactedto
them.Likewise,weneedtoensurethatwearenotemploying
thewordasanemotionalinsult.So,whatisheresy,then?
HeresyisadeparturefromtheChristianfaithinavery
fundamentalway.Recallourspider’sweb.Thecoredoctrines
areatthecenteroftheweb.Ifyoupluckoutanyofthose
coredoctrines,theentirewebwillunravelandyouwillno
longerhavetheChristianfaith.But,ifyoupluckoutoneofthe
secondarydoctrinesontheouterlayerofthethread,the
entirewebwillnotcollapse.TheChristianfaithwillmaintain.
Ahereticisanindividualwhoplucksoutoneofthecore
doctrinesofthefaithandhenceunravelstheentireweb.
IfweencounteraChristianwithwhomwedisagree,we
needtoensurethatwehaveaproperunderstandingofwhat
ahereticis.Thegravityofthatchargeneedstobefelt.Forin
accusinganindividualofheresy,wearedenyingtheir
Christiantestimony.WearetellingthemthatGodhasnot
workedintheirlife.Wearetellingthemtheyareboundfor
Hellbecausetheirbeliefsarenotrepresentativeof
Christianity.Itisnotthattheyhaveadivergentteaching.Itis
thattheystandoutsideoftheChristianfaith.Thequestion
becomes,howcanweproperlyidentifysuchanindividual?
Howcanweidentifyheresywhenweseeit?Whatisheresy?
Whatarethecoredoctrines?
TheTrinity
Asindividuals,ouridentityintheworldisimportant.Who
we are matters to us. Our standing in society matters to us.
Butasyouclimbtheladderofsovereignty,thevalueofyour
identity will increase. For in human affairs, a sovereign only
has power if the people recognize his power. If the people
begin to declare that the king is not really the king, that is a
rebellionandheneedstostompitout.Ifthemassesbeginto
believe that he is not really the king, his power evaporates.
The sovereignty of God is a bit different, for his sovereignty
andpowerissuchthatittranscendshumanperception.God
isGodevenifnobodyagrees.
Nonetheless, it is important to recognize who God is. The
first of the Ten Commandments is, “You shall have no other
gods before me,” (Exodus 20:3). When the people of Israel
broke that commandment, he told them, “I am the LORD,
BesideMethereisnootherGod.”(Isaiah45:5).God’sidentity
issoimportantthatwhenhispeoplefailedtorecognizeit,he
brought his wrath down upon them. As Romans 1:25 says,
“They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and
worshippedandservedthecreatureratherthantheCreator,
whoisblessedforever.”
TheBibletellsusthatGodisatrinity(Matthew28:19).This
meansthatthereisoneGodwhoiseternallypresentinthree
persons.ThatiswhoGodis.Thus,forustoproperlyworship
Godforwhoheis,weneedtoworshiphimintrinity.Ifweare
keeping for ourselves any other conception of God, we are
guilty of compromising God’s identity and worshipping a
figment of our own imagination. Any non-Trinitarian
conceptionsofGodareidolatrous.
Formostwhodenythetrinityalsocompromisetheperson
and character of Jesus, who is God (Mark 1:2-3, John 1:1,
8:58). In denying that Jesus is God, such an individual is
denyingGod(1John2:23).FortheyaredenyingwhomGodis.
Inthesamewaythatakingstompsouttherebelswhodeny
hiskingship,soalsowillthosewhodenythedeityoftheSon
facehiswrath.AsPsalm2:12reads,“KisstheSon,lesthebe
angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly
kindled.Blessedareallwhotakerefugeinhim.”(ESV).
Thus, the trinity is a core doctrine, at the center of the
spider’sweboftheChristianfaith.Ifyouremoveit,thenyou
haveremovedGodfromtheChristianfaith,andweneedhim.
It is appropriate, then, to label as heresy any conception of
GodthatdenieshisTrinitarianessence.
Jesusdiedformysins.
IfyouweretoencounteraMuslim,hewouldtellyouthat
not only did Jesus not die for your sins, but also, he did not
die at all. If you were to encounter a secular historian, they
wouldtellyouthatJesusmostcertainlydied,buttheywould
deny the theological additive that he died for your sins. It is
even attested to by Jewish tradition that they executed
someone named Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah. But
they obviously deny that this death was for anybody’s sins.
When the Romans executed Jesus, they clearly did not think
that he was dying for anybody’s sins. He was just a
condemned man that they were charged with executing and
hadthefreedomtotreatwithcruelty.
As Christians, we affirm that Jesus not only died, but also
died for our sins. Paul writes in Romans 4:25 that Jesus was
“Deliveredoverbecauseofourtransgressionsandwasraised
because of our justification.” Isaiah 53:5 reads that “He was
pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for
ouriniquities.Thechasteningforourwell-beingfelluponhim.
Andbyhisscourgingwearehealed.”Thus,afterthedeathof
Jesus,Paulinformsusthathisdeathwasforoursins.Before
the death of Jesus, Isaiah predicted that the Messiah would
dieforoursins.
This means that the death of Jesus was propitiatory
(Romans3:25).Allofsinsthatwehavecommittedthroughout
ourlifetimewerenailedtothecross.Heborethesinsthathis
people committed. He absorbed the wrath of his Father
because he knew that his people would have to spend an
eternityinHellforwhathecoulddoonthecross.
This discussion is centralized by the righteousness and the
judgmentofGod.ThroughouttheBible,weseeGod’speople
reconcilingthemselvestohimthroughthesheddingofblood.
TheyslaughteranimalsintheTemple,overandoveragainso
thattheycouldbemaderightwithGod.Allofthatbloodmust
have wearied the people and the priests. They must have
lookedtotheslaughteredanimalsandthoughtthatthiswas
the price for their sin. God was helping his people to
understandthatasinfulmancannotcomeintohispresence.
There needs to be atonement. The sacrifices throughout the
generationsmusthavemadethemwearyandtired.Allofthe
bloodingrainedintothefloorandthepriestscouldonlylook
toitandsay,“thisisthepriceformysins.”
Perhaps it might be said that these sacrifices were a
foreshadowing.Theyweremeanttoshowwhatwastocome.
PerhapstheyweremeanttoremindIsraelofherguiltbefore
a righteous God. Then Christ came as a perfect sacrifice,
fulfillingwhatthebloodofanimalscouldnot(Hebrews10:4).
The slaughter of animals was not the price of our sins. The
slaughteroftheSonofGodwasthepriceofoursins.
IfaChristiandeniesthat,thentheyaredenyingthataprice
was paid for their sins. If a price was not paid for their sins,
thenitfollowsthattheyarestillintheirsins.Itfollowsthatall
peoplearedeadintheirsins.ThedeathofJesusonthecross
for our sins is then at the core of the web. It is a central
doctrine, without which, the Christian faith is rendered
pointless.
Theresurrection.
Afterhearingthisoutlineofthedeathonthecross,people
are sometimes inclined to ask why it is that Jesus needed to
risefromthedead.Ifhehadjustdiedforthesinsoftheworld
onthecross,hecouldhavejustremaineddeadandwewould
stillhavetheatonementforoursins.Onemightbeinclinedto
think that he rose from the dead just to teach his disciples
certain things, to provide the Great Commission (Matthew
28:19).Whileitiscertainlytruethatheneededtodothat,the
resurrectionisatthecoreoftheChristianfaith.
Jesus was not the only Messiah claimant during that era.
Therewereaplethoraoffalsemessiahs,andthestatealways
dealt with them in the same way: by crucifixion. If such an
individualreallyweretheMessiah,itwouldneverbethecase
that they were crucified, because in Jewish thought, they
would be considered to be a heretic and a blasphemer. By
nailingJesustothecross,thatiswhatthe Jewishauthorities
thoughtthattheywererevealing.WhenJesuswasexecuted,
thatiswhathisfollowershadinmind.Hewasbeingexposed,
justasalloftheotherfalsemessiahswereexposed.
That is what the disciples had in mind after Jesus was
murdered.Thismanwhotheyhaddedicatedtheirlivesto,for
whomtheylefteverythingbehindwasexposedasaliar.They
would be left to stare unflinchingly in the face at the truth
that the prophecies had failed. Any doubt that they might
have had throughout the course of Jesus’ ministry had
emergedvictorious.Itisverymuchakintoifyouweregiven
undeniableprooftomorrowthatyourreligionwasalie.That
heartbreakandturmoilwaswhatthediscipleswereenduring.
ThedifferenceisthatthesemenwalkedwithJesusandbased
on his character, his love, and everything they knew about
him,theythoughtthathewastheMessiah.Theythoughtthat
hewasGodintheflesh.Butthatwasprovenbythestateto
bealie.
Thatiswhereweare.Jesuswasjustanotherfalsemessiah
who is crucified and abandoned. His resurrection was thus a
vindication of who he was. When he arose, he defeated not
onlydeath,buthedeclaredamightytriumphoverwhomthe
authoritiessaidthathewas.Theysaidthathewasaliaranda
heretic.Butwhenherosefromthedead,herevealedthatthe
crucifixionthatheenduredwasnottohisdetriment.Whilehe
was under the curse of God, that was because he became a
curse for us, in our place (Galatians 3:13). He redeemed his
people. But if he did not rise from the dead, then, as the
apostlePaulsays,wearestillinoursins(1Corinthians15:14).
To suggest that Christ did not rise from the dead is to pluck
outacoredoctrine.
Wedonotmeritoursalvation.
That is an outline of how Christ achieved salvation in the
past, in a particular moment 2000 years ago. But how does
one apply that salvation today? As Christians, we deny the
doctrine of universalism, which states that all people,
everywhere,willbesaved(Matthew7:14).How,then,isthe
salvation that Christ provided attributed to us as individuals
andhowwillweknowit?
Throughout the world religions, most people hold to a
model of works-salvation, which is to say that when we do
enoughgooddeedsandlivearighteousenoughlifestyle,then
Godwillrecognizeourrighteousnessandgiveuseternallifein
return. This likewise appears throughout many sects within
Christendom, however, they often deny the title of workssalvation. Instead, they will suggest that they believe that
faith is complimented by obedience and action, and this
obedienceprogressivelyjustifiesusthroughoutthecourseof
ourlives.Obediencewouldbeasubsetoffaith,onthisview.
But such an individual would deny the title or category of
works-salvation, and while we can appreciate their desire to
abstainfromthiscategory,bymakingjustificationanongoing
processthatisprogressivelyappliedtoanindividual,theyare
teachingsalvationbyworks.
Thisissignificantbecauseifweareprogressivelyearningor
meriting our salvation, that entails that Jesus did not really
needtodieonthecross.Whywouldhe?Wecandothework
ourselves.ButsinceChristdiedonthecross,foroursins,itis
inconceivablethatwewouldneedtocontinuetoworkforour
justification.Christalreadydidtheworkforus.Hediedonthe
cross.Hediedforoursins.Heabolishedtherecordofsinthat
washeldagainstus.Byworkingforourjustification,thenwe
implicitly maintain that Christ’s death on the cross was not
enough, and we need to pick up the slack and do what he
couldnot.Inthisway,thepersonwhopracticessalvationby
works is not trusting in Christ. They are trusting in
themselves.
Further, the one who suggests that they are working for
their salvation must have a very high self-image. They think
that they are capable of doing enough good works to satisfy
the demands that the righteousness of God entails. But who
can honestly look at the human heart and say such a thing?
The human heart is wicked above all things (Jeremiah 17:9).
There is nobody who is righteous (Romans 3:10). If we are
practicing works salvation, the question is whether we are
trulymeasuringup.
Itseems,though,thattheartofmeasuringupwouldentail
that one leads an immaculate life, from the time they are
born until the time that they die. If an individual commits a
singlesin,theyarestillworthyofGod’swrath.Ifyouwereto
gobeforeacourtjudge,guiltyofaparticularcrime,andyou
told him that you have led a basically moral life, aside from
thiscrime,thatwouldnotacquityou.Youstillneedtoendure
the punishment for the crime that you committed. In the
sameway,whenGodchargesuswithsin,itdoesnotmatter
what sort of life we have led aside from that sin. He cannot
justletusgo.Hisjusticeentailsthathemustpunishtheguilty.
Therefore,unlessweareproposingthatwehavelivedour
entire lives with no sin whatsoever, we cannot earn our
salvation. Salvation is the free gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9)
andisappliedtousthemomentthatweputourtrustinthe
death of Jesus for our sins. But by making it something that
weworkfor,weimpugnhisdeathandresurrectionandtrust
moreinourselvesthaninhim.
TheBibleisGod’sword.
Thefoundationforallofthesecorebeliefsistheauthority
ofScriptureandourhighviewofitasbeingGod-breathed(2
Timothy 3:16-17). We might be able to reason to some of
theseconclusionsapriori,andwemightbeabletotreatthe
Scripture as a historical document, and conclude that Jesus
rose from the dead. We might be able to arrive at these
doctrines in this way. But they really would not be firmly
planted. They would be open to question and speculation.
Just as any other historical event, we could call the
resurrection into question. But if our foundation is in the
authority of the word of God, then we cannot call it into
question.
TheChristianwholeavestheBibleasidedepriveshimselfof
thespiritualnourishmentwithwhichJesusregularlysustained
himself.Forhesaidthatmandoesnotliveonbreadalonebut
on every word that comes forth from the mouth of God
(Matthew4:4).IfJesuswastheSonofGod,andhethoughtof
the word of God as his sustenance, how much more do we
needtosustainourselvesbyconsumingthewordofGod?
It seems that it emerges as not only words on a page in a
dusty old book, but rather as something that is potent. The
words of the Bible are something that has an impact on the
individual'slife,whichtheHolySpiritusestoedifyusandlead
us into all righteousness. We open it and search for a word
fromGod.Weseektounderstandthecontextinwhichitwas
written because we want to understand precisely what God
was relaying through these authors. Every syllable is
important. Paul’s usage of a period or Greek syntax will
bogglethemindofthetheologian.ItisGod’srevelationtous.
Within it, we find the message of salvation that we are to
proclaim to others and we appeal to it for wisdom and
guidanceinourdailylife.
Throughoutthepsalms,weseethedeeprecessesofhuman
emotion. We see the struggles of David that mirror the
struggles of Jesus. In the Law, we see the righteousness of
God (Psalm 19:7). In the proverbs, we see God’s wisdom. In
the prophets, we see God’s justice and his mercy. These are
truths that Jesus meditated upon. That is why the word of
Godwasalwaysonhislips.
But if we were to remove biblical authority from the
spider’s web, what would happen? There are some
theologians who suggest that the core of the web could
remainintact.Butthatseemsunthinkabletome.Whatsort
of argument for the trinity or the deity of Christ could be
mountedintheabsenceoftheBible?HowcouldImakemore
than a historian’s assessment of Jesus’ death on the cross? I
couldsaythathedied,butIcouldnotsaythathediedforour
sins. It seems to me that biblical authority is an essential
elementoftheChristianfaith.
Thereisadifferencebetweenheresyandinconsistency.
Now that we understand what a heretic is, it seems
important to also enunciate what a heretic is not. Many
people have been accused of heresy because they hold a
particular view that logically entails heresy. While they deny
the heresy, and hold to an orthodox position, the doctrine
that they hold, if followed to its’ logical conclusion, implies
heresy. But they do not follow that doctrine to its’ logical
conclusion.Suchapersonwouldnotbeaheretic.Theywould
beinconsistent.
If I were an adherent to what is known as kenotic
Christology,Iwouldbesomebodywhowasinconsistent,butI
wouldnotbeaheretic.KenoticChristologystatesthatwhen
Jesus became a man, he laid aside his divine attributes. He
emptied himself of them. This means that he was no longer
all-powerful, all-knowing, and so forth. Instead, God
transferred his consciousness into human flesh. However,
sinceJesusisGod,thatwouldmeanthatitislogicallypossible
for God to lack divine attributes such as omnipotence and
omniscience.Butifheweretolacktheseattributes,hewould
no longer be God. For God necessarily is the greatest
conceivable being. If you can conceive of anything greater
than God, than that being would be God. Hence, since Jesus
lacked these divine attributes, he would not really be God.
But,theproponentofkenoticChristologymaintainsthatheis
God. You see, the proponent of kenotic Christology is
maintainingaviewthatlogicallyentailsadenialofthedeityof
Christ. But, he affirms the deity of Christ. In this way, he is
beinginconsistentintheseviews.Yetheisnotguiltyofheresy
becauseheismaintainingthatJesusreallywasGod.
Such an individual avoids heresy by remaining within the
confessional lines. Similarly, consider the view known as the
hypostatic union. The hypostatic union states that Jesus had
two natures, one being divine, and the other being human.
Butiftherearetwonatures,bothpossessingfullyfunctioning
cognitive faculties, how would there not be two persons
within the person of Christ? Indeed, that is proposed by the
Christological heresy known as Nestorianism. In the case of
the hypostatic union, adherents deny that there are two
personswithinChrist,eventhoughtheirviewlogicallyentails
it.Thiswouldnotbeaheresy.Itwouldbeaninconsistency.
Dr. William Lane Craig tried to solve this philosophical
problem by developing a Christological model that remained
withinconfessionallinesofthefulldeityandfullhumanityof
Christ. But he, also, was called a heretic where should have
been accused, at most, of inconsistency. Doctor Craig
proposes a model known as monophysitism. This is the
position that within the person of Christ, there is both a
totally divine and totally human nature, and they must have
somesortofcommonelementorlink.Thismeansthatfrom
eternity, God was an archetypical man. Just imagine your
mind with no limits. That would be God, on this model. So
God is, in himself, a rational soul. This would avert the
problemsofkenoticChristologyandthehypostaticunion.Yet
somepeoplewilllookatDr.Craig’smodelandaccusehimof
heresybecausetheythinkthathisviewimpliesthatJesuswas
not fully human. But, whether that is true or not, Craig
confessesthatJesuswasfullyhuman.Thusheremainswithin
theconfessionallines.Ifyouhadanychargetobringagainst
Dr. Craig, it would only be one of inconsistency. It would be
heresyonlyifheclaimedthatJesuswasnotfullyhuman.
This means that a person is guilty of heresy by their
confession,notbythelogicalimplicationsoftheirconfession.
Thatisimportantforustorememberasweengagewithour
brethren. For we will often find people who hold views that
arelogicallyinconsistent.Youmightfindpeoplewhoholdtwo
viewsthatcontradicteachother.Butyouwouldnotthinkto
accusethemofdenyingtheinerrancyofScripture.Theerror
issimplyinconsistency,andnotheresy.
Whatifsomebodyreallyisaheretic?
Ifweencounteranindividualthatreallyisaheretic,howdo
wereact?Doweusethewordhereticasaninsultthatwecan
lodge against them? I am not inclined to think that. If this
person has influence in the church, then they should be
exposed and anybody that they have influenced should be
educatedproperlyaboutthethingsthattheyhavetaught,for
teachersarejudgedharshly(James3:1).
But aside from that, this individual should be treated
evangelistically. If somebody denies the trinity, or that Jesus
died for our sins, or that he rose from the dead, or that
salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone, or that
that Bible is the word of God, we should treat this person
evangelistically.Weshouldprayforthemtocometofaithin
Christ.Weshouldleadthemtosavingfaithandhelpthemto
understand their errors. But we should not use the word
heresyasaninsultagainstthem.
JustaswedesireanylostpersontocometofaithinChrist,
soalsoweshoulddesireforthemtocometofaith.Weshould
employalloftheintellectualandspiritualresourcesthatGod
has given us to draw this person into faith, and we should
have patience, knowing that God works in his own time.
Heresy is a difficult thing to deal with. Especially when this
individual is claiming to be a Christian. It is hard and
emotionallytroublingforustosaythattheyarenot.
On the other hand, sometimes people are eager to call
somebody a heretic for the sake of their pride. Wisdom
dictatesthatweshouldnotbecarriedawaybyouremotions
intheseways.Ifsomebodyistrulyaheretic,weneedtotreat
themevangelisticallyandsharethegospelwiththemandbe
lovingtowardthem.
Chapter7–HowdowetreatbrothersinChrist?
ThereauniversalloveformankindthatChristiansarecalled
tomaintain.EvenwhileJesuswasbeingmurdered,hecalled
hisFathertoforgivethesinsofthesewhowerecrucifyinghim
(Luke23:24).Thereprobateandthepeoplewhowereoflittle
socialandmoralreputewerecalledtodinewithJesus
(Matthew9:10-13).Hetraversedbarriersthatwere
unthinkable,sothateventhemindsoftheprofessorsof
theologywouldboggleasJesusengagedwithimmoral
individuals(Luke7:39).Profoundly,hecalledhisfollowersto
dolikewise.HesaidinMatthew5:43-48thatwearetolove
notonlythosewholoveus.Wearetobekindnotonlyto
thosewhoarekindtous.Wearetobekindtoourenemies.
Wearetoblessthosewhocurseus.Thisisperhapsthemost
obviousevidenceoftheuniversalloveofGod.Forthe
reasoningthatheprovidesisthatweneedtobeperfect,just
asourFatherinHeavenisperfect(Matthew5:48).Thereason
forouruniversalloveistoreflecttheuniversalloveofGod.
AsdisciplesofJesus,wearecalledtoloveourenemies.This
meansthatthosewhohateus,thosewhopersecuteusfor
ourfaith,thosewhokidnaphoardsofschoolgirlsinAfricato
betherecipientsofuniversalChristianlove.Davidexemplified
thiswhenheforgaveSaulevenafteraboutofunjustified
persecution.Saulwassoovercomebythiskindnessthatthe
evilinhishearttemporarilysubsidedandhesaidin1Samuel
24:17,“YouaremorerighteousthanI,foryouhavedealtwell
withme,whileIHavedealtwickedlywithyou.”ThusDavid
showedthisgenerallovefortheuniversalclassoftheworld.
ThisisthesortoflovethatthediscipleofJesusiscommanded
todemonstrate.
Yetevenaswehaveagenerallovefortheworld,thereare
peopleinourlivesforwhomwehaveaspeciallove.Aman
willhaveaffectionandloveforhiswifeinawaythathedoes
notfortherestoftheworld.Hewilllovehischildrenand
desiretheirwell-beinginanincomparableway.Thismeans
thatwhilehehasageneralloveforeverybody,thereare
peopleinlifeforwhomhehasaspeciallove,asa
consequenceofhisspecialrelationship.
Thisbreedoflove,thisspeciallove,thatthedisciplesof
Jesusdemonstrate,isdirectedatthebodyofChrist.Thereisa
certainloveforourChristiansthatismeanttotranscendthe
lovethatwehavefortherestoftheworld.Thereisadeeper
affectionandunitywiththosewhoareinChrist.Wedesireto
sharewiththemanddesirethattheybeedifiedandcome
intoadeeperunderstandingofthetruth.Wedesireto
communewiththemandunderstandthemasindividuals.We
desiretoservethem.Wedesiretoshowlovefortheminsuch
awaythattheoutsiderswillknowthatwearedisciplesof
Jesussolelyonthebasisofthelovethatweshow.Jesustells
hisdisciplesinJohn13:34,“AnewcommandmentIgiveto
you,thatyouloveoneanother,evenasIhavelovedyou.”
Inthelastchapter,Ioutlinedwhatahereticis.Basedon
outline,weknowthatifanindividualisnotaheretic,and
theyhavenotbeenexcommunicatedbecauseofimmoral
behavior,thentheyaremembersofthevisiblechurchand
hencebrothersandsistersinChrist.Theyaretobethe
recipientofthespecialsortoflovethatwehaveforother
Christians.Thisloveisnotexclusivetoourdenominationor
peoplethatweknowverywell.Itisnotexclusivetothose
thatagreewithalloursecondarypropositions.Thisloveisfor
thebodyofChristasawhole.Itisforthevisiblechurch.
Ifweencountersomebodywhodoesnotfallintothe
perimeterofheresy,andwefindourselvesgettingfrustrated
withthem,weneedtorememberthattheyareourbrothers
andsistersinChrist.Theyaremembersofthesamebody,and
theywillonedaybeperfectedinChrist,broughttogloryand
immortality.Theyarebeingsanctifiedjustaswearebeing
sanctified.IfwewanttoedifytheChristianchurch,weneed
torememberwhoisintheChristianchurch.Wemustnot
treatpeopleasthoughtheywerehereticsjustbecausethey
disagreeaboutsomethingminor.Wemustalsonotbedriven
bypridesoastoshamesomebodyelsebyaccusingsucha
personofheresyasaninsult.Ahereticissomebodywho
violatesthecentraltenetsoftheChristianfaith.Theyarenot
somebodywhomakesyouangrynoraretheseindividuals
peoplewhodisagreeaboutsecondarydenominational
differences.ThusifwearetolovethebodyofChrist,weneed
torecognizetheirstandinginthebodyofChristandtreat
themwiththespeciallovethatwearecalledtohaveforour
fellowChristians.
Askthemfortheirtestimony.
Oftenwhenweencountersomebodywhoisquite
unpleasantandseemsinsufferabletobearound,wearequite
quicktojudgethatindividualonthebasisofwhatweseein
frontus.Wedonotwanttobearoundthemandwemight
makesnideremarkstorelayourdisdain.Wewilltalkabout
themintoourfriendssothatwecanexpressourfrustration
anddiscomfortwhenaroundthatindividual.Therearesome
peoplethatjustsubmittousimpressionsthatarelessthan
favorable.Sometimes,thatisevenintentional.Asa
psychologicalmaneuver,thisindividualisunpleasantjustasa
rejectionoftherestoftheworldbeforetheyarerejected.But
whenwebegintolearnthatthisindividualhasatragicpast
thathasdevelopedthemintothepersonthattheyaretoday,
aninklingofsympathymayariseandwemaywantto
befriendthispersonandrepentofournegativedisposition.
Whenoursympathyarises,itisnotbecauseanythinghas
reallychanged.Itisnotbecausetheyhaveresistedtheir
unpleasanttactics.Itisratherthanweunderstandwhatitis
thathasdriventhemtoemploytheseunpleasanttactics.They
havebeenrejectedsomanytimesintheirlifethattheyare
nowrejectingusbeforewehavetheopportunitytoreject
them.Thiswilloftengiveussympathyforanindividual.
Wemayevenfeelthissympathyforaviciouscriminalwhen
welearnofthebackgroundandhistorythathashonedhim
intothepersonthatheistoday.Hestilldeservestobe
punished,butwebegintowishthebestforhimanddesirefor
himtoreformhislife.Thereisacertainreminderthatthey
arepeoplewhenwelearnaboutwhathappenedintheirpast.
Theyarehumanized.Theybecomemorethanasourceof
discomfort.Theyarepeoplewhoarejustlikeuswhohave
gonethroughbadthingsandhaveconsequentlymadebad
decisions.Thatwillnotjustifythebaddecisions,butitwill
leadustogainacertainsympathyforthem,becausetheyare
justlikeusandwecanunderstandthecircumstancesthatled
themtothisposition.
Similarly,whenwelearnthetestimonyofafellowChristian,
webegintorelatetowhotheyareasbelievers.Weseethe
storyofeveryotherChristianthatweknowreflectedinthem.
Weseethebiblicalpromiseofsalvationcomingtolifebefore
oureyes.Thispersontellsusthattheywereonceanenemy
ofGod.Theyweredeadintheirsins,deadintheirtrespasses.
Theytellusoftheirformerbeliefs.Perhapstheydidnothave
any.Perhapstheyworkedfortheirentirelivestomerittheir
salvationanditallamountedtonaught.Perhapstheywere
hostiletoreligion,angrywithGod.Butthen,inaflashof
insight,Godemergedanddrewneartothem.Intheblinkof
aneye,theyknewtheirSavior.Theyknewthatwhilethey
weredeadintheirsins,GodhadmadethemaliveinChrist
Jesus(Ephesians2:5).TheyknowthattheirSaviorboretheir
sins,andtheytestifiedtoyouthat,asthehymnsays,theirsin,
notinpart,butthewhole,isnailedtothecross,andtheybear
itnomore.Theytellyouthattheoldmanisdeadanditisno
longertheywholive,butChristwholivesinthem(Galatians
2:20).TheyhaveputtheirtrustinChristalonefortheir
salvation.
Itseemstomethatthistestimonyisthegreatequalizer.It
isunthinkablethatwewouldcondemnapersonwhois
overflowingwithjoy,rejoicingthattheirSaviorlives.Itis
unthinkablethatwewouldallowourselvestobefrustrated
withthem.Instead,weinstantlywillbeovercomewiththe
desiretolovethemwiththespeciallovethatChrist
commanded.
WhatcanIlearnfromthem?
EveninthecaseofadissidentoftheChristianfaith,thereis
muchthatwecangleanfromthosewhoaremorelearned
thanwe.Manyprofessorsmaybenon-Christians,andyet
theyarequalifiededucatorsandworthyofourattentionand
diligentnotetaking.Youmayaskataxexpertacertain
questionabouthowtofilloutyourtaxes,butyouprobablydo
notqualifythatquestionbyaskingabouttheirreligious
affiliation.Thereismuchthatwecanlearnfromsecularfolks
whodonotidentifyasChristians.Butthereisasecondlevel
ofedificationthatcanbewroughtfromthosewhoarein
Christ.ThatisnottosaythatChristiansareinherentlymore
intelligent,forthatisobviouslynotso.Rather,itistosaythat
thespirituallymaturecanrelayspiritualtruthstoother.
Ifyoufindyourselfengagedinadebatewithafellow
Christian,andtheyconfesstheirloveforChristandtheirjoy
inthegospel,youmaybegintoaskyourselfnotnecessarily
whatitisthatyoudisagreeabout.Thatdisagreementmay
seemtofadeintoirrelevancyasyoulearntheiridentityin
Christ.Instead,youwillfindyourselfaskingwhatsortof
spiritualtrialsthispersonhasendured,andwhattheycantell
youaboutthem.HowhastheHolySpiritguidedtheirstudyof
theScripture?Howhavetheyovercomethequalmsthatyou
strugglewith?
Afterall,whileweareallunitedinChrist,wehavedifferent
backgroundsanddifferentexperiences.Sothereisspiritual
edificationthatcanbedrawnfromallotherChristians.They
arecertainlynotinfallible,andtheyearshaverevealedthatto
themaswell,butjustaswehavesomethingtoprovideto
otherChristians,soalsodotheyhavesomethingofvalueto
offertous.Itisamatterofmutualandequallearningfrom
thespiritualmaturityanddevelopmentofourfellowbeliever.
Theymayhavebeenconfrontedwithaddictionsor
proclivitiesthatwearetoday,ortheymayhaveendured
temptationsandknowhowtodealwiththemandteach
otherstodealwiththem.IfafellowChristianhasstruggled
withpornographyinthepastanditissomethingthatwe
strugglewithtoday,thenwemayaskthemforaguidinghand
inpullingusfromtheclutchesofthissinfulbehavior.Inthis
way,thequestionthatisbeforeusislessofwhatwedisagree
about.Whilethatmaybeaninterestingquestion,thatis
shouldnotbetheprimaryfocusofourattention.As
Christians,weshoulddesiretolearnfromeachotherand
teacheachotherwhatwecan.
Aswehavedevelopedthisrespectforthespiritual
testimonyofourfellowChristian,andtherespectfortheir
trialsandadversities,andwhattheycansharewithus,then
perhapsitwouldbeappropriatetoaskwhattheycanteach
usaboutthedoctrineaboutwhichwehappentodiverge.
Afterall,ifyouweretopluckoutthisparticulardoctrine,the
Christianfaithwouldnotcollapse.Therefore,youmayhave
misinterpretedtherelevantpassages.SincetheHolySpirit
guidesintoalltruth,itmaybethecasethattheHolySpirithas
guidedthemtoproperlyunderstandthepassageunder
question.Askyourselfwhetherthisisevenpossible.Examine
thetext.Examinethebiblicaldata.Askyourselfiftheyare
beingreverenttothetextandperhapsitisyouwhoneedsto
becalledintosubmission.Inthisway,weareexemplifyinga
desiretolearnfromourbrethren.Ifwefindthatwestill
disagreewithwhattheyaresaying,thenattheveryleast,we
cansaythatweunderstandwhattheyaresayingand
understandwhatledthemtothatparticularinterpretation.
Areyoujusttryingtowintheargument?
WhenaChristianisinsecureaboutthebeliefsthatthey
hold,theywillsometimesgoinsearchofpassagesthatprove
thattheirpositionisbiblicallyviableandthatthealternativeis
non-viable.Ifyouweretolookattheirpersonalnotes
scribbledintotheBible,youwouldseethattherewasalotof
mentionofrefuting,disproving,orprovingandestablishing.
Suchapersonseemstobemoreinterestedintheacademic
elementoffaithasopposedtothereverentelementoffaith.
Theymayalsobeinsecureaboutthebeliefsthattheyhold,so
theyarealwayslookingforsomethingestablishestheirbelief
orrefutesalternativebeliefs.Ofcourse,itshouldbepointed
outthatanhonestandreverentstudyoftheScripturewill
establishcertaintruthsorrefutecertainpropositions,butthat
shouldnotbeyourgoaleverytimeyouopentheBible.Inthe
caseofsuchpeople,theirstudyoftheScripturewilloften
degenerateintoanexerciseofwinninganargumentwitha
hypotheticalintellectualopponent.Yetwhensomebodyholds
thisdisposition,thiswillspilloverintotheirconversations
withindividualswithwhomtheydisagree.
Whenweareinterestedinrefutingcertainpropositions,
thenourconversationsabouttheissueswillprobablynotlook
likeanopenandhonestengagementwithwhattheother
personissaying.Theywilllooklikeexercisesinrefutation.
Theywilllooklikeyouarejusttryingtowintheargument
withthem.Butasyouengageinthatsortofactivity,asyou
trytowintheargumentaboutsecondarydenominational
issues,itseemstomethatyouwouldbemaintainingan
attitudewhereinyouarenotinterestedinwhattheother
personhastosay.Youarejusttryingtopoundtheirpoints
intotheground.
Itshouldbenotedthatthereisnothingwrongwithagood
andhealthydebate.Everybodyenjoysdebates.Peopletend
tolearnmorefromadebatethanfromalecture,becauseina
debate,youdiveintothespecificnuancesthatseparateone
positionfromanotherandlearnwhyitisthatsomebody
thingsthattheirinterpretationofsomepieceofdatais
correctandsuperiortothealternative.Debatescanbequite
useful.Butinthecontextofapersonalconversation,debates
areonlyusefulwhentheyendisindeterminingtruthor
modifyingyourinterpretationoftruth.Ifyouarejusttryingto
winthedebateorpoundtheotherpersonintotheground,
thenneitherpartyisreallygaininganythingfromthat
exercise.
Thetwoofyouwouldjustsortofbetalkingpasteachother
andgettingfrustratedasyoutrytodefeattheotherpoints
thatareraisedasopposedtounderstandthepointsthatare
raisedanddevelopyourunderstandingoftruthonthebasis
ofwhatisbeingsaid.
Itseemstomethatthepropermethodofdebatinginthe
contextofapersonalone-on-oneconversationisnotonethat
istryingtowintheargument.Thisrealityemergesespecially
inthecontextofthisrelationshipbetweenbrothersinChrist.
ForwealreadyagreeonthecoreoftheChristianfaith.The
persontowhomwearespeakinghasatestimonythat
correspondswithorthodoxy.TheylovetheLordandare
laboringtodohiswill.Thequestionthatweshouldaskisnot
howwecanwintheargument.Thequestionthatweshould
askisratherhowwe,asChristians,canedifyeachotherand
useourdivergenceviewsanddifferenceexperiencestocome
toamoreprofoundunderstandingofthetruth.Oneofusis
obviouslyright.Truthisnotrelative.Butweneedtofocuson
thatquestion.Thequestionis,“whatisthetruth?”The
questionisnot,“AmIright,andishewrong?”
Whatiftheyarejusttryingtowintheargument?
Youmayfindthatyouareemployingproperconversational
etiquette.Youareresolvingtofindtruthandnotnecessarily
tryingtopoundyourbrotherorsisterinChristintothe
ground.YouareproperlyapplyingwhatIhaveoutlined.But
supposethattheyarenotapplyingconversationetiquette.
Supposethatthisindividualisnotlisteningtoyouandisjust
tryingtowintheargument.
Well,youwillrecallthatinchapter4,Iexplainedthe
wisdominProverbs26:4-5,whichessentiallyinformsusthat
insomesituations,weshouldengageindebatewiththis
individualsoastodisarmandexposethem,whileinothers,it
isbesttojustwalkaway.Thatprincipleiscertainlyapplicable
here.Weshouldapplywisdomanddiscernmenttodetermine
whattheappropriateresponseis.
Iwouldliketosuggestthattheremightbeanalternative.
Wemaynotnecessarilyhavetocombatanegativesituation.
Instead,wecanreconstructthesituationsothatitisno
longernegative.Wecantranscendthedebatethatweare
havingwithourfriendandinformthemofthedifferent
approachestoconversationalethicsthatthetwoofyouare
applying.
Whileyouwanttorelaytruthandunderstandwhatthey
arerelaying,itseemsasthoughtheyaremoreinterestedin
winningtheargument.Letthemknowthatyouarenotreally
interestedindeterminingwhowouldwinthisparticular
argument.Thatisjustnotaninterestingquestion.Adopta
stanceofhumilitybyconcedingthatyouthinkthatthey
wouldwintheargument.Butthatdoesnotleadyoutoany
particularconclusionaboutthetruth-valueoftheir
proposition.
Explaintothispersonthevalueinedifyingdialogue.Explain
tothemthatbytryingtounderstandeachother,youcan
comeintoagreaterknowledgeofnotonlyeachother,but
alsowhattheBiblesays.Alternativeinterpretationscan
certainlyleadustoagreaterwealthofunderstandingofthe
textofScripture.Explainthatwhenthetwoofyouarejust
tryingtowintheargument,youenduptalkingpasteach
other.Youendupexercisinglessthought.Forratherthan
trulyconsideringthepointsthatareraised,youmerelylook
forwaystorefuteitandpointoutthefirstthingthatcomes
tomind,orpointoutsomethingthatyouhaveheardbefore
withoutconsideringthatwhattheyaresayingmightbetrue.
Debaterswhojustwanttowintheargumentwillinvariably
talkpasteachotherandbedeniedtheopportunityforan
openandhonestfriendship,asyouwillfindyourself
frustratedwiththisindividual.
Ifapersonisjusttryingtowintheargumentthattheyare
havingwithyou,thencallthemtoexaminetheirbehavior.
Perhapsthereisawaytodothiswithoutbeingaccusingor
reflectinganauraofself-satisfaction.Suggestthatthe
conversation,ratherthantheperson,isofatonethatseems
likeitisangledtowardonesidewinningtheargumentrather
thanbothpartiesengaginginmutualedification.Incallingthis
individualtoreflectontheirapproachtothedialogue,you
canescapethisnegativesituationwhilealsoturningitintoa
positiveone.AsChristians,weshouldbeabletohavepositive
andedifyingconversationswithourbrethren.Weshould
desiretolearnfromeachotherandshouldfinelytuneour
approachtoconversationsothatwewilllearnfromeach
other.If,however,theyrejectthat,thenyouwouldexercise
Proverbs26:4-5,anddecidewhetheryoushoulddisarmthem,
lesttheybewiseintheirowneyes,orwalkawayfromthe
conversation,lestyoubejustasfoolishasthey.
SocialNetworking
Theflourishingofscientificnaturalismhasusheredinan
ageoftechnologicaladvancement,somuchsothatthis
generationisknownastheDigitalAge.Allofourinformation
hasbeencomputerized.Ourmostefficientresourcesareon
computers.Ourprimarymodeofcommunicationwithother
peopleisonthecomputer.Yetthischauffeurswithitcertain
difficultiesthatwouldhavebeenutterlyunknowntothe
apostles.
IfItriedtoexplaintheconceptofablogorawebsitetothe
apostlePaul,hewouldbebewilderedbythebizarrelanguage
thatIwouldbeusing.IfItoldhimthatIcouldwrite60words
perminute,whilethatmaynotbeimpressivetomany
readers,itwouldbemindbogglingtohewhocouldonlywrite
inwhatwenowcalllonghandwithwritingutensilsthatare
lessthanefficient.HowwouldhereactifItoldhimthatI
couldcommunicatewithsomebodyacrosstheworldinan
instant?HowwouldhereactifItoldhimthatIcould
distributehisletterstothousandsofpeopleinjustafew
moments?Howwouldhereacttothingsliketheprinting
press?Whilethesemoderninnovationsarecertainlyoneof
themostimpressiveaccomplishmentsinthehistoryof
mankind,theyalsohostcertaindifficultiesthatwere
unknowntotheChristiansofhistory.
WhenIhaveanindividualwithwhomIdisagreeinfrontof
me,itisquiteeasytobesympatheticwiththemandkindto
them.IammuchmorecarefultofiltermywordssothatIdo
notoffendthemorsaysomethingthatcomesoffasmeanspirited.Ontheotherhand,ifIwereontheInternet,
communicatingwithbrethren,itiseasytoavoidpersonifying
them.Theyhavejustbecomeapicturewithafewwordsnext
toit.Sometimestheymightevenhavealittlecartoon,soin
theiranonymity,theyseemlesshuman.Itissortoflike
driving.Itiseasytogetangrywithsomebodyintraffic
becausetheyarejustavague,“thatguy,”or“thatslowcar.”
Theyarenotpersonified.Similarly,whenweengagein
dialoguewithpeopleonthesesocialnetworks,theyarejust
notpersonifiedanditisdifficultformanytoseethemassuch.
ThismeansthatImaybeinclinedtojustsaywhateverison
mymind,whetherthatentailscallingthemaheretic,calling
themun-thoughtful,oranythingelsethatmightcometo
mind.
ButwhenwearecommunicatingwithourfellowChristians
onthesesocialnetworkingsites,itismypositionthatwe
needtobemorereserved.Weneedtowatchourselvesmore
closelythanwenormallywould.Weneedtofilterwhatwe
aresaying.Ifwefindourselvestypinguparesponsewhilewe
areangry,weshouldanalyzeitbeforepressingsendandask
ourselvesifwewouldsaythattosomebodyiftheywerein
person.Weshouldweighourwordsmorecarefullythanwe
wouldinthemostusualcontexts.Everythingwewanttosay
shouldbequalifiedbytherealitythatthispersonisabrother
orsisterinChristandtheydeserveyourrespect.Weshould
exemplifytheprinciplesthatIhaveoutlined,butbemore
vigilantinourself-assessmentbecausewhenwearetalking
onsocialnetworks,itissoimpersonalthatitiseasyforusto
allowourselvestogetsolostintheargumentationthatwe
forgetourselves.Remembertheirtestimony.Ifyouhavenot
heardit,rememberthattheyhaveone.Iftheydonothave
one,iftheyarenotbornagainChristians,thenpointingthat
outasanemotionalinsultisunhelpful.Everythingyousayon
socialnetworksshouldbementallyqualifiedandcarefully
orchestratedsothatyoudonotdirectallofyourfrustration
tothisperson.
Unifiedforevangelism.
Thereisacertaineffortandtaskthatiscentraltothe
Christianlife.Itisthepurposeforlivingintheworldrather
thanhavingbeenhoistedintoHeaventhemomentwe
becameChristians.Godhassoordainedthatpeoplewould
cometofaithbyoursharingthegospelwiththem.Itisour
dutyasChristianstorelaythedeathofChristforoursinsto
otherpeople.Butwedonotdopracticethisaslonewolves.
Instead,weuniteasthebodyofChristtosharethegospel
withtheworld.Thismeansthatweuniteevenwiththose
withwhomwehavesecondarydifferences.
Howcanwedothat,though?Supposethenthatifwejoin
intheevangelisticeffortofsomebodywithadifferenceof
opinion.Thatmeansthatwhentheydrawsomebodyintothe
faithundertheprovidenceandleadingofGod,thentheywill
relaytheirsecondarydifferencetothisindividual.Theywill
teachthemsomethingthatyouregardasanerror.Well,this
meansthatyouwillhaveanewbrotherorsisterinChristwith
whomyoudisagree.IsitnotbettertohaveabrotherinChrist
withwhomyoudisagreethantoseethatpersondieintheir
sins?
Therearetimesthatweneedtoleaveourdifferences
aside.Wecannotmakeourdifferencesintoeverything.They
mattertoanextent.ButinthecentralmissionoftheChristian
church,itcouldbearguedthatsolongastheyarenot
heretical,thesedifferencesdonotreallymatter.
ArminiansandCalvinistsshouldworkinthemissionfield
togethertopreachthegospeldespitetheirdisagreements.
Thoughtheymaydisagreewitheachother,theyneedto
agreethatneitherpositioncompromisedthecentralChristian
message.IfanArminianleadsomeonetofaithandconvinces
themofthedoctrineoflibertarianfreedomofthewill,then
youwillhaveanotherbrotherinChristwhohappenstobean
Arminian.Similarly,ifaCalvinistleadssomebodytofaithand
convincesthemtobelieveinthedoctrinesofgraceand
compatibilisticfreedom,thenyouwillhaveabrotherinChrist
whobelievesCalvinistictheology.
Weneedtounderstandthatourdifferencesmaybe
important,buttheyarenoteverything.Ourdifferencesdo
notcompromisetheChristianfaith.Ourdifferencesneedto
besetasideinmostcasesfortheedificationofthebodyof
Christ.ThenaswewinpeopletofaithinChrist,aswesee
thesenewtestimoniesemerging,wroughtbysomeonewho
maintainsatheologicalsystemthatwedisagreewith,wewill
understandthevalueofunitydespiteourdisagreements.As
SaintAugustinesaid,inessentials,unity,innon-essentials,
liberty,inallthings,charity.
Chapter8–CanChristiansBelieveInAnOldEarth?
Inthelastfewcenturieswiththeriseofmodernscience,
therehaseruptedastormofcontroversyovertheageofthe
earthandwhatsortofsynergismcouldexistbetweenmodern
scienceandthebiblicaldata.JustasChristianshavethought
thatthesunrevolvesaroundtheearthandthattheuniverse
iseternalonthebasisofAristotelianphilosophy,soalsohave
Christiansthroughouthistorybelievedthattheearthisjusta
fewthousandsyearsoldonthebasisofaparticular
interpretationofthefirstelevenbooksoftheBible.This
interpretationhasextendedintothemoderndayoverand
againstthescientificconsensus.
Despitethetheologicalmotivationfortheendeavorof
science,secularistshavelaboredtopaintthediscoveryof
scientificdatathatrevealsthattheearthisoldasonethat
compromisestheChristianfaith.Thiscampaignpromulgates
theportrayaloftheChristianfaithasonethatopposes
science.Wearesoldthememethatsaysthatwehaveto
choosebetweenfaithandscience.Butwecannothaveboth.
However,ratherthanchallengingtheparadigm,folkshave
beeninclinedtoacceptthisradicalmisrepresentation,and
simplychoosefaithoverscience.Thuswearetoldtoaccept
faithandrejectmodernscience.
Throughoutthecenturies,Christianshavealways
maintainedonthebasisofthebiblicaldatathattheuniverse
isfiniteinthepast,whilethesecularistswouldmaintainthat
theuniverseiseternal,anduncaused,soastocircumventthe
theologicalimplicationsofafiniteuniverse.Butwiththe
discoveryoftheBigBang,theChristianpositionofafinite
pastisvindicated.Alas,inastrokeofirony,Christianshave
cometorejecttheBigBangpreciselybecauseitispartin
parceltothescientificparadigm.Wehavebeensoldthis
memeoftheChristianfaithwhereinweeitherhavetoaccept
Christianityoracceptthepursuitsofscience.
Unfortunately,manyChristiansmaintainthismeme.There
arelargeandwell-fundedorganizationsthatpromoteviews
thatareinherentlyunscientificbecausetheybelievethattheir
interpretationoftheBibleisfundamentaltotheChristian
faithandanythingelsewouldbeacompromisetobiblical
authority.Sinceitisacompromisetobiblicalauthority,
anybodywhopromotessuchaviewbecomesacompromiser.
Withthatlastsentence,itmaybecomeclearwhyitisthatI
thoughtitimportanttoincludeachapteraboutthecreation
controversyinthisbook.ManyChristiansstandpoisedto
pointthefingeratthosewithwhomtheydisagreeoverthe
ageoftheearth.IfaChristianbelievesthattheearthisold,
theyarehastilylabeledacompromiser,somebodywhodoes
notcareaboutbiblicalauthorityandsomebodywhoismore
interestedinthewordofmanthanthewordofGod.The
proponentofoldearthcreationistoldthattheyaretwisting
theScripture,assumingthattheearthisoldandloadingtheir
scientificeffortintothebiblicaldata.
OtherswillmaintainthattheChristianwhobelievesinan
oldearthisnotreallysaved.Theydenytheauthorityof
Scripture,andhenceuprootthefoundationforthedeityof
Christ,hisdeathonthecross,orhisresurrectionfromthe
dead.TheChristianswhobelieveinanoldeartharethought
ofasheretics,whostandoutsideofthebodyofChrist.Atthe
veryleast,theyarethoughtofassecond-classChristianswho
maintainthissinfuldispositionoftwistingtheScripturetofit
theirscientificagenda.
Faithoreducation?
Lackingthetimeortheresourcestohome-schooltheir
children,mostparentsarequitesatisfiedtosendthemtothe
publicschoolsystem.Withinthepublicschoolsystem,they
aretypicallytaughtthetheoriesofscientificdata,includingan
overviewofhumanevolution,ortheageoftheearth,or
carbondatingandhowitrevealsthattheageofcertain
fossils.Thechildwhodiligentlypaysattentionintheseclasses
willfindthattheyarechallengedbytheopposingviewthatis
presentedbytheirlocalchurch,iftheirlocalchurchteachesa
brandofyoungearthcreationism.Sincethechilddoesnot
knowanythingaboutChristiantheology,theywillassumethat
theclergyisspeakingauthoritativelyinrepresentingwhatthe
Bibleteaches.
Theywillbelefttocontemplatepreciselythedilemmathat
thesecularistadvocates.Theyarelefttochoosebetween
theireducationandtheirfaith.Theymay,foratime,continue
intheirscientificpursuitandnotworryabouthowitaligns
withtheChristianfaith.Buteventually,thecontradictionwill
emergeandwillbeprevalentintheirlives.Atsomepoint,
theywillhavetodeterminewhetherfaithorsciencewilldrive
them.
Sincepeopleinthewesternculturearechildrenof
Descartes,emergentoftheRenaissance,wearequite
rationalisticandapttoshunanti-intellectualism.Ifwehaveto
takeastancethatforcesustoshutourbrainsoff,thatisquite
difficulttodo,especiallywiththeeraofinformation.Weare
justnotkeentodenythepursuitofscience.Wewanttoknow
whatistrue.Thechildwhoischoosingbetweentheirfaith
andwhatisbeingtaughtintheclassroomwillwanttoknow
whatistrue.
Further,itseemstobequiteadangerousendeavorthat
tellschildrentocastdoubtuponwhattheyarelearninginthe
classroom.Perhapswecanbegintotellthemthattheyshould
heedadivinetheoryofmathematicsasopposedtowhattheir
teachersarerelayingtothem.Inteachingthemyoungearth
creationism,parentswillfindthattheirchildrenareisolated
fromtheireducation.Theireducationwillbecompromised,
andtheywillnotknowwhattobelieve.Whentheyfinallydo
decidetobelievetheireducation,theirfaithwillbe
compromised.
Thisistosaythatweshouldsympathizewithwhyitisthat
peoplewoulddesiretofindasuitablesynergismbetweenthe
biblicaldataandthescientificdata.Peoplearejustnot
interestedinanti-intellectualism.Byteachingthatthe
scientificdataiswrong,thatalloftheirclassesandeducation
needtobeoverthrowninfavorofyoungearthcreationism,
wearesettingupadichotomybetweeneducationandfaith.
Itseemstheintelligentpersonwoulddenythatdichotomy.
Theintelligentpersonwouldsuggestthattherecouldbea
synergybetweenscienceandfaith,andweneednotcommit
ourselvestoyoungearthcreationismtobeapiousChristian.
Sharingthegospelwithascientist.
Iftherewereapopularworldreligionthattaughtthatthe
earthwasflat,andtheyapproachedyoutosharetheir
message,youwouldrejectitoutofhandbecauseyouknow
thattheyclaimtohavedivinerevelationaboutsomething
thatismanifestlyfalse.Itisanelementofanancientscheme
ofinterpretingthenaturalrealm,whichweknowtodaytobe
false.Inourdayofscientificnaturalism,weknowthatthe
earthisnotflat.Weknowthis.Thisistestableand
discernableinstantlytoanybodywhocanlookthrougha
telescopeknowsthattheearthisround.
Butlet’ssupposethattheseindividualstoldusthatwehave
startedwiththepresuppositionthattheearthisround,and
interpretedtheevidenceinlightofthatpresupposition.So
anytimewelookattheevidence,wewouldhavetofititinto
ourparadigm.Theevidencedoesnotmattersomuch.
Instead,whatmattersiswhatwehaveassumedtobetrue.
Theytellusthatifyoustartinsteadwiththeassumptionthat
theearthisflat,andinterprettheevidenceinlightofthat
assumption,theneverythingwillbegintofallintoplace.
Wemightposethequestionofwhywewouldstartwith
thatassumption.TheyreplythatGodhasrevealeditinholy
writ.Soweappealtoagreaterauthoritythanthescientific
pursuit.WeappealtoGod,andonthebasisofhisrevelation,
weinterprettheevidenceinlightofourassumptionthatthe
earthisflat.Wouldyoufindthiscompelling?Supposethis
groupapproachedsomebodywhohadabackgroundin
science.Wouldtheyfinditcompelling?
Averycloseparallelistobedrawntotheyoungearth
movement.Fortheyinformusthattheonlywaytobefaithful
tothescientificdataistointerpretitinlightofbiblical
revelation.Theysuggestthatsecularistsstartwiththe
assumptionthattheearthisoldandthusinterpreteverything
withinthatassumption,whileChristiansstartwiththe
assumptionthattheearthisyoungandinterpreteverything
withinthatassumption.Theproblemisthatthisisnothow
somebodyapproachesscience.Onedoesnotassumethatthe
earthisold.Theyexaminethedataandconcludethatthe
earthisoldonthatbasis.
Ifwearetellingascientistthattheyneedtostartwiththe
assumptionthattheearthisyoungandinterpretthedata
withinthatframework,wearetellingthemtoabandonthe
scientificmethod.Wearetellingthemthattheyhaveto
abandontheirworkasascientist,foriftheywanttoexamine
thedata,theyneedtostartwithanassumptionaboutwhat
thedatawillsay.Thatisinstarkcontrastwiththescientific
method.
Wecanscarcelycondemnthescientistwhorejectsthis
approachtoChristiantheism.TheChristianwhotellsthe
scientistthattheyhavefreedomtopursueGod’srevelationin
naturewithoutpresuppositionalconstraintsistheChristian
whowillhavemoresuccessinevangelism.
Therearedifferentinterpretations.
Thosewhoadheretotheyoungearthcreationistmodelwill
oftenaccusealternativemodelsofcompromisingthetextand
forcingGodtosubmittothescientificendeavor.Butthis
chargeunsympatheticallyseemsakintoaccusinganybody
withanyinterpretationofcompromisingScripture.Ifany
personhasanyinterpretationwithwhichIdisagree,Ihave
theoptionofaccusingthemofloadingtheirtraditionortheir
desiresintothetextwithouthonestlyexaminingit.Ican
alwaysdothat.Butasageneralprinciple,Ichoosetogive
peoplethebenefitofthedoubtandassumethattheyare
beinghonestintheirexegesisandtheirdesiretounderstand
whattheBiblesays.
Thisisaluxurythatneedstobegrantedtothosewhohold
alternativeinterpretationsofcreationnarrativeintheBible.
ForitisnotasthoughtheyarejustrejectingtheBibleinfavor
ofscience.Itisnotasthoughthesefolksaresayingthatthese
chaptersoftheBiblearefalse.Insteadtherearelegitimate
literalinterpretationsofthefirstchapteroftheBiblethat
maintainbiblicalauthority.
Perhapsthemostobviousexampleofaliteral
interpretationofthefirstchapterofGenesiswouldbethe
day-ageinterpretation,whichsuggeststhatthedaysin
Genesis1areliteralepochs,theyarelongperiodsoftime.
Thiswouldnotbetakenasametaphoricaldaythough,
becausetheworddayisoftenusedinScripturetodenotea
longperiodoftime,suchasintheverynextchapter,in
Genesis2:4.Thisviewwoulddrawsupportfromthefactthat
24hourdayswerecreatedinthefourthcreationepoch,in
wasGenesis1:14.If24hourdayswerecreatedduringthe
fourthday,howcoulditbesothatthefirst3were24-hour
days?Similarly,itdrawssupportfromtheextensionofthe7th
epochintothepresentday,accordingtoHebrews4:4-5.Ifthe
7thdayisanepoch,thisseemsquitesuggestiveoftherestof
thechapter.
Thisshouldnotbetakenasastatementofsupportofthe
day-agemodel.Butrather,itistosaythatthisisapossible
approachtointerpretingScripture,andthereisnoreasonto
thinkthatsomebodywholooksatthisbiblicaldatathatIhave
presentedisbeingdishonest.Theymayevenbewrong.But
justbecausetheyarewrong,thatdoesnotleadusto
questiontheirmotivesortosuggestthattheydonotcare
whattheBiblesaysorthattheyjustwanttoloadmodern
scienceintothetext.Weshouldgivepeoplethebenefitofthe
doubt,especiallyconsideringthatthealternative
interpretationsarenotimplausible.
Further,ifwewanttorelatetoourbrothersinChrist,we
shouldrespectthemenoughtonotquestiontheirmotives,
andacknowledgethattherearedifferentinterpretations.Just
asIwouldnotbeinclinedtoquestionthemotivesof
somebodywhobelievedininfantbaptism,soalsoweshould
notbeinclinedtoquestionthemotivesofsomebodywho
believesinanoldearth.
Whatguidesourinterpretation?
Supposeyouencounteredanatheistoranon-believerwho
toldyouthattherewerealloftheseinconsistencieswithin
theBible.TheBibleisnotonlyself-contradictory,butitalso
contradictsknownfactsabouttheworld.Theymighteven
accusetheBibleofbeingtheflatearthbookthatImentioned
above.Inrenderingthischarge,theywouldappealtothings
suchasstatementslikethefourcornersoftheearth.They
mightchargeitagainsttheBiblethatitmaintainsthatthesun
revolvesaroundtheearth,citingstatementssuchasthe
settingsun.
Theseareknownfactsaboutthenaturalworldthatthe
Bibleseemstocontradict.Inresponseyouwouldberightto
pointoutthattheBibleoftenusesphenomenallanguage.This
meansthattheauthorisjustwritingwhattheyseeandwhat
isgoingonfromtheirperspective.Buttheyarenotteachinga
scienceclass.Weseethesamethinginmodernnewsoutlets,
whichwouldinformusaboutthetimeofthesunsetorthe
sunrise.Butwedonotaccusetheseoutletsofinaccuracy.
Well,whatyouhavedoneinthiscaseistotakeyour
knowledgeofthephysicalworldandloaditintotheBible.
Youhavepresumedthatthescientificrecordistrueand
foundasuitableinterpretationthatcorrespondswiththe
scientificrecord.Thequestioniswhetheryouareguiltyof
compromisingtheScripture.
Theobviousansweristhatofcourseyouarenot.Forthe
scientificrecordistrue.Thatisnottosaythateverythingthat
sciencerevealsistrue.Buteverythingthatthenaturalworld
revealsistrue.Itisuponthisfoundationthatscienceisbuilt.
Theuniverseisrational.Thatnotionhasbeenchallengeda
fewtimesinhistory,suchaswhenyoungandhealthy
individualswereinfectedwiththeBlackPlaguewhilethe
sicklyanddecrepitwerenot.Inourrationalisticsociety,we
acknowledgethattheuniverseiscomprehensible.Itisnot
nonsense.Whatwedrawfromthenaturalworldisaccurate.
Thuswhenwediscerntruthinthenaturalworld,andthere
isabiblicaltextthatseemstocontradictthat,whatisthe
properapproach?Sincewhatthenaturalworldrevealsis
true,andwhattheBiblerevealsistrue,itseemstometobe
appropriatetoquestionourinterpretationofboth.Our
interpretationofeitherthenaturalworldorthebiblicaldata
iswrong.Itmayjustbethatourinterpretationofthebiblical
dataiswrongwhileourinterpretationofthenaturalworldis
correct.Butweneedtodiscernwhichoftheseisthecase.
Thismeansthatwhenapersonistryingtounderstandthe
biblicaldatainlightofsomescientificrevelation,theyarenot
uprootingbiblicalauthority.Rather,theyarechallengingtheir
interpretationoftheBible.TheBibleisstillauthoritativeand
inerrantevenifmyinterpretationoftheBiblehappenstobe
flawed.
Thisisnotfoundational.
Inanattempttoraisethestakes,manyadherentstothe
youngearthmodelhavesuggestedthattheissueof
interpretingGenesis1incorrespondencewithayoungearth
isafoundationalissue.Thatistosaythattocompromiseit
leavesustoquestionanythingthatwefindintheBible.Any
biblicaldatathatrevealsamiraculouseventiscalledinto
question.IfwecansaythatGenesis1correspondswith
modernscience,thenperhapswecansaythatthe
resurrectionofJesusdidnothappen,becausescienceclaims
thatmendonotrisefromthedead.
Well,asalarmingasitwouldbetosuggestthatJesusdid
notreallyrisefromthedead,Iamafraidthatthisfearisquite
misguided.Formodernsciencemakesnoclaimsabout
whetherGodiscapableofraisingmenfromthedead.Science
doesnottellusthatGoddoesnotexist.Sciencedoesnottell
usthatmiraclesdonotoccur.Itmakesnoclaimsaboutsuch
things.
Whatsciencetellsusisthatmendonotrisefromthedead
naturally.Onthebasisofthisscientificdata,Iwouldbe
convincedthatJesusdidnotrisefromthedeadbynatural
means.Herosefromthedeadbysupernaturalmeans;
namely,GodraisedJesusfromthedead.Sothisclaimthatan
alternativeinterpretationofGenesis1compromisesthe
resurrectionisjustmisguided.
Forustobecompelledtofollowthescientificdatawhereit
leadsisnotsomethingthatshouldbefrighteningto
Christians.ItshouldbeexcitingtoChristians.Godcreatedthis
world,andbecauseofthat,thereisawealthofknowledge
andlatitudeforustodiscover.Wemustnotworrythat
somewhereoutthere,hiddenunderarockoratthetopofa
mountainorinthedistantcosmos,wewillfindsomething
thatcontradictstheBible.AsfaithfulChristians,wecansimply
trustGodandcontinuetofollowthescientificevidence
whereveritmayleadwithfullassurancethatGod’swordwill
standfirmlyandunshakablywhenchallenged.Wecanbe
confidentandhavefaithinGodandinhiswordthatnothing
willemergethatwillcontradictourfaith.
Forourfaithisbasedinnotthenaturalworldbutinthe
supernaturalworld.ThecentralclaimsoftheChristianfaith
aretheologicalclaims.IfIweretocompromisethem,Iwould
havetoconjureupatheologicalheresy.Iwouldhavetosay
thatGoddoesnotexist,orthatGoddidnotraiseJesusfrom
thedead,orthatJesusdidnotdieforthesinsofhispeople,
orthatsalvationdoesnotcomebyfaith.
Thesearenotclaimswithwhichsciencehasanyoverlap
withatall.Thesearetheologicalpropositions.IfIsaythatthe
rocksonthegroundexceedwhattheyoungearthmodel
indicates,Ihavenotcompromisedanyofthesecorebeliefs.
Theageoftheearthisasecondarybelief.Ifyoupluckthat
threadfromthespider’sweb,nothingunravels.
WastheredeathbeforetheFall?
Withinayoungearthmodel,AdamandEvewerethefirst
twohumanbeingsandtheyonlyconsumedfruitand
vegetables.Similarly,theanimalsonlyconsumedfruitand
vegetables.Thereweredinosaurs,alligators,dogs,andthey
wereallfriendly.Theyweretameanimalsthatdidnot
consumeeachother.But,whenAdamandEvesinnedagainst
God,theentireworldwasaccursedbecauseofthem.Animals
begantoeateachother.Thegroundproducesthornsand
thistles.Priortothispoint,therewasnodeath.Animalsdid
notdie.AnimalswereimmortaluntiltheFall.Thiswoulddraw
supportfromRomans5:12,whichinformsusthatdeathcame
asaconsequenceofsin.
Thisiscontrastedagainsttheoldearthmodel,whichwill
oftensuggestthathumanbeingsdidnotdiebeforetheFallof
AdamandEve.Theoldearthcreationistwilloftensuggest
thatwhileanimalsdied,humanbeingsdidnotdie.They
wouldinterpretRomans5:12asreferringtothedeathof
humanbeingsratherthanthedeathofanimals.This
chauffeurswithitanassumptionthatyoungearthcreationists
finddisturbing.God’soriginalcreationhadanimalseating
eachother.DoesthisimpugnthegoodnessofGod?Whydid
Godsaythattheearthwas“verygood”(Genesis1:31)?
Iwouldcallthereadertorecallthetheodicythatwelearn
inthebookofJob.Jobenduredseveralhardships,including
thelossofhisland,hisservants,hisfamily,andhishealth.His
friendstellhimthathemusthavecommittedsomesinfor
whichGodispunishinghim.ButJobpersistsincertaintyofhis
innocence.Inthatrespect,heiscorrect.Itwasnotforsinthat
Godpunishedjob.SohequestionedGod.Hemultipliedwords
againstGod,demandinganexplanation.
WhenGodfinallyappearedtohiminchapter38,Jobwas
overwhelmedbyGod’spresence.Therighteousnessand
holinessandwisdomofGodwereprobablyinstantlyapparent
tohim.Hemayhavesaidsomethingsimilartowhenthe
prophetIsaiahsawGod.“Woetome,forIamruined!
BecauseIamamanofuncleanlips,andIliveamongapeople
ofuncleanlips!”(Isaiah6:5).ThedivineresponsetoJobwas,
“Whoisitthatdarkensmycounselbywordswithout
knowledge?”(Job38:2).
ThenheposedseveraldozenrhetoricalquestionstoJob
demonstratingthathewasamerehuman,andcouldnot
questionGod.Godismorerighteousandwiseandlovingthan
weare.AsChristians,weneedtojustfollowhimandassume
thatheknowsmorethanwedo.
Imaginethatyouhadagorgeouscarpet.Butitisflipped
over.Youcanonlyseetheundersideofthecarpet.Fromthat
limitedperspective,youmightbeinclinedtothinkthatitwas
anuglycarpet.Butwhenitisflippedover,youwill
understandwhytheundersidehadtolooklikethat.Likewise,
whentherugofthisworldisflippedover,wewillunderstand
whatGodhadinmind.Youcouldspendyourlifeworrying
abouteverysinglethread,oryoucouldjustputyourtrustin
God,whoiswiserthanwe.
TheyoungearthcreationistwhowantstoproposethatGod
isevilforcreatingaworldwhereanimalseateachotheris
actingoutofimpiety.HeisnottrustinginthewisdomofGod.
ButtheymightposetheadditionalquestionofwhyGod
calleditgoodwiththeseconditions.
Well,Goddidcallitgood.Buthedidnotcallitperfect.
Therewerecertainlyflawsintheworld.ThatiswhyGodhad
toputAdamandEveinagarden–toisolatethemfromthe
world.Whentheysinned,theywereexposedtothereal
world.Therealworldcontaineddeathandsuffering.Thisis
becauseGodestablishedasufficientecosystemsothatlife
couldflourish.Thus,itmaybesaidthattheworldwasvery
good.
Idonotthinkitcanbechargedagainsttheoldearth
creationistthattheyhaveaconceptionofGodthatisevil.
Rather,itcanbesaidthattheytrustintherighteousnessof
Godeveniftheydonotunderstandhoweverythingworks
out.
Whataboutoriginalsin?
Genesis1isoftenthoughtofasthefoundationofthe
doctrineoforiginalsin.Ifweundermineoriginalsin,thenwe
underminethefallenstateofhumanity.Inunderminingthe
fallenstateofhumanity,weundermineourneedforaSavior.
Hence,weunderminethecrossitself.Thiswouldcentralize
thecreationcontroversyasanessentialdoctrine.
Well,itisfirstworthnotingthatGenesisisnottheonly
placeintheBiblethatspeaksofthestateofhumanity.
Indeed,wecouldsuggestthatthepsalmsspeakwithmore
claritythanGenesis1,astheytellusthat“Nobodyisgood,”
(Psalm14:2),orthatweareborninsin,evenatthetimeof
conception(Psalm51:5).Paulenforcesthisdoctrineashe
tellsus,“allhavesinnedandfallshortofthegloryofGod.”
(Romans3:23).EvenifGenesiswereremovedfromthecanon
ofScripture,wewouldhaveafoundationforbelievinginthe
sinfulstateofhumanity.
Second,byadoptingaviewknownasFederalHeadship,we
cantakeGenesisliterallyandaverttheproposedproblem.
EvenifAdamwerenotthefirsthumanbeing,hewouldstill
standastherepresentativeofhumanitybeforeGod.God
knewthatallmen,ifputinhisposition,wouldbehaveexactly
ashedid.ThusAdamservesastheFederalHeadofallmen,
eventhosewholivedbeforehimandthosewhoarenot
descendeddirectlyfromhim.Inthisway,evenonan
evolutionaryparadigm,wemaytakeseriouslythewordsthat
“through[Adam’s]disobedience,themanyweremade
sinners.”(Romans5:19a).
Iamsimplypointingoutthattherearealternative
interpretationsavailable.Thatisnottosaythatthereare
interpretationsarecorrect.Butitistosaythatweshould
givenourbrethrenthebenefitofthedoubtandassumethat
theywanttofearGodandhonorScriptureasmuchaswedo.
ArewecommittedtoaliteralAdam?
AsIpointedout,itispossibletomaintainthedoctrineof
originalsinevenifAdamwereasortofliterarydevicerather
thananactualhumanbeingrootedinhistory.Thereis
nothingaboutthisthatcompromisesthatparticulardoctrine.
Buteveniftherewere,themostwecoulddowaschargeour
friendwithinconsistency.Wecouldsaythathebelieves
somethingthatlogicallyimpliesthatthedoctrineoforiginal
sinwouldbeundermined,butthatisnottosaythatheisa
heretic.Hebelievesinoriginalsin.Hejustdoesso
inconsistently.
Further,ametaphoricalinterpretationoftheaccountof
AdamandEvewouldlikewiseserveasafoundationforthe
doctrineoforiginalsin.Foraparableisnotalie.Iftheythink
thatthestoryofAdamandEveisaparable,thatmeansthat
whiletheymakenoclaimaboutits’historicity,theydothink
thatithastheologicalsignificance.InthecaseofAdamand
Eve,thetheologicalsignificancewouldsimplybethatthe
doctrineoforiginalsinemerges.Wewouldmaintain,onthe
basisofthatparablethatmanisinasinfulstateandinneed
ofredemption.Thepointofaparableistocommunicate
theologicaltruth.
ThatisnottosaythatthisisaninterpretationthatIaccept.
Butitisonethatservesasafoundationforthesinfulstateof
humanitywithoutmakinganyclaimsaboutthehistoricityof
thestory.ItseemstomethattheChristiantofreetoadopt
thissortofinterpretationandmaintainanorthodox
confession.
Thisisimportantforustoacknowledgebecauseitrestores
thebarriersthatexistbetweenourbrothersandsistersin
Christwhohappentobelieveinevolutionorwhobelievein
anoldearth.Wedonothavetobehostiletotheseconcepts
orassumethattheyarebeingdishonest.Weneedtolearnto
understandpeoplewhohaveadifferentviewthanourown
withoutmakingassumptionsaboutwhattheybelieve.The
approachtoresolvingthecreationcontroversyisevidence
thatChristianshavefailedinthatregard.
Chapter9–EngagingWithAtheists
Sincetheyrepresentsuchaslimfractionofthepopulation,
manypeoplewillbeinclinedtooverlooktheatheist.Inthe
UnitedStates,onewouldbemuchmoreliketoencountera
Sikh,aBuddhist,aHindu,orsomebodywhoclaimstobea
witch.Insofaraspopulationisconcerned,atheismseemsto
bequiteinsignificant.Buttheso-calledNewAtheistsseemto
encompassaloudminority.Collegestudentsprobably
encounterrebelliousfreshmanthathaverecentlybecome
atheistsattheiruniversity.InourdialoguesontheInternet,
wemayoftenencounterpeoplewhoposequestionssuchas
“whocreatedGod?”andoftencongratulatethemselvesabout
theirintellectualsophistication.
ButChristiansoftenfoundthemselvestakenabackbythese
individuals.Theyarequiteuniqueintheirassertionsandtheir
resoluteunbelief.Mostpeoplethatweencountershowan
inklingofanopenmindoradesiretohearwhatwehaveto
say.Atheists,ontheotherhand,donotdemonstratethis.
ThustheChristianwillfeelcompassionforthemandwill
desiretoleadthemtofaithandtopersistinpreachingthe
gospeltothem.Aswecommunicatewiththem,though,we
arelefttowonderifthisisjustawasteofourtime.Howcan
wedealwithsuchanindividual?Whyshouldwebother
talkingtosomebodywhoisjustouttorefuteeverythingthat
wesaywithoutseriouslyengagingus?Further,manyofusare
justnotequippedtoanswerthetalkingpointsthattheyhave
memorized.
Itisalsothecasethatmanyatheistsarerudeandmeanspiritedindividuals.TheytaketheirqueuefromProfessor
RichardDawkins,whodeclaredattheReasonRallyin2012
thatatheistsshould“Mock[religiouspeople].Ridiculethemin
public.”Thisisquiteawelcomecommission,foritoffersan
outletfortheatheisttofeedtheirpride.Theycanshowother
peoplehowintelligenttheyarebyputtingthemtoshame.
ThistakesmebacktowhatIsaidinapreviouschapter.Pride
isbestexercisedbycontrast.
Whentheatheistcontraststhemselvesagainstthestupid
religiouspeople,theyrevealhowintelligenttheytrulyare.So
ProfessorDawkins’commissionismetnotwithasound
rebuke(aswouldbethecaseinanyChristianconvention)but
withapplauseandcheers.Itisalsometwithunwavering
obedience.Anybodywhohasspokenwithatheistsknowsthat
itisaseriouschallengetoengageincivildiscourse.Manyare
patentlyandintentionallyrudeandinsulting.
TheChristiandesire,ofcourse,istosharethegospelwith
thesepeople.Butpeoplegenerallyonlyhavethecapacityto
toleratesomuchcondescensionandbigotry.Itisdifficultto
continuetotalktosomebodywhoisbeingrudetoyou.It
raisesquestionsaboutwhetheryoucouldspendyourtime
elsewhere.Timeisvaluable,andtospenditonthosewhoare
beingrudetoyouisoftentowasteit.
YetChristiansarecalledtopreachthegospeltoallof
creation(Mark16:15,Matthew28:19).Thatentailspreaching
thegospeltoatheists.Thequestionishowitisthatwecan
determinewhethersomebodyisworthourpersistenteffort.
Someatheistsreallyarenotworthourtime.
SomeoftheNewAtheistshaveevencometostyle
themselvesasBrights.Theimplicationisobvious.Byvirtueof
beingatheists,theyarebrightorintelligentorfree-thinking.
Theyhavethrownofftheshacklesofreligionthathave
constrainedtheirmindforsuchalongtime.Nowtheyareata
pointwhereintheycanseethroughthisoldwayofthinking.
Theylookatallreligiouspeopleandassumethattheyknow
howtheyarethinking.Theyhavetranscendedyourshallow
andsmall-mindedapproachtotheworld,andnowtheyare
movingontomorerigorousintellectualinvestigation.
Thismeansthatbeforeyouspeak,theyassumethatthey
alreadyknowwhatyouaregoingtosay.Eveniftheyareright,
theyassumebecausetheyonceheldthatparticularbeliefand
haveabandoneditthattheyhavesubjectedittoan
intellectualrigorthatisbeyondyours.
AsyourelaytheChristianconceptionoftheworldor
certainaspectsofit,manyatheiststhinkthattheyhavea
morethoroughunderstandingofwhatyouaresayingthan
youdo.Theyknowyourthoughtprocess.Theyknowwhyyou
aresayingwhatyouaresayingandtheyknowallofthe
problemswithit.Theyalsoknowthatyouhaveneverheard
anyoftheobjectionsthattheywillraise.Ifyouweretohear
them,youwouldreplywithsomethingsimplisticlike,“Ihave
faith,”or“Godisbeyondallhumancomprehension.”
Thismeansthatyouhavenoanswers.Youarejustlike
everyoneelse.Youhavenotsufficientlyexaminedyourbeliefs
ortheobjections.Theyhave,though,andtheyhaverejected
it.
Theywillalsohaveanumberofassumptionsabouthow
youhavecometobelievewhatyoubelieve.Itiscertainlynot
outofintellectualfortitude.Itisnotbecauseyouthinkitis
true.Itisbecauseyoubelieveeverythingthatyouaretoldto
believe.Youhaveblindfaithinsomethingthatyoucannever
knowtobetrue.Youhavenoanswerstothesequestions
becauseyouhaveneverseriouslyaskedthesequestions.
YouhavealsonotreadtheBible.Asatheists,theyhave
readtheBibleandtheyunderstanditmuchbetterthanyou
do.Youonlyreadwhattheclergymenreadtoyou.You
interpretithowpeopletellyoutointerpretit.Butyoureally
donothaveanyknowledgeofit.Themomenttheatheist
startedtoreadtheBible,sotheywillsay,theyrealizedthatit
wasanevilbookandnotreallythewordofGod.
TheywillcitethingssuchastheslaughteroftheCanaanites
orGod’sjudgmentintheOldTestament,whichyouhave
neverread,andsaythatthesethingspersuadedthemthat
theBiblecouldnotreallybethewordofGod.Itcouldonlybe
thewordofGodifGodmettheirexpectationsandapproved
ofsin.(Ironically,whenGodbringsjudgmentuponevilmen,
asintheOldTestament,heisbeingcruel.Whenheallows
mentocontinueintheirsin,atheistssaythatagoodGodis
allowingevilintheworldandthatisimpossible.Well,whichis
it?IsGodimmoralforallowingevilorforbringingjudgment
uponevil?)
Itseemsobvioustomethatsuchapersonisnotworthour
timetoengage.Theyhavealreadydecidedthattheyknow
morethanyou.Theyhaveloadedpastexperiencesinto
everythingthatyousayanddoandthink.Thisisarrogantand
makesdialogueimpossible.ThisisapictureofmanyNew
Atheistsandtheyarejustnotworthspendingasignificant
amountoftimeon.
Whataboutthosewhomaybeaffectedbyaconversation
withanatheist?
Itshouldbeunderlinedthatyouarenottheonlyperson
whowillhaveconversationswithatheists.Otherpeoplewill.
Christianswhohavebacksliddenandarenolongerpracticing
maybeconfrontedbyit.Whenteenagersleavethehomeand
separatefromtheirparents,theyoftenwillsetoutona
journeyoffindingthemselves.Theywillreassesseverythingin
theirlivessothattheycandeterminewhotheyareandwho
theywanttobeintheworld.Oftenthiswillbringwithitthe
skepticismabouttheirreligiousbackground.Somemayfind
thatthereareempoweredintheirChristianity,inthatthey
nowhaveafaithoftheirownratherthanonethatis
dependentupontheirparents.Otherswillfindthattheydo
notreallybelieveatall,ortheyhavenaggingquestionsabout
whattheybelievethatnobodycanseemtoanswer.
Atheismwillseemlikeaplausibleresolutiontothese
problems.Theatheistwillemployphilosophicaltermsand
theologicalchallengesinawaythatisveryunder-developed,
butyetthebacksliddenChristianwillfindthattheyaretaken
inbyit.Ifthereisnobodyaroundwhocananswerthe
atheists’questionsortoresolvetheirintellectualtension,the
backsliddenChristianwillfindthattheirdoubtshavebeen
reinforced.Thiswillbeginaprocessthateventuallyleadsa
phonecallplacedfromachildtotheirparentwheretheytell
them,“Idon’tbelieveinGodanymore.”
Thissituationcouldhavebeenavertedhadtherebeen
somebodytherewhocouldanswerthesedifficultquestions.
Evenwhileitmaybeuncomfortableforustoengagewith
peoplewhoarecondescending,itisbetterthatwedo
sometimespreciselybecausewehaveanaudience.Ifthere
arepeoplewhocanhearwhatisbeingsaid,itisbestto
disarmtheatheistandexposethem.Itisbesttoprovidegood
answerstodifficultquestionssothatotherChristianswhoare
strugglingwiththesequestionsmayseethestrengthinthe
Christianfaith.Ratherthanhavingtheirdoubtsreinforced,
theywillseetheirfaithreinforcedasithasthecapacityto
standeveninthefaceofthesedifficultchallenges.
TheapostlePaulsaid,“Ihavebecomeallthingstoallmen
sothatImaybyallmeanssavesome.”(1Corinthians9:22b).
ThismeansthatwhenhewaswiththeJews,hewouldeatina
waythatwouldnotoffendthem.HebecameJewish.Whenhe
waswiththeGreeks,hewasGreek.Inourrationalisticculture
whereinpeoplevaluescientificinquiryandlogicalreasoning,
weneedtoshowthestrengthoftheChristianfaithfromthat
perspective.Weneedtobecomeapologists–defendersof
theChristianfaith,sothatwemaybringpeopleintosaving
faithwithChrist.
Whenweareabletopresentarobustdefenseofthefaith
andprovidethesegoodanswerstotheatheists’questions,
whiletheatheistwillprobablynotbeconvinced(theynever
are),itwillexposethemashostinganimplausiblealternative.
Oneoftheprimaryreasonsforhavingadebatewithanybody
isnottoreachthepersonwithwhomyouaredebating.Their
mindhasbeenmadeup.Instead,wearetryingtoreachthe
audience.Wearetryingtoreachthepeoplewhostruggle
withatheismandstrugglewiththesedifficultquestions.
Whataboutyourowndoubts?
Evenwhileweshouldengagewithatheistsjustforthe
purposeofexposingthemandhelpingtocurdlethedoubtof
ourfellowChristians,weshouldalsonotforgetourown
capacityfordoubt.Ifwepersistintalkingtothisunpleasant
individualoveralongperiodoftime,thenitwillbethecase
thatwealsohavedoubts.Thatisnotnecessarilyasignofthe
strengthoftheatheisticpositionnorisittosaythatifyou
studythefaithmore,youwillhavedoubt.Instead,itistosay
thatifwearetoldseveraltimesthatwearedeluded,orwe
enduretheclamoringinsultsthattheatheistputsforth,we
willgettoapointwherewewonderifitistrue.Wemay
wonderifwereallyaredeluded.
Thisdoubtwouldnotnecessarilyhavetocomeasa
consequenceoftheintellectualfortitudeoftheatheist.But
ratheritwouldcomeasaconsequenceofbeingtoldthesame
thingseveraltimesandcontemplatingitindifferentways.We
maycometothinkthatwehavejustimaginedour
relationshipwithGodandthatourreligiousexperiencesare
akintothereligiousexperiencesthatpeopleofvarious
religionshavearoundtheworld.
Thismeansthatifwearegoingtoengagewithatheists
(especiallydisrespectfulatheists)overalongperiodoftime,
weneedtoseriouslyexamineourselvestoensurethatweare
inthefaithandthatwearerootedinChrist.Ifwearenot,
thenIamafraidthateverywindofdoctrinethatsounds
compellingwillblowyouaway.Ifyouarenotgroundedin
biblicaltruth,thenwhateversoundsreasonablewillcauseyou
tostrayawayfromthefaith.
Thismeansthatifyouarenotinthefaith,itisveryunlikely
thatyouwillbeabletobringsomebodyelsetofaith(although
Godmayuseyouinsomeindirectfashion).Anassessmentof
yourspiritualconditionandwhetheryouareinChristmaybe
warrantedpriortoengagingwiththeatheists.Lestyou
becomeeitheranatheistoranotherarrogantpersontryingto
provethattheyareright.
ForthereisverylittleneedofChristianapologistswhojust
wanttoprovethattheyareright.Thereisverylittleneedof
individualswhowanttoshoweverybodyhowsmarttheyare
byhandlingatheisticobjections.Thereisverylittleneedfor
theapologistwhodoesnotwanttoleadpeopletoChrist.
Although,theunlovingapologistmightwanttoleadsomeone
toChristjustsothattheycanheartheatheistadmitthathe
wasrightallalong.ButthebodyofChristjustdoesnotneed
thissortofapologist.
Instead,weneedtobeChristianswhowanttosharethe
gospelwithallofcreation.But,weneedtobepreparedfor
thesortofobjectionsthatwewillraise.Ifweweregoingto
China,wewouldpreparetoengagewiththeBuddhists’
objections.Similarly,ifwetalkwithanatheist,wepreparefor
atheisticobjectionstothegospel.Butthisapologeticmethod
issubservienttheevangelisticprocess.Inthisway,weknow
thatwearelaboringnottoprovethatweareright,butto
sharethegospelandintheprocessofdoingthat,weare
readytoprovideadefenseofthehopethatwehave,butto
dosowithgentlenessandrespect(1Peter3:15).
UnderstandthesortofChristianitythatatheistshavebeen
exposedto.
Imentionedabovethatatheiststendtomakeassumptions
aboutChristians.Theywillcometotheconversationassuming
thatalreadyknowwhattheChristianisthinkingandwhat
theyaregoingtosay.Thisisbecauseinthewesternculture,
mostpeoplehavebeenexposedtosomesortofChristian
belief.Mostatheistsholdtheseexpectationsbecausethey
arewhattheyhaveexperiencedthroughouttheirlives.They
holdtheseexpectationsbecausethesearethethingsthat
theypreviouslybelieved.But,inmanycases,thethingsthat
theatheistpreviouslybelievedarenotrepresentativeofthe
gospelorofChristianity.ThedefenseoftheChristianfaith
thattheywerepresentedwithwaslessthanimpressive.
Christianswhointheirmisguidedpietywantedtoanswerthe
questionoftheatheistmisappliedtheroleoffaith.
Thiswillemergeifyousimplyasktheatheistwhatthey
thinkfaithis.Theywillprovideadefinitionoffaiththatisvery
unsympathetic.Theywillsaysomethinglike,“Faithis
believinginmysticalwooevenwhileyouknowthatitisfalse
becausetheevidenceprovesthatitisfalsebutyoubelieveit
anyway.”
Thisisthesortoffaiththattheyhavebeenexposedto.Of
course,inChristiantheology,faithwilltakeafewdifferent
forms.Mentalassent(believingthatChristianityistrue)
certainlyhasarole.Butthatisnotthefaiththatsaves.Even
thedemonsgivementalassent(James2:19).Theatheistis
describingabreedoffaiththattheBibleexplicitlysayscannot
save.Theyaredescribingadeadfaith.
ButsavingfaiththatwefindinRomans4:5literallymeans
trust.WeputourtrustintheatonementofJesus.Inthisway,
itisnotsomuchthatourfaithhassavedus,asmuchasour
faithhasappliedsalvationtous.Itwasthecrossthatsaved
us.ButourtrustinthepromiseofGodonthebasisofthat
atonementiswhatsavedus.
Thismeansthattheatheisthasrejectedaformof
Christianitythatissimplynotbiblical.Whatweneedto
understandaboutthissortofatheististhattheywillload
theirnegativeexperiencesofChristianityontoyou.Iftheyhad
blindfaithasabeliever,thentheywillassumethatall
believershaveblindfaith.Whentheywouldaskthe
clergymenabouttheirnaggingdoubts,theresponsethatthey
receivedwouldbeasimplepleaforthemtohavefaith,and
forobviousreasons,thisisnotintellectuallysatisfying.
Butifwelettheatheistknowthattheyareworkingwitha
faultydefinitionoffaith,theywillfinditveryfrustrating.The
implicationisthatwhiletheydidnotfindanswerstotheir
questions,therewereactuallyanswersouttherethatthey
happenedtomiss.But,yousee,theyalreadyclosedthatdoor.
TheymadethedecisionthatChristianitywasnottrue.That
issettledintheirmind.Forthemtoadmitthattheycould
havebeenwrongaboutthiswouldbetoretreat.Theywould
havetoopenthatdoorasreassessChristianityasitis
accuratelyrepresented.Manyfindthatprospectfrustrating.It
entails[1]youknowmorethantheydoaboutChristianity,
whichisanunacceptablepropositionand[2]thefoundation
oftheirobjectionstoChristiantheologyarecollapsing,and
theseobjectionswerethebasisoftheirde-conversion.
IfwetellthemthattheiroriginalobjectionstoChristian
theologywereobjectionstoarenditionofChristianbeliefthat
isnotbiblical,thiswillundercuttheirentirede-conversion,for
theirde-conversionwasbasedupontheseobjections.Soas
weexplainChristianitytoouratheisticfriends,weshould
haveitinmindthattheymaycometobefrustratedwithus
forthesereasons.Butthisissomethingthatweshouldbe
willingtosympathizewith.Weunderstandwhytheyare
frustratedandifwewereinasimilarposition,wemightbe
frustratedaswell.
Understandtheemotionalreasonsthatpeoplebecome
atheists.
Ifyouweretoaskanatheistwhytheyadoptedtheir
position,theywilloftenprovideanumberofintellectually
sophisticatedreasons.Theywilltellyouthattheyexamined
theevidence.TheypouredovertheScripture,nightafter
night,studyingphilosophyofreligion,theology,andnatural
theology.Afterthislongandrigorousscrutinyofthefaith,
theyfounditlackingandthusunsustainableasasystemof
belief.
Whilethereiscertainadesiretogivepeoplethebenefitof
thedoubt,andassumethattheyaretellingthetruth,and
whilewecertainlywanttoallowpeopletotelltheirownstory
(asIindicatedinapreviouschapter),whenwediscoverthe
objectionsthatareraisedbymanyatheists,wemayfind
ourselvesappalledathowtrivialandunsophisticatedthey
are.
Theywillaskusthingslike,“whocreatedGod?”whichisan
argumentthatiscriticizedevenbyatheistphilosophers.For
obviouslynobodycreatedGod.Asthecauseofspaceand
time,Godnecessarilyexistsbeyondspaceandtime,which
makeshimeternalanduncaused.Yetthesetrivialquestions
arewhatsustainstheiratheism.Thisinvariablyleadsmeto
questionwhethertheyhaveemotionalandspiritualreasons
fordenyingtheirChristianfaith.
JustasmanypeoplewilluseChristianityasacrutch,soalso
peoplewilluseatheismasacrutch.InhisbookTheFaithof
TheFatherless:ThePsychologyofAtheism,ProfessorPaulVitz
explainedthatmanypeoplecometoadoptatheisticbeliefs
becauseoftheirrevulsionthatcomesinresponsetotrusting
inafatherfigure.Theymayhavehadafatherthatwas
absent,passedawayearlyintheirlife,orotherwise
insufficient,andasaconsequenceofthis,theyarerepelledby
theideaoftrustingafather.Thiswouldbesimilarto
somebodywhohasdifficultyinrelationshipsbecauseofpast
infidelities.Thisistypicalpsychologicalphenomenon.
SinceGodispicturedthroughouttheBibleasafather
figure,theatheistwillfindthattheyarerepelledbyit.Their
mistrustofahumanfatheristransferredtotheirtrustoftheir
HeavenlyFather.Now,thisisobviouslynotuniversal.Some
atheistswereraisedinhappyhomeswithbothoftheir
parents.ButDr.Vitzisexplainingageneralpsychological
phenomenon.Inthisway,atheismservesasacrutchfor
them.
Second,manypeopleabandonreligiousbeliefwhenthey
enduresomecalamityintheirlives.Throughouttheirlives,
theygenerallyknewandintellectuallyacceptedthe
theologicalresponsestotheproblemofevil.Theywerenot
thoughtofasunsophisticatedorlacking.Butwhenthe
problemofevilandsufferingstruckthempersonally,their
faithwasshakenatits’core.Everythingcollapsed.Today,the
atheistpersistsinferventunbelief,andtheirfoundationfor
thatisthesufferingthattheyhaveenduredwhiletheywere
believers.
Perhapsthemostobviouspsychologicalcrutchwouldbe
thecomfortinknowingthatlifewillendatthegrave.They
willnothavetofacethejudgmentseatofGod,precisely
becausethereisnojudgmentseat.Theynolongerhavetobe
confrontedwiththeburdenoftheirsin.Theymayliveintotal
self-interest,howevertheylike,andneverworryabout
whethertheywillstandbeforeajustandholyGod.Forthey
haveproposedthatthereisnojustandholyGod.Theydid
thisbecausetherealityofGod’sexistenceandhis
righteousnessisoverwhelminglyterrifying,andtheycannot
bearit.
Thesepsychologicalmaneuversaresomethingthat
Christiansshouldkeepinmindwhentalkingwithatheists.
Whenweseethemgettingangryorfrustrated,weneedto
keepinmindthatthereisalotofdepthtothatanger.Itis
heavilyrooted,attheircore.Thatshouldbekeptinmindand
weshouldusewisdomtodeterminewhetherweshouldhave
patiencewiththisindividual,orspendourtimeelsewhere.
Theywillnotlistenbecausetheylovetheirsin.
Muchlikeaslavewhogrowstolovetheirchains,that
cannotseealifeoutsideoftheirimprisonment,soalsodoes
theslaveofsincometolovetheirsin.Theycannotimagine
howtheycouldlivetheirlifewithoutconstantindulgencein
sin.ThatisnottosaythatIamabetterpersonthananybody
else.ThetestimonyofeveryChristianisthatbydefault,we
arechildrenofwrath,doomedfordestruction.Weare
enemiesofGodandwearebentonself-autonomy.
Everythingthatwedoismeanttopreserveoursin.
Thatisthestateofhumanity.Wearetotallydepraved
(Romans3:10)andopposedtoGod’srighteousness.Yet
peopledogenerallyhavesomeconceptionofjudgment.Of
course,atheistsdonot.Butpeoplewhohaveageneric
backgroundinChristianity,whogrewupinwesternculture
andhavewenttochurchafewtimesgenerallybelievethat
goodpeoplegotoHeavenandbadpeoplegotoHell.Thatisa
correctassessment.Butweallfallshort(Romans3:23).We
areallevilandweareallworthyofGod’swrathand
condemnation.
Thisisbecauseweliveinthisstatewhereinweloveoursin.
Wecannotstandtheprospectofbeingrobbedofoursin.So
whenwehearaboutGodandhisrighteousness,theonly
thingthatweseeisalegalisticcagethatapersonstepsinto,
arbitrarystricturesthattheyimposeuponthemselves,and
whywouldtheydothat?Whywouldanybodywantalistof
arbitraryrulesthattheyhavetofollow?
Allofusknowthismindset,forsuchweresomeofyou(1
Corinthians6:11).Theycannotconceiveoflaboringfor
righteousnessoutofanoverflowofthejoythatwehave
(Psalm37:4).TheycannotconceiveofkeepingGod’sLawnot
becauseitisanarbitrarystricturebutbecausewelovehim.
Thatisutterlyunthinkable.
SowhentheChristianproposesthattheatheistrepentsand
believesthegospel,thisismetwithdisdain.Theyhateit,
becausetheylovetheirsin.Thesuggestionthattheymust
leavetheirsinbehindismuchlikethesuggestionthatapirate
mustleavehischestoftreasurebehind.Thenaturalmanwill
simplynevermakethisconcession.Asonepreachersaid,he
cannotturntoGodbecausehewillnotturntoGod,andhe
willnotturntoGodbecausehehateshim.Thatisthestateof
mankind.Thatiswhythecalltochangeyourmindaboutsinis
metwithrepugnance.
Weneedtokeepthisinourmindsasweinteractwithour
atheistfriends.Ifwefindthattheyareconstantlycontriving
answerstoavoidourpoints,wemustnotgetfrustratedor
impatient.Weneedtokeepinmindthatjustasweoncedid,
theylovetheirsinandtheyarefightingwitheverythingthat
theyhavetopreserveit.
Everyintellectualattackthatyourenderwillalwaysbemet
withbothdisdainandrejection,becauseitisnotmerelyan
intellectualproposition.Itisaspiritualproposition.Anytime
youtrytoanswertheirobjections,youaremakingitmore
reasonableforthemtorepentoftheirsinsandbelievein
Christ,andthatisunthinkable.Theywillnotdoit.Itis
impossibleforthenaturalmantodothat.
Howcantheseargumentsevenhelpiftheatheistwill
alwaysrejectthem?
Thisraisesthequestionofwhyweshouldevenbother.If
nobodywillrespondanyway,thenwhyshouldwetalkto
atheists?Theyaredeadintheirsins,slavesofsin,andwilldo
everythingthattheycantoaverttheconsequencesofwhat
wearesaying.Theywillpreservetheirsinbydesperately
seekingoutintellectualwaysforthemtodenytheexistence
ofGod.Theywilldenyeverythingthatyouaresayingforthe
sakeoftheirsin.Sowhyshouldweevenbother?
WeshouldbotherbecauseGodwillworkontheheartof
theunbeliever,andhewilluseustodoit.Godwillcallthe
atheisttoseehowoffensivesinis.Hewillrevealhisgospelto
himandrevealtheanswerstotheobjectionsthattheatheist
has.Hewillrevealalloftheevidencethattheatheistneedsto
becomeabeliever,andhewilluseourapologeticsandour
conversationstodoit.
Sowhileitmayseemahopelessendeavor,anditmayseem
likeweshouldnotbother,Godcanuseus.Evenifourone
interactionseemsparticularlyunfruitful,wedonotknowhow
Godwilluseitandhowithasimpactedtheirthinkingand
theirfuture.WhileGodistheonewhomovesontheheartof
theunbelieverandbeginstosoftenandchangethem,heuses
theministryofhispeopletobringothersintosavingfaith.
Whileitistruethattheatheistisaslaveofsin,itisalsotrue
thatiftheSonsetsyoufree,youwillbefreeindeed(John
8:36).Thismeansthatwhenweapproachouratheistfriends,
wearerelyingnotonourowncapacitytoconvincesomeone
oftheexistenceofGod.WeareinsteadrelyingonGodto
workontheheartoftheunbelieversothattheycansetaside
theirloveforsinandhearthegospelwithanopenmindand
anopenheart.Godmaysoftentheirheartastheirintellectual
objectionstothegospelvanishandwepreachChrist
crucified.
WhentheloveandthegloryoftheSonisrevealedtothem,
theveryconceptoflovingsinwillbethrownoffandtheywill
heavethemselvesontotheSon.TherighteousnessofGodwill
seemnotassomethingthattheymustfleefrombutasafree
giftgrantedtothem.Forinthegospel,therighteousnessof
Godisrevealed(Romans1:27).Thusweshouldpersistinour
dialogueswithatheistsdespitetheirhardheartsbecauseGod
isusingustoreachhispeople.Weshouldtakeheartbecause
thosewhoarehispeoplewillhearhisvoice(John10:27).
Chapter10–EngagingWithHomosexuals
Asofafewmonthspriortothiswriting,same-sexmarriage
waslegalizedthroughouttheUnitedStates.Forsupportersof
same-sexmarriageandtheLGBTmovement,thatdaywas
markedwithjoyandwhattheythoughttobesocialtriumph.
Intheirminds,humanityisbeginningtoovercomeits’
oppressiverootsandtheoldandprejudicewaysofthinking
arebeginningtowane.Itmayhavebeenabrutal,straining,
andsometimesevenfatalprocess,butforthem,this
movementisnothingbutprogressive.Itisakintoabolishing
theshameoftheUnitedStates,theslaveryoftheimported
Africansduringtheearlyyearsofourhistory.
Justasthinkingmenandwomenovercamethat
abomination,sothinkingmenandwomenalsoovercomethe
condemnationofsame-sexmarriage.Itisawayofthinking
thatisseenasoutdatedandcannolongerbeappliedtothe
contemporarysituation.Theprotestagainstsame-sex
marriageisthoughtofasadyinginfluenceagainstwhichlater
generationswillsnarltheirnoseindisgust.
Incontrast,theChristianreactiontothelegalizationof
same-sexmarriagehasbeenoneoffrenzy.Thereisalotof
troubletoformulateourthoughts.Radicalsolutionsarebeing
proposedtoresolvethisproblem.Firmadversariallinesare
beingdrawn,aswecryoutthatthisisasignthattheendof
dayshascomeuponus.
Justassocietiesthroughouthistoryhavegatheredin
affirmationofsinfulpractices,soalsodoestheUnitedStates.
JustastheGreeksandtheRomansnoddedinapprovalof
monogamoussame-sexrelationships,soalsodoestheUnited
States.TheChristiansarguethatitneednotbethoughtofas
anadvanceinhumanhistoryanymorethanthePlatonic
approvalofsame-sexrelationswereamarkedadvancein
humanhistory.Itisjustasinfulpracticebyasinfulsociety
thatwilleventuallybereducedtorubble.
ThequestionthatIamzoominginuponthoughisthe
behaviorofChristianswithinthecrumblingsociety.Iam
contemplatingtherelationshipsthatChristiansshouldhave
withotherindividualsandhowweshouldtreatthem.When
same-sexmarriagewaslegalized,thatignitedaperennial
debateacrosstheworldandbothsidesthinkthattheyare
correctandthattheothersideisnotonlyincorrect,butis
behavingimmorally.Inthisway,itseemsthatthelinesof
communicationbetweenbothsideshavebeenshutdown.
ChristiansandproponentsoftheLGBTmovementtendto
treateachotherwithsuchanimositythatitrendersour
capacitytocommunicatecompletelyinert.Indeed,Isuspect
thatasyouarereadingthis,youbegantothinksomething
alongthelinesof,“wellthatisbecausethey…”
Peoplearesokeentopointthefingeratoneanotherthat
theywillbegintooverlooktheirowncrimes.Whatyouhave
donebeginstohideitselfintothebackgroundandinstead
youfocusonwhattheyhavedone.Anythingthatyoumight
sayinvengeanceorflowingoutofamean-spiriteddisposition
isjustifiableonthebasisofwhattheyhavedone.Ofcourse,
thisisnotspeakingofindividuals.Thisisspeakingofthe
corporatethey,whichapparentlyrepresentsalladherentsto
sidethatyouarenoton.
Yetbothsidesarethinkingthisway.Bothsidesarethinking
aboutwhattheyhavedoneandhowtheseparticularactions
justifytheirown.Yettheseactionsthatarejustifiedintheir
ownmindarepreciselywhatdrivestheothersidetothis
stanceofhatred.Itisacyclicexchangeofnegativityandpoor
behaviorthatleadsustocompromisethevirtueof
communicationandkindness.
AsChristians,weneedtogetapointwherewesay[1]
“Whynotratherbewronged?Whynotratherbedefrauded?”
(1Corinthians6:7)and[2]acorporatebodyiscomposedof
individuals,themajorityofwhomhaveneverwrongedus.
Howcanwerepaircommunication?
Understandwheretheindividualsarecomingfrom.
Itcanbedifficultforustoimaginethestrugglesthatother
peoplehavehad.Itissometimeseventhoughtofasoffensive
forustosaythatweunderstandwhattheyaregoingthrough.
Thisisespeciallytrueofapersonathatwehavedeveloped
intoanadversary.Wemayevenbeinclinedtodenyor
downplaytheemotionalstrugglesthattheyhavehad.
Forifthereasonthattheythinkthewaytheydohasbeen
wroughtbyanemotionallyladentestimony,fullofguilt,
anger,andbeingwronged,itisdifficultforustomaintainour
stanceofjudgmentoverthem.Howcanwesaythataperson
iswrongwhenthispositionthattheyarewrongaboutisso
heavy?Howcanwesaythatapersoniswrongwhenbehind
them,thereisatrailofpublicshaming,ofthelossof
friendships,ofdisfellowshipfromreligiouscommunities,of
theirparentsdisowningthem?
Ifweacceptthatthistestimonyistrue,thenitseems
almostvirtuousandcourageousforthemtolivetheverylives
thattheyhave.Butifitisvirtuousandcourageous,thenitis
unthinkableforustosaythattheyarewrong.
Ithinkthatispartofthemindsetofdenyingthetestimony
ofanotherindividual.Itisnotjustatestimony.Itisnotjust
theirrelayinghowtheycametobethepersonthattheyare.
Itisratherthattheyarejustifyingthemselves,making
themselvesouttobeahero.Butiftheyaretheheroes,then
wearethevillains.ThisleadsChristianstodownplaythe
strugglesthathomosexualstendtohavethroughouttheir
lives.Butthisseemstobeamistake.Forthisshattersour
capacitytocommunicatewiththem.
Ithinkitwouldbeprudenttoinviteyouontoabrief
thoughtexperimentsothatyoumightbemoreapttorelate
topeopleinthatposition.Thatisnottorelatetotheminthe
sensethatyouarejustifyingtheirbehavior,butthatyoubegin
tounderstandthem.Justimagineforafewmomentswithme
thatyouwereahomosexualandthatyougrewupasonein
westernsociety.Thishashonedyourbehaviorandwhoyou
aretoday.
Youareinmiddleschoolorperhapsinyourfirstyearof
highschoolandyouhaveseveralfriends.Youhangoutand
youhavefun.Whileitmaybeonasuperficiallevel,thereisa
certainbondandacertaintrustthatbeginstodevelopwithin
yourinner-circleoffriends.Youcometocareabouteach
otherandlookoutforeachother.Youdevelopfriendships.
Perhapsyouhavebeenfriendsthroughoutyourentirelives.
Thenyoubegintogothroughpubertyandyouprecipitously
realizethepotencyofsexualattractionthatyouarebeginning
toexperience.However,thatsexualattractionisnotforthose
towhomitshouldbe.Butrather,itisforpeopleofthesame
genderasyou.Youdonotreallyunderstandwhythisis
happeningorwhyyoufeelthisway,butyouknowwhatitis.
Youhaveheardofthisbefore.Itishomosexuality.Youare
confrontedwiththerealitythatyouareahomosexual.
Consideringthatyouhavedevelopedthistrustandlove
withallofyourfriends,youdecidethatyouwillbringitto
them.Yourevealittothemthatyouareahomosexual.The
firstresponseisafewsnickers,asyourfriendsthinkthatyou
arejoking.Afteryourpersistence,theybegintotellyouthatit
isnotfunny,andyoucometoacknowledgeafainttoneof
hostilityintheirvoice.
Butyoupressonandyoufirmlytellthemthatyouarenot
jokingandthatyouare,infact,ahomosexual.Teenagersare
characteristicallybadathandlingpeoplewhoaredifferent,
especiallythisparticulardifference.Manyreactderogatorily.
Thepeoplewhoyouthoughtwereyourfriendsbeginmaking
funofyouandareafraidtobenearyoubecauseyoumight
touchthem.Ifyoulookatthem,theyaccuseyouofchecking
themout.Yourfriendscannolongerseeyouaswhoyouare.
Theyseeyouasahomosexual.Theymakethatyouridentity,
andeverythingthattheythinkaboutyouisderivedfromthat
label.Yourpastrelationshipswithyourfriendsinstantly
vanish.
Withyourheartbroken,youtakethisprobleminstantlyto
yourparents.Whileyourfriendsmaynevertalktoyouagain,
certainlytheloveofyourownparentsiseverlasting.You
revealtoyourparentsthatyouhavehadafallingoutwith
yourfriends,andthatnoneofthemwilltalktoyou.
Concerned,theyaskyouwhythatis.Theyaskyouwhat
happened.Thenyoutellthemabouttheseattractionsthat
youhavebeenhaving.Youtellthemthatyouarea
homosexual.
Silenceisthrownovertheroomlikeablanket.Youseeyour
father’sfacecringing.Heputshisheaddownandnodsin
disapproval,andthenhegetsupandleavestheroom.Your
motherisconfusedanddoesnotknowhowtorespondtothis
development.Shedismissesyouuntiltheyhavehadachance
tothinkoverhowtheywanttorespondandwhattheywant
totellyou.Whentheyformulatetheirthoughts,theytellyou
thatyouhavemadeachoicetobeahomosexual,andyou
simplyneedtostop.Youarelefttowonderwhyintheworld
youwouldmakethatchoice.Youlostallofyourfriendsand
evenyourparentsseemtohateyou.Forsomebodytosuggest
thatyoumadethischoicebecomesabsurd.
Yetthroughoutthecourseofyourlife,youhearthissame
rhetoric.Youaretoldthatyousimplyneedtochangeyour
mindaboutbeingahomosexual.Youaretoldthatyoumadea
choice.Itistypicallyreligiouspeoplewhoarepromulgating
thisinformation.Whenyouencounterit,itisoften
accompaniedbythreatsofeternaltorment,orinsomecases,
evenderogatoryandoffensivenames.Youseethisnotonlyin
yourownlife,butalsoincurrentevents.Youhearofpeople
whoenduredbullyingsimilartowhatyouexperienced,except
theboywasmurdered.Youjustbecomeangrywithanybody
whoopposesthehomosexuallifestyle.
TheChristianmessage,then,isrejectedoutofhand,
withouteverhearingaboutthegospelorthemercyofChrist.
TheBibleisseenasanobjectofridicule,foritisseenasthe
sourceofChristiandoctrineandmorality.Theymaybegin
investigatingatheisticargumentsjustforthepurposeof
offendingChristians.JustastheseChristianshavehurtyou,so
alsoyouaimtohurttheminreturn.But,youarenotaware
thatthemannerinwhichyouarehurtingthemispropagating
thiscycleofhatred.Fortheywillusethemean-spiritedthings
thatyousaytojustifytheirownmean-spiriteddisposition.
Butthatispreciselywhatyoudid.
Youwillnoticealsoamajorshiftinyourlife.Thisdidnot
onlyevolveintoamatterofyourrelationshipwithyour
friendsandparents.Thereseemstohavedevelopeda
religiouselementtothisdebate.Christiansaretheoneswho
areopposingyou.Christiansaretheoneswhoaretellingyou
thatyourlifestyleiswrong.Youbegintoseethisasan
inherentlyreligiousproblem,andsoyoubegintocondemn
religion.
ThethoughtofbecomingfriendswithaChristiannever
evenoccurstoyou.Youaresurethattheywouldacceptyour
friendshipifyoubecameaChristian.Butthatwouldbe
conditionalfriendship.Whatyouhavenowisaclassofpeople
whowillonlybefriendswithyouifyouchangewhoyouare
atthefundamentallevel.Butuntilthen,theyaregoingto
mockandderideyou.Thisistherelationshipthatyouhave
withChristians.Itissomethingofawar.
Whilethistestimonymaynotrepresenteveryhomosexual,
itwillrepresentmany.Thistestimonywillnotjustifythe
behaviororthelifestyle.Butitwilloffertousaglimpseinto
whattheyarethinkingwhentheypromotesame-sex
marriage.Itisessentialthatweunderstandourhomosexual
friendsifwewanttoengageindialoguewiththem.In
forgettingtheexperiencesandthebackgroundofother
people,wehavemadeitimpossibletocommunicate.Wejust
acceptthispictureoftheworldwheretheyareoverthere,
andweareoverhere,andwehateeachother.Perhapswe
needtobegintochallengeourconceptionsofindividuals.
Weshouldacknowledgethatreligiouspeopleareoften
hateful.
Itcanbedifficultforustosaythat“ourside”iswrong
aboutsomethingthat“theirside”mightbejustifiedin
thinkinginacertainway.ButitisundeniablethatChristians
oftendostepoverthelineandarehatefultoward
homosexualsinaveryexclusiveway.Ithinkthisisdrivennot
somuchbypietyandthedesiretohonortheBible,butrather
bythedesiretohavesomebodyinsocietythatislowerthan
theyare.Whocanbetterfulfillthatrolethanthesepeople
whoare(tothem)manifestlydisgusting?
Sopeopleareinclinedtowardbigotrytowardhomosexuals.
IfIweretoappealtoanecdotalexperience,Ihaveseen
peopleobjectingtohomosexualshavinganyroleinsociety.
Whetheramovietheaterhiresahomosexualteenagertosell
tickets,orahomosexualisdrivingaschoolbus,peoplealways
findreasonstoobject.
Amongthereligious,therearesomepeoplewhothinkthat
homosexualityisanunforgivablesin.Thatistosaythatifyou
areahomosexual,youaresimplyreprobateandthereisno
hopeforyou.Butthisstandsincontrastwiththemodelof
loveandmercythatJesusdisplayedtoeventhevilestof
sinners.ItstandsincontrastwithPaulcondemning
homosexuality(1Corinthians6:9),andthen,acoupleof
verseslater,saying,“andsuchweresomeofyou,”indicating
thatpeoplecanbeforgivenoftheirhomosexualinclinations.
Thereissimplynobiblicalwarrantforthesuggestionthat
homosexualityisunforgivable.Yetpeoplewilladoptthis
stancejusttofueltheirhatredforothers.Thentheywilljust
sprinklethishatredwithabitofbiblicallanguage,andthey
thinktheyarejustifiedinit.
Religiousbigotrytowardhomosexualscertainlyexists,and
thereisnoutilityindenyingit.Ifwedenythat,wesequester
homosexualswithwhomwewouldliketodevelopa
friendship.ForifIamtosaythatthishomosexualdidnot
endurereligiousbigotry,thenIamsayingthateverythingthat
thesereligiouspeoplesaidtohimwasjustified.Wheninfact,
itmaynothavebeen.Christiansareoftenmean-spiritedand
donotknowhowtotalktopeople,andarenobetterin
handlingdifferencesthanteenagers.
Thismeansthatweneedtoacknowledgethatreligious
peoplehavetreatedhomosexualspoorly.Perhapsevenmany
religiouspeople.Perhapseverysinglereligiouspersonwho
theyhaveeverencounteredhastreatedthempoorly.Now
youareapproachingthemandnotonlyacknowledgingthat,
butindicatingthatyouintendtoshowonlyloveforthem.
Whenweacknowledgethatthereligiousbigotryisnota
myth,weofferahintthatwearenotlikethat.Weseeitin
theworld,andthatisnotthemodelthatwelaborfor.Our
homosexualfriendwillseethat.Thenthelinesof
communicationcanbeopened.Thenyoucanbegintotalk.
Learnwhatcanbecompromised.
Christiansstandonthepreceptsoutlinedinthewordof
God.Theyareeternallyauthoritativeandcannotbe
compromised.WecannotlookatScripturethroughthelens
ofculture.Instead,weneedtolookatculturethroughthe
lensofScripture.Thebiblicalmandateconcerning
homosexualitycannotbecompromisedandwecannotlook
fornewinterpretationsthataremeanttoappeasethe
demandsofculture,assomehavedone.Weneedtostand
firmlyinthisregard.
Butwedoneedtounderstandwhatcanbecompromised.
Asweengageinconversationswithpeople,weshould
understandwhatconcessionsareavailabletous.Oneofthe
maindebatepointsbetweentheLGBTmovementandthe
Christiansistheissueofwhethertheywerebornthatway.
Christiansareusuallykeentodenythattheywerebornthat
way.Ithinkweshouldcompromisethat.Weshouldaccept
that,infact,theywerebornthatway.
Itseemstomethattheycanspeakmoreauthoritatively
abouthowtheywerebornthanwecan.Itisapointthathas
noimplicationswhatsoever.Iftheywerenotbornthatway,
thiswouldnotestablishthatitwaswrong.Iftheywereborn
thatway,thiswouldnotjustifytheirbehavior.Peopleare
bornwitheverymannerofimmoralproclivity.Somepeople
arebornwithapredispositiontowardangerorgluttonyor
addiction.Thatdoesnotjustifythesebehaviors.Justbecause
wearebornwithsomethingdoesnotjustifyit.
Ithinkthatbystickingtothissortofpoint,itshutsdown
communication.Thereareveryfewwaystoarguethata
personisorisnotborninaparticularway,andpeopleusually
justappealtotheirtheologicalpresuppositions.Butthatis
particularlyunhelpful.Thisisbecausetheywilljustappealto
moralpresuppositions,andthenwearenotmakingany
progressatall.
IfIwanttohaveaconversationaboutthissortofthing,it
shouldbeaboutapointthatmatters.Iamnotsointerested
inassertingsomethingthatdoesnotmatterblindly.We
shouldredirectourattentiontootherareas.Weshould
insteadtrytogettoknowthemaspeopleandthen
understandhowwecanrelayourthoughtstothem.Butfor
ustobothertalkingaboutwhethersomebodyisbornwitha
particularproclivityisneitherinterestingnorhelpful.We
shouldjustgrantittothemthattheywerebornthatway.
Theythinkthisissueisakintoracism.
Wemightbeinclinedtothinkthatthisisjustanemotional
insultthattheyarespewingoutsoastowintheargument.I
cansympathizewiththatconjecture.Yetafterconsideration,I
donotthinkthatisthecase.Ithinkthattheyreallydothink
thatifsomebodyisopposedtosame-sexmarriagethatthisis
similartobeingopposedtointerracialmarriage.Ifsomebody
isvoicingthedemeritsofhomosexualbehavior,thisisseenas
similartovoicingthedemeritsofhavingblackskin.Thusto
preventsomebodyfromgettingmarriedonthebasisoftheir
sexualorientationisseenasakintoslavery.Asabsurdasthis
comparisonis(nobodyisliterallyinchains.Chainsare
essentialtoslavery)thisisthemindsetthatpeoplewill
maintainwhenconsideringthisissue.
Iampersuadedthatthereasonforthatispurelyrelational.
Forthosefewhomosexualswhohappentobealong-term
andmonogamousrelationship,theyaretoldthattheycannot
marrytheirpartner.Asmuchastheylovetheirpartnerand
wanttospendtherestoftheirliveswiththem,theyare
preventedfrommakingthispubliccommitmentand
declaration.Wecanseehowthiswouldleadpeopleto
frustrationandangerwiththesystemandfeelasthoughthey
werebeingoppressed.
Thischaracterizationofsame-sexmarriagehasbecomethe
faceoftheLGBTmovement.Peoplecampaignforsame-sex
marriageandthevalidityofhomosexualbehavioronthebasis
ofthelovethattwopeopleofthesamegendermighthave
foroneanother.Beyondthat,nothingelsereallymatters.If
anyonetriestopreventthat,theyarebeingoppressiveand
arecomparedtoslaver-ownersorotherwiseracistindividuals.
Thisisworthpointingoutbecauseitrevealstheemotional
coreofthisissuethatwearedealingwith.Whenweengage
inconversationwithourfriendswhopromulgatetheLGBT
movement,weneedtokeepinmindhowtheyseetheir
opposition.Theyliterallyseepeoplewhoopposethemas
beingsimilartoracists.Picturesofpeopleprotesting
interracialmarriagefromdecadespastarepostedalongside
picturesofpeopleprotestingtheLGBTmovement.
Forthisreason,itisimportantnotonlytodisarmtheir
logicalassumptionsandreasoning,butalsotheirmoral
assumptions.Christiansneedtoshowthatconceptionof
homosexualsthatwehaveisnotsimilartotheconceptionof
anAfrican-Americanmanthataracisthas.Whatwewantto
displayisloveandkindnessandevenservitude.Itisnotthat
wethinkthatweareinherentlybetterthantheyare,asinthe
caseofracism.
Thequestionis,whenwehavetheseconversations,arewe
reinforcingtheassumptionsthattheyhave?Arewebeing
consistentwiththeideathatwearelikeracists?Orinthelove
andkindnessthatweshow,areweshuttingdownthese
assumptions?
UsVsThem
Yetasweconsiderthereligiousbigotrythathomosexuals
haveendured,wehastilyremindourselvesofwhat“they”
havedoneto“us.”Youmayhavebeenreadingthroughthe
lastsubsectionandthinkingthatIamaccusingreligious
peopleofbigotryandignoringthecrimesoftheLGBT
movement.Iamjustifyingthemeanthingsthattheyhave
donesoastocondemnChristians.Thismayhaveleftyou
indignantandangrythatIwouldaccuseyou,andjustifytheir
behavior.Ihaveacquitted“them”andcharged“us”witha
crime.
Iunderstandhowyoumightthinkthat.ButIwouldliketo
suggestanalternativeinterpretation.Iamnotsayingthat
everythingthattheyhavesaidanddoneisjustifiable.Instead,
thisisabookthatIexpectwillbereadbyprimarilyChristian
believers.Itissimplynothelpfultotellyouaboutallofthe
crimesoftheLGBTmovement.Iamnotheretoremindyou
thatyouwererightallalong.Wepatourselvesontheback
enough.Wecongratulateourselvesenough.Idonotneedto
tellyouagainthatpeoplehavewrongedChristians.
Iamnotinterestedinfurtheringthismentalityof“usversus
them.”Thereasonthatcommunicationisimpossibleis
becauseeverybody(notjustyou,andnotjustthem)isso
adversarial.Everybodyissofocusedonhisorherown
argumentationthattheyignorethestrugglesofotherpeople
andthebackgroundthatotherpeoplehave.Peoplearejust
notinterestedinhearingwhatothershavetosay.Especially
whendiscussingissuesassensitiveasthisone.Theissueof
homosexualityandsame-sexmarriagereallycutstothecore.
Whenwebegintodenythat,weessentiallydenytheir
identity.Yet,itisourdutyasChristianstodenyitandtonot
conformtosociety.Howdoweamendourcommunication
whentheselinesaresofirmlydrawn?
Itseemstomethatweneedtoberobbedofthis
adversarialdisposition.Wehavebeeninformedthatweare
Christiansandtheyaretheenemy.Theyaredoingso-and-so
andtheyarepromotingthisandthat,andtheyneedtobe
stopped.Theyneedtobesoundlyrefuted.Yetnomatterhow
muchrefutingwedo,itoftenjustdoesnotmatter.Recallthe
atheistofthelastchapter.Hehassomanyemotionalbarriers
tointellectuallyconsideringthisissue.Itisverysimilarwith
thehomosexual.Despitehowsoundtheargumentationand
howpersuasivetherhetoricandhowlogicalthesyllogism,
theyareinterpretingallofthatthroughthelensofemotion
andbackgroundthatovershadowsthem.
Whileitiscriticaltoengageonanintellectuallevel,wealso
needtoengageonadeeperlevel.Theadversarialdisposition
thathasbeenappliedissimplynotappropriate.Now,many
willbeinclinedtoretreattothepositionthatitis“their”fault
thatweareadversaries.Fine,butevenifthatisthecase,you
canstilldoeverythingthatyoucantoleavethisdisposition
behind.IfeveryChristianweretryingtobefriendthese
people,ratherthanadoptingtheadversarialpictureofthe
dilemmathathasbeengiventous,wewouldseeadeclinein
thecommunicationpovertythathasovercomeus.
Arethesegroupsofpeopleorpeople?
Imaginethatyouwereencounteredastrangerandthey
begantalkingtoyou.Youhaveapleasantconversationwith
themwhensuddenlyyoubegintellingthemaboutsomething
thatyouheardatchurchafewdaysago.Theyabruptly
interruptyouandask,“Church?”Theygiveyouastrangelook
andthensay,“Oh,youareoneofthosepeople.”
Thosepeople.Doyouseewhatthisindividualhasdone?
Theyhaveloadedalloftheseexperienceswithother
Christiansintoasinglewordthatyousaid.RememberwhatI
saidinanearlierchapter.Awordisworthathousandwords.
Inthissituation,theword,churchhostsanumberof
interactionsthattheyhavehadwithotherChristians.In
assumingthatyouareoneofthosepeople,theyareassuming
thatyouareexactlylikeeverybodyelsethattheyhave
encounteredwhoholdsthatposition.Theyoverlookyouasan
individualandjustseeyouaspartofthecorporatebody.
Well,thisseemstobewhatChristiansthinkwhenthey
meetahomosexual.Thehomosexualisnotanindividualwith
realpastandrealexperiences.Theyarepartofacorporate
body,namely,theLGBTmovement.Theyholdthepositions
andviewsthatyoufindrepugnant.Youmaybeginmentally
tracingoveralloftheargumentsthatyouwillhavetoapplyto
showthemthattheyarewrong.Butinrenderingthislabel,
wehavetreatedthemasacorporatebodyratherthanasan
individualperson.Wehavereinforcedtheadversarial
dilemmaandpreventedanyfriendshiporhonest
conversationwiththisperson.
Weshouldinsteadrecognizeeachindividualasaperson
whoismanydifferentthings.Theymayenjoyworkingwith
theirhands,orbeingcreative,writingpoetry,helpingtheir
friends,orservingtheircommunity.Inadditiontothat,they
maybehomosexual.Theirhomosexualityiscertainlypartof
whotheyarebutitisnotwhotheyare.
Whentheylayinbedatnight,theyhavethingsthatthey
thinkabout.Theyhavethingsthattheyweepover.Iftheyare
hit,theywillbruise.Iftheyarecut,theywillbleed.Ifababy
wereinthemiddleofthehighway,theywoulddoeverything
theycouldtobringitsosafety.Theyareverymuchlikeyou,
asindividuals.Butwehavebeensoldthisadversarialmeme,
whichforcesustoseeindividualsasacorporatebodyrather
thanasindividuals.
Butwhenwetranscendthismentality,thenwecanbeginto
understandthemaspeople.Wecanbegintounderstand
whatbroughtthemtothepositionthattheyareintoday.
Howdidtheirfriendsandfamilyreact?Dotheysupportthem
today?Dotheylovethem?HowhaveotherChristianstreated
them?Asweprobethesequestions,webegintoseta
foundationforshowingtheloveofGodinChrist.Wecanget
toknowwhotheyare,andappreciatetheirpastandtheir
identityforwhatitis.Thisishowwecansharethegospel
witheventhosewhoseemthemosthard-hearted.Wecan
listentotheexpressionsoftheirheartandtheirpastand
showthemhowChristoffersasafreegiftthegreatest
conceivablemercyandjoy.
Chapter11–Learningfromeachotherwithintheconfinesof
friendship.
Thereisatendencyforpeopletosurroundthemselveswith
kindredspirits.Wewanttobearoundpeoplewhoarevery
muchlikeusandwhothinklikewedo.Thiscreatesan
environmentthatisnothostileandisnotchallenging.Iam
suspiciousthatpeopletendtodothisbecausetheywanttheir
worldtobeanechochamber.Peoplegenerallywant
everythingthattheyheartobeanaffirmationofwhatthey
alreadybelieve.Dissidencewillinvokeanger.Itwillmake
peopleuncomfortable.Ifsomebodydoeshappentoholda
positionthatstandsincontrastwiththeflowofmainstream
belief,theywouldlikelychoosetodoitsurreptitiously.
Forwhendissidencedoesarise,howdoesitaffect
relationships?Evenwithinminortertiarydifferences,ittends
tofrustratepeople.Sometimesitdoesnotmatter.Butoften,
therelationshipsbetweentheseindividualswillchange.
Sometimestheroleofthatindividualinthechurchwillbe
diminishedatthediscretionofchurchleadership.Inthecase
ofsecondaryortertiarydifferencesthatdonotcompromise
theChristianfaith,thiswouldservetocripplethebodyof
Christ.Forifweonlyallowthepreachingofthegospeltobe
donebythosewithwhomweagreeabouteverything,then
therewouldbenobodylefttopreachthegospel.Thegospel
wouldbereducedtoatermthatweusetodescribeour
catechismatlarge.
Itisalsoworthnotingthatthisisnotaproblemexclusiveto
ecclesiologyorchurchpractice.Itisanaspectofthelifestyle
oftheindividual.Inourdailylives,wedonotwanttobe
aroundpeoplewhodisagreewithusonsuchafundamental
level.Wewanttobearoundpeoplewhothinklikewedo.We
wanttobeabletore-affirmwhatwealreadybelieveand
remindeachotherthatwewererightallalong,andany
challengesthatmightcometoourbeliefshappeninthe
outsideworld,challengesfromstrangers.Butwhenweare
comfortable,inthecontextoffriendship,thenwecanresolve
thesechallengesbecauseallofourfriendsagreeaboutthe
variousdoctrines.
ThereissomedegreetowhichIcansympathizewiththis
streamofthought.Particularbeliefssummonameasureof
passion,andifthispassionisevenslightlymisused,itwill
eruptasanger.Whenyourfriendsbegintochallengethese
beliefsaboutwhichyouarepassionate,youmightfeelan
inklingofangerandaresolutiontorefuteeverythingthat
theyaresaying.Youwillcomeoffasanogre.Buttheyare
passionateabouttheirdisagreementinthisverytopic.Soit
canbedifficulttomaintainfriendshipswithsuchaperson.
Thatisnottosaythatthereisanydemeritinthemas
individuals,butwewillascribedemerittothemasamethod
ofjustifyingtheangerthatwefeel.Peoplethatdisagree
aboutcrucialtopicsoftenjustcannotmixwithoneanother.
JustimagineforamomentthataMuslimandaChristian
werebestfriends.TheMuslimfeelspassionatelythat
MuhammadistheprophetofGod,andthattheQur’anisthe
wordofGod.Inengagingwithdialoguewiththisperson,you
pointoutthatMuhammadallowedhisfollowerstotake
marriedcaptivesofwarintosexslavery(Qur’an4:24).They
willeithervehementlydenythis,ortheywillsuggestthatthis
wasjustaculturalmandate.Butjustfromthisverypremise,
onecanunderstandhowthatcouldleadintodifficultand
angryconversations.
Similarly,ChristiansbelievethatPaulisoneoftheholiest
meninthehistoryofthechurch.HewasGod’schosenapostle
tohoistthegospelintotheworld.Hehostedanauraof
humility,strength,sincerityandlove,evengoingtohisdeath
forthesakeofChrist.YettheMuslimwillcondemnthisman
astheheretic,liarandblasphemerwhodistortedthe
messagethatJesuswasrelayingforhisownself-promotion,
andapparentlyitworkedbecausenowweallthinkthatPaul
wasaholyapostle.LikethediscussionofMuhammad,the
discussionofPaulbetweenaChristianandaMuslimwould
increasefrictionandmakefriendshipmoredifficult.But,
conversationsaboutthesetopicsareinevitable.Sohowcan
wehaveafriendship?Isitbettertojustavoidfriendship,and
preachthegospelonthestreettostrangers?
Well,in1Corinthians5:9-10,Paulwrites,“Iwrotetoyouin
myletternottoassociatewithimmoralpeople.Ididnotatall
meantheimmoralpeopleoftheworld,orwiththecovetous
andswindlersorwithidolaters,forthenyouwouldhavetogo
outoftheworld.”ApparentlytheCorinthianchurchreceived
aletterfromPaulwhereinheexplainedtheconceptof
excommunication,whereyouisolateafellowChristianwho
refusestorepentoftheirsin.Theyarenolongertobe
regardedasbrothersinChrist.But,theCorinthiansthought
thatPaulmeantthatanyimmoralpeoplewhorefuseto
repentshouldbeavoided.Here,Paulcorrectsthemandsays
thatitisnotwrongtoassociatewiththem.Youwouldhaveto
leavetheworldtodoso.
Ifwearegoingtosharethegospelwithpeople,weneedto
associatewiththem.Whilethepracticeofevangelism
certainlydoesentailpreachingthegospeltostrangers,italso
entailsbecomingfriendswithunbelieversanddevelopingthe
maturitytodealwiththesedisagreements.Ifyouhavespent
yourentirelifesecludedfromdisagreement,youmightfind
thistobechallenging,especiallyifthesortofdisagreement
thatwearereferringtoisaboutprimarydoctrines.Itwillalso
belikelytocausestrifewithinyourfellowshipwithother
Christiansthatdisagreeatadenominationallevel.
ThiswouldperhapsbeonebenefitofChristiansuniting
underthebroadflagofProtestantismintoonechurchor
denomination.Therewouldbemanydivergentviewsdespite
thatweareunitedbythegospel.Inthisway,wewouldbe
betterequippedtohandledisagreementswithunbelieving
friendsthatwehavebecausewehavealreadybeentaughtto
toleratedifferencesamongthebrethren.Butthe
denominationalmindsethasmadeusveryintolerantofother
positions,sothattheverypresenceofdissidencewillforceus
intoanger.
Doesthispersoncareaboutme?
Ihavealreadypointedoutthatthereiscertainlyvaluein
streetpreachingandrelayingthegospeltostrangers.Jesus
appointed72disciplestopreachthegospeltostrangers(Luke
10:1).Butthroughoutourdailylives,thereisanopportunity
forarelationshipthatexceedspreachingtostrangers.There
isanopportunityforrealfriendships.
WhatIamtalkingaboutisnotaconditionalfriendship
whereyouwillbecomefriendsontheconditionthatyousee
progresstowardbecomingaChristian.Whilewewantpeople
tobecomeChristians,itseemstomethatthiswouldbemore
ofdeceptivefriendship.Itwouldbemoreofanexercisein
pretendingtobetheirfriendsjusttobringthemtoaccept
Christ.WhentheyfinallydobecomeaChristian,thenyouwill
harvestarealfriendship.
Iamtalkingaboutrealandunconditionalfriendshipwith
thosewithwhomwedisagreeatafundamentallevel.When
thisindividualrealizesthatwhatyouhaveisarealand
unconditionalfriendship,theywillrealizesomething
tremendous.Theywillrealizethatyoucareaboutthem,
becauseyoudocareaboutthem.Sothatwhenyoupreach
thegospeltothem,theywillknowthatyouaredoingit
becauseyoulovethemandwanttoseethemsaved.Inthe
contextofanactualfriendship,wecantraversethe
boundariesofangerthatwehavesetdown.Wewillnot
necessarilybeangrywithapersonthatweknowissaying
thesethingsbecausetheycareaboutus.
RecallourconversationwithourMuslimfriendabout
MuhammadandPaul.Evenifwegetangrywiththisperson,
thatangerwillquicklysubsidebecauseweknowthatwhen
theyaretryingtoteardownourfaith,theyaredoingit
becausetheycareaboutus.Inthecontextoffriendship,we
canaccomplishthesedifficultconversationswithoutgetting
angryandwecancontinuetohavethem.Wecancontinueto
investigatewhathistoryrevealsaboutMuhammadandPaul.
Wecancontinuetodiscusstheevidenceandastimegoeson,
theangerthatwehavewillbegintodissipate.Wewill
becomelessdefensiveandlessguardedbecauseweknow
thatthispersoncaresaboutus.
Itisquiteeasyforustoclaimtocareaboutpeoplewhoare
lost.Thatisveryeasy,andwhenwetelltheunregenerate
thatwecareaboutthem,whilethatmightbeaworthy
sentiment,itoftendoesnotmeanmuchtothem.Itwilljust
comeoffasawayofreelingthemin,toadoptyourreligious
beliefs.
IoncehadaMuslimtellmehowmuchhelovedmeand
howmuchhewantedmetobecomeaMuslim.Wetalked
onceandIneverheardfromhimagain.Peoplecanjust
arbitrarilystatethattheycareaboutpeople,andtheycantell
thelosthowmuchtheycareaboutthem.Butwhatisthat
worth?
ItseemstomethatJameshassomecommentaryabout
this.Hewrites,“Ifabrotherorsisteriswithoutclothingandin
needofdailyfood,andoneofyousaystothem,“Goinpeace,
bewarmedandbefilled,”andyetyoudonotgivethemwhat
isnecessaryfortheirbody,whatuseisthat?”(James2:1516).
Similarly,ifwejusttellpeoplethatwecareaboutthemor
publiclycongratulateourselvesforhowmuchwecareabout
thelost,butdonotdisplaythatlovethatwehaveforthem,
whatintheworldisthatworth?Whyshouldtheybelievefor
asinglesecondthatwecareaboutthem?Whenwepreach
thegospeltothem,whyshouldtheythinkthatwearedoingit
outoflove?Butinthecontextofafriendship,theywillthink
that.
Whatisyourmotive?
IfIweretoencounterastrangerandtheybegantellingme
abouttheirreligiousbeliefs,Iwouldbeinterestedinwhat
theyhavetosay.Butassooftenhappensinthissortof
conversation,theywouldprobablywanttoknowmyreligious
beliefsaswell.TheywouldprobablywanttochallengewhatI
wassaying.Theywouldwanttostumpmeorrefuteme.I
wouldstillbeinterestedinwhattheyaresaying,butmy
suspicionswouldbegintorise.
Ihaveencounteredsomanypeoplewhoonlyengageinthis
sortofconversationtodemonstratehowsmarttheyare.They
wanttoaffirmthattheywererightallalong.Buttheyarenot
reallyinterestedinwhatIhavetosay.Theyareinterestedin
whattheyhavetosay.WhatIhavetosaywillserveasa
platformforthemtoteachtheirviews.Theywanttobeable
totellalloftheirfriendsabouthowtheystompedonsome
guythattheydisagreedwith.
WhileIdonotloadthisverynegativecharacterizationinto
everybody,Idobecomesuspiciousofit,andwhenthis
individualstopslistening,orstarttalkingoverme,start
repeatingwhattheyaresaying,Iwillconsidermysuspicions
tobeconfirmed.Thisiswhatistobeexpectedinthecontext
ofadiscussionwithastranger.Theydonotcareaboutyou
andtheydonotwanttobeyourfriend.Theyarejust
interestedinfeedingtheirpride.
Butinthecontextofafriendship,itbecomeseasiertotrust
theirmotives.Wetrustthemaspeople.Weknowthem.We
seesignswithintheconversationthattheycareaboutus.
Theywilllistentowhatwearesaying.Theywillmakean
efforttocomprehendwhatwebelievesothattheycan
adequatelyrespondtoit.Theyarethoughtfulbecausethatis
whatisrequiredofhavingaconversationandunderstanding
otherpeople.Theycareaboutyouandyouknowthatthey
havepuremotives.Theyarenotjustbeingpridefulortrying
towintheargument.Theywanttoknowwhatyouhaveto
say.Thisispartofthepackageoffriendship.
Youwillhavemoretolerance.
Ithinkthatthedefaultstancetowardotherfaithgroupsis
oneofintolerance.Wemaytoleratethemwithinoursociety,
inourgrocerystores,oreveninourworkplace.Butwe
generallydonottoleratetheminourownlives.Itmakesus
tooangry.Itputsusonedge.Ifthispersonistrulydevoutin
theiropposingbeliefs,itwouldcertainlybechallengingto
havesuchapersoninyourlife.Youwouldbeinclinedtonod
yourheadindisapprovaleverytimetheyspoke.Yettheseare
peoplewhohavetangibleintellectualqualmsaboutthe
Christianfaith,andasingleinteractionwillnotdoit.Sure,we
maybeabletoimplementthatsingleinteractionindialogue
withotherChristianswhereinwemightsay,“AMuslimasked
meaquestion,andItoldhim…”Butwhenhewalksaway
fromus,heisgoingtoponderthatquestionandcomeup
withanswers,justaswedowiththesequestions.
Whilewecanseethisurgingtowardmonolithicreligion,
whilewewanttobearoundpeoplewhoagreewithus,thatis
justnothowwecanpreachthegospel.Thatisnothowwe
canlearnaboutpeople.ThatisnothowChristiansare
supposedtobehave.Christiansneedtoreallyhonetheir
tolerance.Wehavestrivedforcenturiestosurround
ourselveswithpeoplewhoagreeabouteverysingleline.Even
MartinLuther,thetrailblazerandintellectualandspiritual
giantofthegreatProtestantReformation,saidtoUlrich
Zwingli,“Wearenotofthesamespirit,”becauseZwinglidid
notbelievethatattheEucharist,oneisliterallypartakingof
thebodyandbloodofJesus.Yettheyagreedateveryother
line.
ItseemstomethatChristiansreflectthesamebehavior
today.Wehavebecomeutterlyintolerantofanybodywho
hasaminordisagreement.Weneedtodosomethingabout
that.Evenifwestartbyacceptingsmalldifferences,thatis
certainlyamarkofprogress.Wedonothavetobe
monolithic.Christianscancongregate,worshiptogetherand
havefellowshiptogether,solongastheyagreeaboutthe
coreofthegospelmessage.Butwecanhavedisagreements.
Itseemstomethatwemusthavedisagreements.Ifwedo
nothaveatleastminordisagreementswithinthebodyof
Christ,thenwewillbeincapableofhandlingdisagreements
outsideofthebodyofChrist.
IfyouareaCalvinistwhohasalwaysbeenaCalvinistand
youwereraisedaroundCalvinists,alwayssurroundedby
Calvinists,youwillbecomefrustratedwiththeminor
differencesintroducedbyArminiantheology,andviceversa.
Thisemergesapparentasweseealackofdiscernment
withinthebodyofChrist.Peoplejustdonotknowwhat
heresyis.Theyjustdonotknowwhatcompromisingthe
gospellookslike.Soithappensthatanytimetheybecome
frustratedwithanotherbeliever,itisdeemedheresy.Any
disagreementisheresy.Thismonolithicmentalitymakesit
impossibleforustoengagewithanyone,especiallythelost.
Youwillbeabletolearnmoreandteachmore.
IfIhaveoneconversationwithastranger,Imightreceivea
briefovervieworoneperspectiveofaparticularview.Imight
hearitrepresentedinarobustwaythatIhaveneverheard
before.Butafterwehavethissortofconversation,wewillgo
homeandconjureupeverysortofobjectionthatwecan
thinkof.Wewillconvinceourselvesthatwhatwehearddoes
notadequatelyrepresentthetruthandthereareanswersto
theproblemsthatheraised.Butifyouneverhavethe
opportunitytotalkwiththisindividualagain,youwillnever
knowhowwewouldrespondtoyourobjections.
Inthecontextofnotonlyonedialoguebutaseriesof
ongoingdialogues,thereisalotthatwecanlearnfromeach
other.Wecanreallyunderstandtheparticularnuancesthat
separatebelieffromunbelief.Wecanunderstandthespecific
divergencesbetweendenominations.Whatarethethings
thatmakeourbeliefsverydifferent?Whatdoesyourbelief
hingeupon?Wecanaskthesequestionsandwith
counterpointaftercounterpointemerging,wecanseewhat
theythinkandwheretheyarecomingfrom.
Inthisway,wecanlearnmorenotonlyaboutourfriend,
butalsoaboutcomparativereligioningeneral.What
separatestheMuslimfromtheChristian?Whydoesthe
Muslimbelievethethingsthattheybelieve?Thiswillhelpto
setafoundationforfurtherevangelisticoutreachtoMuslims.
Ifyouhaveanideaofwhattheythinkandwhytheythinkit,
youwillknowhowtoapproachtheissuesandwhatsortof
sensitivitiesarewarranted.
Further,youwillhavetheopportunitytoteachyourfriend
aboutthenuancesofyourbeliefs.Youhavebeliefsaswell
thathingeuponcertaintruths.Youhavewhatyouthinkisa
robustdefenseofyourbeliefs.Inthecontextofanongoing
friendship,theywillposeaquestiontoyouandyoucantell
themthatyouwillthinkaboutthatandgetbacktothem
duringthenextdiscussion.
Inthecontextofanongoingfriendship,youhaveample
timetopouroverthedatathatyouneedto,tositbackand
considertheproblemsathandsoyoucananswerthese
questions.Inthisway,youwillbecomemorethoughtfulas
youengageinthedifficultquestionsofyourfaithinaway
thatyouhaveneverevenconsidered.Youwillbecomemore
philosophicalandmoretheological.Youwillnotbesatisfied
tojustbrushanintellectualproblemoff,becauseyouneedto
provideanadequateanswerforyourfriend.
Weshouldenterintothesefriendshipsbecausetheywill
enhanceourcriticalthinkingandthecriticalthinkingofour
friend.Wewillteacheachotheraboutcomparativereligionas
welearnmorebothaboutourownbeliefsandthebeliefsof
theother.Itseemsprudent,then,toengagenotonlyinsingle
conversations,butalsoinanongoingfriendshipwhereyou
cantrulylearnabouteachotherandreflectuponyourown
beliefs.
Youwillbeawitnessforrighteousnesstounbelievers.
Aswegothroughlifewithourunbelievingfriends,there
willcertainlybedifferences,notonlyfromadoctrinalangle,
butalsofromamoralangle.Wewillseethemmakingmoral
decisionsthatwewouldnotmakeourselves.Whentheywant
togooutandlookforwomen,weencouragethemtostayin,
practicechastityandreadbooks.Sothereisthismoral
conflictthatwillexistbetweenus.Indeed,theymaylookat
ourmoralpreceptsandthinkthattheyarearbitrary.They
makethinkthatthemoraldecisionsthatwemakeandthe
restrictionsthatwehavearesortoflegalisticcagesthatwe
imposeuponourselves.
Weshouldbeabletosympathizewithwhytheythinkthis,
becausewewereallonceslavesofsin.Wealloncelovedour
sinssomuchthatwehatedtheideaofgivingitup.Theidea
ofsurrenderingsinisabsurd.Itiswhatgivesuspleasurein
life.Inthisway,Christiantheologyisseenjustasawayof
spoilingthefun.Youcannotlookatgirls,youcannotget
drunk,youcannotdomanyofthethingsthatyouwouldwant
todo.Theunregeneratemancannotcomprehendthis.They
cannotunderstandwhatitmeanstolivearighteouslife.They
onlyseerulesthatyouarbitrarilykeepforyourself.
Theconceptofservitudeoutofloveisforeigntothem.As
Christians,wedogoodthingsasanoverflowofthelovethat
wehaveforGod.Wekeephiscommandmentsbecausewe
lovehim.Indeed,theideaofdepartingfromhis
commandmentsisequallyasinconceivableaskeepinghis
commandmentsistotheunbeliever.
Weholdinverseperspectivesofsinandrighteousness.We
mightbeabletoexplainthistothem,andtheywould
intellectuallyacceptit,butonapracticallevel,inthesenseof
actuallylivingitout,theunbelieverwouldfinditappallingand
absurd.
Butthisrighteousnessthatwehaveisnotourown.Itisa
giftfromGodthatweliveoutinourdailylives(Romans1:2627).Withthisgift,wecanbeawitnesstotheunregenerate
man.Wecanshowhimthevirtueofrighteousnessandthe
viceofsin.ForinthemoralperfectionofGod,menareleftto
standinawe,inreverentfearandwonder.Wearetolaborto
representtherighteousnessofGod.
Ofcourse,wearestillsinnersandwewillfailattimes.
Whenwedofail,weshouldapologizeforourfailings.Thiswill
requirehumilityandself-reflection.Ifwefallshortofthe
standardofrighteousnessthatGodhasforusinthepresence
ofourfriend,weshouldacknowledgethatandweshould
apologizeforthat.Ifwetrytohideit,thenitappearsas
thoughwedonotcareaboutsin.Butwhenweacknowledge
oursinbeforeourfriend,wearerepresentingthe
righteousnessthatGodhasgivenus.Wewillshowhimthatit
ispossibletoliveinrighteousnessoutofloveratherthanout
ofduty.
Wewillbeawitnessforloveandintelligencetocult
members.
PeoplewhoareinaChristiancultgroup(thiswouldnot
includegroupssuchasScientology,becausetheydonot
identifyasChristians),suchasJehovah’sWitnesses,
Mormons,OnenessPentecostalsaretoldthroughouttheir
livesofthestaleworshipoftheTrinitarians.
TheydonotcareabouttheirrelationshipwithGod.Theydo
notreadtheBible.Theydonotpray.Theydonotlive
Christianlives,butjustsortofdoanythingtheywantand
haveChristianlanguagesprinkledovertheirlives.Imentioned
thisinanearlierchapterwhenIwroteaboutwhatitmeansto
poisonthewell.Ifyouweretoencounteraparishionerofthe
OnenessPentecostalchurch,theywouldbelikelytointerpret
everythingthatyousaythroughthatlens.AsaTrinitarian,you
arebydefaultanindividualwhoengagesinworshipthatis
devoidoftheSpirit.YoudonotreadtheBibleandyoudonot
prayorfast.Thewellispoison.Everythingthatyousayis
interpretedthroughthatmentality.
Butwhenwebegintodevelopfriendshipswiththese
people,theirassumptionsaboutyouwillbeslowlydisarmed.
Asyoulaborforrighteousness,theywillseethatyoureallydo
lovetheLordandyoureallydowanttodohiswill.Perhaps
theywillevencontrastthatagainsttheirownrighteousness,
whichisprobablymorelegalisticthananythingelse.Theywill
contrastyourrighteousness,whichisbornfromlove,with
theirrighteousness,whichisbornfromdutyandthedesireto
meritorachievesalvationthroughdoinggoodworks.Inthis
way,theChristianconceptofrighteousnesscouldbe
displayedtothemforthefirsttimeinyou.
Further,asyoubegintodiveintoyourstudyoftheBible,
youwillhavetheopportunitytorevealtothemthat
TrinitariansreallydoandcanknowtheBibleandcanbe
guidedbytheSpiritintoproperunderstanding.Your
knowledgeofthebiblicaldatacanserveasawitnesstothem
thattheirassumptionsandwhattheyhavebeentaughtabout
Trinitariansinthepastisnotreallytrue.Inthisway,you
wouldbeabletodisarmthoseassumptions.
But,ifthatparticularteachingwaswrong,thatwouldlead
tothequestionofwhatotherteachingswerewrong.Thus
simplyyourwitnessoflove,righteousness,andknowledgeof
theScripturewouldplantaseedofskepticismintheirmind.
Butifyouwerenotfriendswiththeseindividuals,theywould
neverseethisfruitinyourlife.Theywouldonlyseea
Trinitarianandtheywouldkeeptheirassumptions.Whenyou
developanongoingfriendshipwiththem,thentheir
assumptionsaboutyouwouldbechallenged.
Bothyouandyourfriendwilllearntobemoreopenminded.
ButjustasChristiancultgroupsmakeassumptions
aboutwhatTrinitariansbelieve,soalsoChristiansmake
assumptionsaboutwhatotherworldreligionsbelieve.We
willmakeassumptionsaboutthebeliefsandpracticesof
Islam.Ourpastorsmayprovidesomefaultyinformationforus
andwewillestablishitasafact.Alloftheterrorismonthe
newscancauseustobeskepticalofthemotivesofMuslims
asindividuals,andourfriendshipwithaMuslimcanteachus
thattheyarenotallterrorists.Instead,wemaybegintolearn
thatsomeMuslimsreallyareniceandpeacefulpeople.
Similarly,manyMuslims(particularlythosewhohailfrom
Islamiclands)havethisconceptionofthewestwithallofits’
lustandgreed,thatitwasbornoutofChristiantheology.The
reasonthatthepracticesofwesternculturearesoimmoralis
thatthemajorityofwesternersareChristians.Well,when
theygettoknowyou,theywillseethatyoudonotlivelike
that.Whiletheworldaroundyouisdepraved,youare
laboringforrighteousness.Theybecomemoreopen-minded
aboutotherpeople.
Youcanseethatinbothofthesesituations,theindividuals
startedasbeingjudgmental,andthentheygottoknow
somebodyasafriendandtheirjudgmentswereshutdown.
Friendshipswillforceustolookatthedepthsofan
individualratherthanrenderingsuperficialjudgments.They
willforceustonotjudgebasedonappearanceoreventheir
religiousaffiliation.Ourfriendshipswithoneanotherwill
disarmournegativeassumptionsthatwetendtomakeabout
peopleofotherfaithgroupsandgiveuscausetobeopen.
Thatisnottosaythatweareopeninthesenseofaccepting
theirbeliefsasourown,butratheropeninthesenseof
acceptingpeopleinfriendship.Therearesomanybarriers
thatwehavetroublelookingpast,whetherculturalor
religious.Whenwelookatpeople,wejustthink,“Muslim,”
andignorethedepth,theassumptionsandtheindividuality
thatisthere.Thereisnoreasonthatwecannotopen
ourselvesuptothem.WhenJesusencounteredthewomanat
thewell,whowasessentiallyanadherenttoaJewishcult
group,heofferedherlivingwater(John4:10).Thisisthe
behaviortowarddifferentpeoplethatChristiansneedto
exemplify.
Chapter12–Allowyourlovetobeyourseatatthetable.
Therearegenerallyanumberofobstaclespreventingus
fromcomprehendingwhatistrueorwhatistherightthingto
do.Peopleareoftennotsointerestedinthequestion“whatis
true?”asmuchastheyareinterestedinthequestion“how
doesthispropositionaffectmylife?”
Whenwebegintoaskthelatterquestion,ourquestfor
truthbeginstosubsideinfavorofourquestforpleasureand
satisfaction.Inthisway,peopleareoftennotinterestedin
whatistrue.Evenifwecouldpresentaprofoundand
sophisticatedtreatmentofacertainissue,peoplewould
rejectitifitimpactstheirlivesinanegativeway.Ifthey
followthelogictoits’conclusions,theywillhavetosurrender
somethingintheirlife.Perhapstheywouldhavetosurrender
somethingprecioustothem,suchastheirautonomy.
NowIhaveisolatedthereasonthatmostpeoplereject
Christianbelief.Itisnotthattheyrejecttheevidencefor
God’sexistence.Itisnotthatwhatyouaresayingis
unreasonable.Itisthattheyareaskingadifferentquestion
thanwhatyouareanswering.Youareansweringthequestion
ofwhattruthis.Theyareaskingthequestionofhowtruth
willimpacttheirlivesandaccordingly,whatliewillbetter
comportwiththeirlives.Whatliewillallowthemtopreserve
theirautonomy?Whatliewillnotoverwhelmthemwiththe
unbearableweightofrighteousness?
Thisseemstobefromwheretheurgingofrelativism
derives.Folksaremuchmorekeentohearthatall
propositionshaveequaltruth-value.Ifthatisthecase,then
nobodycanchallengethemwiththecalltorighteousness.
Nobodycantellthemthattheyhavetosurrendertheir
autonomyorthesinthattheymightilypreserve.Thequestion
oftruthisalwayshazyandfadesintothebackgroundbehind
themorepotentquestionofhowaparticulartruthclaimwill
affecttheirlives.
Forthisreason,evenifweareabletopresentaparticular
truthclaiminawaythatisintellectuallysatisfying,thatthe
academicsandphilosopherswouldnodinapproval,this
individualwouldstillfindourpresentationtobelacking
becauseitdoesnotanswerthemorefundamentalquestion
ofhowitimpactstheirlives.
Further,peopleareusuallynotwillingtohearthe
expressionofsomebodywhosemoralopinionhasnoproven
repute.Ifastrangerisrelayingtheirmoralopinionaboutyour
lifetoyou,typicallythereflexthatwehaveistothink,whois
thisperson?HowdaretheytellmehowIneedtolivemylife?
Ourmoralopinionisoflittlevaluetothembecausetheydo
notrecognizetheworthinmoralstancesthatastranger
holds.Thusagain,thequestionofwhattruthisfadesintothe
background.Theyarenothearingussaythatsome
propositionistrue.Theyareonlyhearingussaythatthey
needtochangetheirlivestoliveuptoourmoralstandard.
Wearethenstandinginjudgmentoverthem.Wedonothave
aseatatthetable.
Justconsiderthepeopleinyourlifewhocandictateyour
moraldutiesandtellyouhowtoliveyourlife.Iwouldventure
aguessandsaythatformostreaders,thatnumberisquite
limited.Weallowpeopletovoicetheirthoughtsonourmoral
dutiesonlywhentheyproventobeworthyofsucha
responsibility.
IfCharlesMansonweretoinstructmeabouthowtobea
decentandlovingcitizen,Iwouldnotholdhismoralopinion
inhighregard.Hismoralopinionhasemergedasnefarious.
Indeed,anythingthathesayswillbethoughtofasofmoral
repugnance.Considerforamomentthatifpeoplewantto
condemnapresidentialadministration,theywillpointto
randomparallelsbetweenthatadministrationandthe
administrationofAdolphHitler.
ItisthoughtthatsinceHitlerisproventobeamoral
monster,thenanymoralopinionthatheheldmusthavebeen
monstrous.Infact,thereisevenatendencytoattributethe
moralopinionsofeveryonewithwhomwedisagreetothe
philosophyoftheNazis.Whenadebateisparticularlyfervent,
onesidewillinvariablycomparetheirintellectualopponents
totheNazis.IfIhatelicoricecandy,IwillsuggestthatHitler
lovedlicoricecandy.Whenpeopleareproventobeoflow
moralrepute,wedonotlistentothem.
Similarly,ifastrangerweretoinformusofourneedto
abdicateourautonomy,wewouldquestiontheirmoral
repute.Wewouldnotaskwhetherthisindividualwascorrect.
Thefirstquestionthatwewouldaskis,“whodoesthisfellow
thinkheis?”Asfarasweareconcerned,thisindividualhasno
moralreputeatall.Theyhavenotproventhemselvestous.
WhyshouldIlistentothemoralopinionofsomebodythatI
donotknow?Thispersoncouldbeahatefulandjudgmental
bigot.Theycouldbefeedingtheirpridebyputtingothersto
shame.Idonotknowthem.Theirmoralopinionisoflittle
valuetomeforthisreason.Suchaconversationwilloften
becomecontentiousandadversarial.
Whatifweallowedourlovetobeourseatatthetable?We
aresoinvolvedinanindividual’slifethattheyregardour
moralopinionhighly.Theyknowusasindividualsofhigh
moralrepute.Theyknowthatwewouldneversayanythingto
hurtthem.Theyknowthatwecareaboutthemandtheywe
aregoodpeoplewholoveothers.Wearenolongerstrangers
poundingonthedoor,holdingsigns,tellingthemhowsinful
theyare.Instead,weareinside,atthetable,andtalking
aboutthingsthatmatter.
Wecanbegintoovercometheseobstaclesthatpeople
havetolivingrighteouslives,tosubmittingtothegospel,and
toputtingtheirfaithinJesusfortheirsalvation,byallowing
ourlovetobeourseatatthetable.Peoplewillwanttolisten
toourmoralopinionbecausewehaveaprovenworthymoral
opinion.Theywilllistentousbeforetheylistensomestranger
tellingthemhowwrongtheyare.Ifwearegoingtoreach
people,thisiswhatweneedtodo.Weneedtoallowourlove
tobeourseatatthetable.
Loveyourneighborasyourself.
Theconceptofloveisoftenusedinanabstractway.There
isatheologicalstanceknownasantinomianism,which
suggeststhatChristianshavenospecificmoralduties.
Christianscanlivehowevertheywantbecausetheyareno
longerundertheLaw,butundergrace(ironically,whenPaul
madethisstatementinRomans6:14,hemeanttheopposite.
Hewrote,“Forsinshallnotbemasterofyou,foryouarenot
underLaw,butundergrace.”)Somesuggestthattheonly
thingthatwehavetodois“LoveGodandloveotherpeople.”
Butthisisappliedinsuchabroadwaythatthewordlove
doesnotentailanymoralduties.
ThisconceptofloveisforeigntotheNewTestament.In1
Corinthians13:4-6,Paulinformsusthatloveispatient,kind,
doesnotenvyorboast,isnotproud,honorsothers,isnot
self-seekingnorquicktoanger,itkeepsnorecordofwrongs
anddoesnotrejoiceinevil.Theseareallmoralpreceptsthat
thepersonwholovesneedstokeep.Ifwewanttoshowlove
forourfellowman,weneedtolabortodothesethings.
Further,whenJesustellsus,“Loveyourneighboras
yourself,”(Mark12:31),thatisaveryspecificcommandthat
iswroughtwithmoralprecepts.Themeasuretowhichwe
loveourselvesweneedtoloveothers.Thismeansthatifour
neighborishungry,theChristiandutyistocareaboutthis
individualtotheextentthatwewouldcareifwewerehungry.
Iftheyneedsomebodytomowtheirlawn,oriftheyneeda
ridetothedoctor,iftheyneedustosacrificeourtimefor
them,theChristiandutyistoexecutethesethings.
AsemissariesforChrist,weneedtobehaveashedidinthe
world.Heconcededeverythingthathehadtoguiltysinners
whohadnohopeandwerewithoutGodintheworld.He
surrenderedhimselfforthem.Thepersonwhohaslovewill
exhibitparallelcompassionforsinnersandadrivetoward
servingothers.ThatisthedutyoftheChristian.Itisnothing
glamorousanditisnothingthatwillmakeyourichand
famousandhealthyandpeaceful.Itissimplyspendingtime
withsomebodyandhelpingsomebodywhotheworldthinks
doesnotmatter.
Wecareabouttheircauseandwewantthemtoturnto
Christinfaith,notbecausetheywillpromulgateourfameour
causeournametoringoutbeforeallmen.Notevenbecause
itwillpromotetheChristianreligion(asScientologistswill
seekoutsuperstaractors).Butrather,weseekthemoutand
weseektoshowthemlovebecausehumanbeingshave
value.Thisvalueswarmseventheindividualandthelowly.
ForJesussaid,“Blessedarethepoorinspirit,fortheirsisthe
kingdomofheaven.”(Matthew5:31).
Understandwheretheyarecomingfrom.
Ihaveunderlinedthispointseveraltimesthroughoutthis
book.Butifwearegoingtoallowourlovetobeourseatat
thetable,itiscriticalthatweunderstandwhytheybelieve
thethingsthattheydo.Weneedtolistentothemandreally
trytodigestwhattheyaresaying.Whenwearerelatingto
unbelievers,thismayoftenstrikeusasdifficult,because
unbelieverswillholdtoviewsthatareanaffronttoChristian
theology.TheyareanaffronttothepersonofChrist,whowe
loveandwithwhomwehavearelationship.Nonetheless,itis
ourdutytounderstandthemandtolisten.Paulremindsus
thatloveispatient.Astheyareexplainingtheirpointofview,
weneedtobepatientandunderstanding.
Ournaturalinclinationswilloftencounterthisactivity.We
donotwanttolistentothatsortofthing.Wedonotwantto
hearblasphemiesuttered.Butitisimportanttokeepitinthe
forefrontofyourmindthatthetaskathandistorelatetothis
individualrather.Wewantthemtoknowthattheyarevalued
andthatwecareaboutwhattheyhavetosay.Sothe
questionisnotsomuchofhowwecanmakethembelieve
thatwecareaboutwhattheyhavetosay.Forthatwouldjust
beanexerciseindeception.Rather,wemakethembelieve
thatweaboutwhattheyhavetosaybyactuallycaringabout
whattheyhavetosay.Ifweactuallycare,thenitwillbe
apparentthatweactuallycare.Wewilllistentothem.Wewill
notjustbewaitingforourturntospeak.Wewillcarefully
considertheirwordsandwewillrespectpastexperiences.
Peoplehaveahostofpastexperiencesthathaveledto
themtoconclusionsthattheycurrentlyhold.Thereareahost
ofemotionalpresuppositionsthatleadthemtothinkthatthe
gospeldoesnotmatterorisworthyoftheirrejection.
Thereisatimetobesternandatimetobecompassionate
andweneedapplywisdomtorecognizewhichapproachesto
apply.Buttamperingwithemotionalbaggageisadifficulttask
andoftenwhenwearegettingtoknowsomebody,Iwould
cautionpatienceandjustallowthisindividualtotelltheir
storyandoffertheirpersonaltestimony.Peopleareoftennot
goingtoturntoChristinfaithafteroneencounter.Weneed
torememberthatthisoneencounterisnottheendofthe
story,andthatwehavetoprepareforthefutureencounters
thatwewillhave.Thatisnottosaythatweshouldtarryin
preachingthegospel.Butitistosaythattherearetimesthat
weshouldbewillingtolistenandtobegentlewhenthereis
roomforit.
Howheavydoesyourargumentationneedtobe?
ManyChristiansthatpeopleencounterarejustwaitingfor
theirturntotalk.Theyarewaitingtoexplainwhyeverything
thattheirunbelievingfriendthinksiswrong.Theyarewaiting
topoundtheargumentationandreasoningintothegroundor
toemitacleverone-linerthatleavestheirfriendstaggering.
Theyhavewontheargument.Well,weareallimpressed.You
wontheargument.Butyouhavealsosequesteredthe
individual.
Whenyouareoperatingwithintheconfinesofanongoing
friendship,youdonotneedtobesoheavyonthe
argumentation.Everythingthattheysaydoesnotwarrantan
instantrebuttal.Afterall,youmightnotalwayshaveoneand
thiswillleadtoyourtryingtomanufactureanswersoutof
thinair,anditisprettyobviouswhenpeopledothissortof
thing.
IfIaminasituationwhereIamtalkingwithsomebodywho
disagreeswithme,itisprettytransparentwhentheyare
improvising.Theyarejustmakingthingsupandcontradicting
themselvesastheypursuetheanswertomyquestion.That
leadsmetothinkthattheydonotreallycareaboutwhatIam
sayingandtheyarejustlookingforwaystorefuteit.
Otherpeoplecanidentifythisbehavior.Ifanindividual
espousesavieworasliceofargumentationthatyoufind
disagreeable,youdonothavetofeelinclinedtodiffuseit
rightaway.Afundamentalaspectoflisteningtothisindividual
isinnotjustwaitingforyourturntotalk.Whenyoudothat,
youarerelayingtothemthatyoudonotcareaboutwhat
theyhavetosay.Youarerelayingtothemthattheirthoughts
andpointofviewarenotveryimportant.Itisonlyyoursthat
matter,andtheirsaremanifestlyfallacious.
Somepeoplerespondtothis.Butitdependsonthis
situationandheavilydependsupontheperson.Ifweare
talkingaboutsomeabstractideathathasnooverlapwith
anythingthatmatters,thensomewouldjustbewillingto
concedethepoint.IfIwastalkingabouttheplotina
particularfilm,anditwasdemonstratedthatmyhypothesis
orinterpretationwasincorrect,Iwouldjustconcedeit
becausefilmsdonotmatter.Butwhenwetalkingabout
thingsthatmatter,suchasethics,philosophy,ortheology,
thenIwillnotbesoquicktoconcede.Peoplearegenerally
notwillingtoabandontheirbelovedstancessoquickly.
Thisiswhatwillhappenwhenwepursuethe
argumentationtooheavily.Wemaywintheargument,but
isolatetheperson.Wedonotwanttoisolatetheperson.We
wantthepersontoknowthattheiropinionisofvalueand
thatwecareaboutthem.Thereisatimeforustoallowthe
argumentsandtherebuttalstosubside.
Therewillbeanoccasion.
Youhaveallowedyourlovetobeyourseatatthetable.
Thismeansthatyouhaveestablishedyourselfassomebody
whohasamorallypraiseworthydisposition.Youhave
establishedyourselfassomebodywhounderstands.Youhave
establishedyourselfassomebodywhohasthevirtueof
patience.Youhaveestablishedyourselfassomebodywho
caresaboutwhattheyhavetosay.Nowtheywillcareabout
whatyouhavetosay.Ifyoucareaboutwhattheyhavetosay,
theywillcareaboutwhatyouhavetosay.Somepeoplemay
bestubbornandunwillingtoletyouinforalittlewhile,but
thatiswhereyouexercisepatienceandacknowledgethat
eventuallytheywillcareaboutwhatyouhavetosayandwill
letyouin.
Ifthispersonreallydoesknowthatyoucareaboutthem
andthatyouarenotinterestedinbeingjudgmental,theywill
listentoyourmoralopinion.Youwillhavetheopportunityto
tellthemwhycertainbehaviorsreallyarewrong.Youwill
havetheopportunitytotellthemabouttheperfectstandard
ofholinessandrighteousnessthatGodhasprovidedandthat
itisourdutyascreaturestolabortomeet.Youwillhavethe
opportunitytorelaythecentralityofthegospelinthe
universe,andwhyyoulivethewaythatyoudo.Youwillhave
theseopportunities.
Further,theopportunitywillariseforyoutoexplainyour
intellectualobjectionstoafewofthethingsthattheyhave
saidinthepast.Youwillbeabletowalkthemthroughsome
ofthelogicalerrorsthattheymighthavemade,andyoucan
dothatwithoutanauraofarrogancebutratherwithanaura
ofunderstandingandhumility.
Whenweareatthetable,wecantellthemthatitis
possibleforthemtochangetheirlife.Thereasonthatthey
aresomiserableanddepressedisthattheyareclingingso
mightilytothesesinsandtryingtojustifythemandtheyjust
donotrealizeit.Perhapstheyhavesearedtheirconsciencein
nonsense,watchingtelevisioninalloftheirsparetimesand
indulgingineverymannerofimmoralitysothattheycan
eludethethoughtofthevanityofexistence.
AsShakespearewroteinhisplayMacbeth,“Life’sbuta
walkingshadow,apoorplayer.Thatstrutsandfretshishouse
uponthestage.Andthenisheardnomore.Itisataletoldby
anidiot,fullofsoundandfury,signifyingnothing.”Wecan
helpthemtoovercomethisvanityofvanities.
RevealthelovethatChristhad.
Weoftendonotnoticethesophisticationoftheintellectual
attackswithwhichthePhariseesswarmedJesus.Theywould
concocteverymannerofsubterfugetospoilhisreputation.
Forhewasamanofreputeamongthepeople,andthey
wantedtorobhimofthelovethatthecrowdshadforhimso
thattherewouldbenoobjectionwhenthetimecameto
arresthim.Thesequagmiresthattheydevisedwerequite
brilliant.Thisisoftenoverlookedbecauseofhowwellhe
answeredthechallenges.
InJohnchapter8,thePhariseesstagedthiswomancaught
inadulteryandbroughthertoJesus,quizzinghimaboutwhat
theproperresponsetothissinis.Theyaskedhimwhatshould
bedonetohiswoman.Thiswasaverycleverruse.ForifJesus
hadsaid,“Lethergofree,”hewouldbeatransgressorofthe
Law,andthecrowdwouldbeforcedtoacknowledgethat.But
ifhehadsaid,“Stoneher,”hewouldlosehisreputationas
thefriendofsinners.Inansweringthischallenge,heexposed
thehypocrisyofthereligiousleadersanddemonstratedthe
heightofmercyandfriendshipwithsinners.Hesaid,“Hewho
iswithoutsinamongyou,lethimbethefirsttothrowastone
ather.”(John8:7).
Whilethisdemonstrationofmercyoccurredinadistant
landandinadistantera,withlittlesignificantcultural
overlap,theprinciplesofhumanitythatweseeinthisstory
arerecognizablebyallandrelevanttoall.Itiscommon
wisdomthinkthatwehavesomuchsininourlivesthatwe
mightaswelljustthrowupourhandsinfutility.Wecannever
turntoChristinfaithbecauseitwillnotmatter.Wehave
abandonedhimandwehavedonefartoomuch.Thisis
probablywhatyourfriendthinksabouttheirstandingwith
God.
Yetinthisstory,weseethiswomanwhowasanadulterer
andJesushadmercyuponher.Similarly,thewomanthathe
encounteredatthewellinJohn4wasanidolaterwho
rejectedthemajorityofthebiblicalnarrative.Shewasa
licentioussinner,undisciplinedinhersexualactivities.Yet
Jesussaidtoher,“IfyouknewthegiftofGod,andwhoitis
whosaystoyou,‘Givemeadrink,’youwouldhaveaskedhim
andhewouldhavegivenyoulivingwater.”(John4:10).He
offeredmercyandthegiftoftheHolySpirittoawomanwho
hadnothingtogivehiminreturn.Heofferedthistoawoman
whohadlivedinsinforherentirelife.
Weseethesamethinginthethiefonthecross.Thisman
knewthathewasatransgressoroftheLaw.Yetinthishighly
religioussociety,healwayshadthisconceptionofthedivine.
HeknewthatGodwasthereandheknewthatGod
demandedimpeccablemoralrepute.Healsoknewthathe
hadnotmetthatperfectstandardofrighteousnessandthat
hewasworthyofcondemnation.Hecriedout,“Jesus,
remembermewhenyoucomeintoyourkingdom!”Therewas
nothingthatthismanhadtooffer.Therewasno
righteousnessormoralworth.Heknewthathehadwasted
hisyears,wallowingintheevildaysandthattherewas
nothingthatcouldbedonetobringhimredemption.Heasks
onlyfortheproverbialdropofwateronhistongue,ashe
pleadsthatJesusmerelyremembershim.ButJesusdidnot
givehimthatdropofwater.Heofferedhimstreamsofliving
water.Hereplied,“TrulyIsaytoyou,todayyoushallbewith
meinparadise.”
PeoplehaveaconceptionofGodandrighteousnessakinto
thethiefonthecross.Theyknowthattheyhavelivedinsuch
repugnancethatthereisnothingtobedoneforthem.Thusas
weallowourlovetobeourseatatthetable,wearetoreveal
themercythatJesusoffers,andthatthismercyisgivenasa
freegifttothevilestsinnerswhohavelivedinsuchawaythat
theyfeelasthoughtheyarebeyondrepair,whocannotoffer
himanythinginreturn.Thisisthelovethatneedstobe
shown.
RevealChristCrucified.
Yethowwearewetorelaythesecosmictruths?Howcan
wetellthemthatGodwillhavemercy?WhereistheGodof
justice?Doeshenolongerexist?Isthatamyththatreligious
peoplehaveconjuredupsothattheymightbeabletostand
injudgmentofothersinners?DoesGodhavenojusticeatall?
Whyishelettingpeoplegofree?
Godcertainlydoeshavejustice,anditwouldbeamistake
toimpaletheconvictionthatindividualshaveovertheirsin
withoutproperlyexpoundinguponwhytheyarefeeling
convicted.Thisfeelingofconvictionisnotatauntfromthe
universe.Itisnotanevolutionaryvestige.Itisatangible
promptingoftheHolySpiritasGodcallsustoturnfromour
sinsandputourtrustinhim.Forhisrighteousnessand
holinessissuchthathecannothavesininhispresence.Thisis
somethingthattranscendsallhumancomparisonsand
illustrations.
WecannotapproachGodbecauseheisimpeccably
righteousandholy.Oursinisoffensivetohim.Justthinkof
themostabominablesinsthatyoucan.Suchapersondoes
notdeservetobeinyourpresencebecauseofhowtheyhave
hurtotherpeopleandstainedsocietyandhumanity.Imagine
thosepeople.ThatisaglimpseofhowGodseesus.Buthis
righteousnessoverusisfargreaterthanourrighteousness
overthem.Godsnarlshisnoseindisgustatthesightofus.He
isperfectlyholytotheextentthatwewouldsaythatnobody
couldbelikethat.Itisinconceivablethatanybodycouldbeso
pureandholy.ThatisGod.
Yetthemostabominable,thosethatGodsnarlshisnosein
disgustover,thosethattransgresshisLawandwallowinsin,
thosethatlivetheirlivesshakingtheirfistathim,Godpointed
toanddeclared,“Thesearemychildren.”
Thinkagainofthosethatyouthinkaresolowlyand
abominablesoastonotevenwarrantyourpresence.Thinkof
themforamoment.Whoarethey?Whathavetheydone?
Christatewiththem.
Whenthereligiousauthoritiessawthis,theysaid
somethingsimilartowhatwemightsay.Whyareyoueating
withsuchpeople?Doyounotknowwhattheyare?Doyou
notknowwhattheyhavedone?Thesearethevilestofmen.
Fleefromthem,Lord!Comeandjointhereputable.
ButthegroundmusthaveshakenasJesusutteredhis
response.“Itisnotthosewhoarehealthywhoneeda
physician,butthosewhoaresick.Ididnotcometocallthe
righteous,butthesinners.”(Mark2:17).WhileGoddisplayed
ajusticethatisbeyondallhumancomparison,hedisplaysa
mercythatbogglesthemindofthepious.
Howdotheseconceptsfittogether?HowcouldGodbe
qualitativelyperfectinhisjustice,whilequalitativelyperfect
inhismercy?Forifheexercisingjustice,heisimpugninghis
mercy.Ifheisexercisingmercy,heisimpugninghisjustice.
Weseetheansweratthecross.WhenJesuswasmurdered,
thefullnessofwraththatwedeservewaspouredoutupon
him.Heabsorbedourpunishment(Romans3:25).Our
unrighteousnesswaslaiduponhimsothathisrighteousness
couldbelaiduponus.Thustheperfectjusticeandmercy
meetatthecross.
Thisisthemessagethatyourunbelievingfriendneedsto
hear.Thisdemonstrationofjusticeandmercyisenoughto
reducethestrongestman,themightiestGeneral,thehighest
intellectualandthecraftiestsinnertotheirkneesinpraise
andthankfulness.GodtheSontooktheirplace.Threedays
later,herosefromthedead.
Thepursuitofsatisfactionendsatthecross.
Yourfriendwillhavespenttheirentirelifedesperately
tryingtofindthingsthatsatisfyher.Everytimetheythink
theyhaveaccomplishedthis,itemergesasapaleobject.It
emergesasamundaneexperience.Therearecertainlythings
thattheyenjoyinthisworld,suchastheloveofmarriageand
children.Butnonetheless,peoplehaveanimmensecapacity
forjoythattheyarealwaystryingtofillandarealways
lookinginthewrongplaces.
Paradoxofparadoxes,theypersistintheshallow
substitutesandrejectwhatcanoverflowtheirheartswithjoy
andlove.ThereasonthatChristiansloveothersisnotthatitis
ourdutytodoso.Itisthatourcupisoverflowing(Psalm23:5)
andwehavemadeJesusourdelight(Psalm37:4).Thusthere
isalotofdelightforustosharewithothers.Weofferthe
overflowofthelovethatwehaveforChristandwewant
themtohavethesameoverflowaswell.Tellyourfriendthis.
Sharethegospelandtellthemhowgratefulyouarethathe
hasredeemedyouandisredeeminghispeople,andyoupray
thatthiswillhappentothemsothatyoucanseetheircup
overflowaswell.
Conclusion
Thewritingofthisbookshouldbetakenasareflectionof
myobservationsofhowChristiansengagewithoneanother
aswellasmyownpersonalself-reflection.Inthisway,Iam
notattributingtomyselfsomehigherstandardofbehavior
thattherestofyouneedtomeasureupto.Iseeinmyself
manyofthesameflawsthatIoutlinedthroughoutthisbook
andIthinkitisaproblemthatwecollectivelyneedto
overcome.ThatiswhyIlaboredtooutlineafewofthe
emotional,traditional,prideful,andpsychologicalobstaclesto
relatingtootherbrethren.
Wemakeahostofassumptionsthatareoftenbasedona
singleword.Thisisbecauseawordisworthathousand
words.IfIweretosayasinglewordrelatedtoabiblicaltopic,
youwouldalreadyhaveanumberofassumptionsaboutwhat
Imeanbythatbasedonpreviousexperiencesthatyouhave
had.YouwouldloadyourexperiencesintowhatIsaidand
assumethatIholdaparticularthatIdonothold.Ifyoudo
that,thenyouaregoingtoargueagainstapositionthatIdo
nothold,andIamnotgoingtounderstandyourobjections
becauseweareusingthesamelanguageindifferentways.In
thisway,weareengagingininternecineactivitiesforneither
ofusunderstandstheother.Weareonlytryingtorefute
whattheotherpersonissayingevenatthecompromiseof
knowingwhattheotherpersonissaying.
CalvinistshaveaccusedmeofbeinganArminianandhave
calledmeahereticforthat.Arminianshaveaccusedmeof
beingaCalvinistandforthatnefariousbehavior,have
accusedmeofheresy.
Therearetwoproblemswiththis.First,itisclearthatboth
ofthesegroupsmustbemisunderstandingwhatIamsaying.
YetthereisasimpleresolutionthatIamafraidhasnotbeen
exercised.Itisutterlyforeignandevenabsurd.Ifyouwantto
knowwhatIamthinking,youshouldsimplyaskme.Yetfor
themtoposethisquestionwouldchauffeurwithitameasure
ofhumility.Fortheywouldbeconcedingthattheymightnot
knowalloftheparticularnuancesandinterpretationofthis
issue.Theywouldbeadmittingthattheymightnotreally
knoweverythingthatthereistoknow.Forthemtoaskmea
questionisanactofhumility.Nonetheless,thisiswhatI
expect.IfyouwanttoknowwhatIthink,youshouldaskme.
YoushouldnotmakeassumptionsaboutwhatIthinkandload
allofyourobjectionsontome.
Second,fortheCalvinisttoaccusetheArminianofheresy,
orviceversa,wouldbetoconflateinconsistencywithheresy.
Ifsomebodyholdsaviewthatlogicallyentailsadenialof
orthodoxy,thenthisindividualwouldnotbeguiltyofheresy.
Theywouldmerelybeinconsistent.Theywouldnotbe
followingtheirbeliefstotheirlogicalconclusions.Onthe
otherhand,heresyisanoutrightdenialoforthodoxy.Youare
ahereticifandonlyifyouholdtoahereticalpositionby
confession.Butifbyconfession,yourepudiateheresyand
haveanorthodoxconfession,youcannotbecondemnedasa
heretic,evenifyoubelievesomethingthatlogicallyentails
heresy.Thedifferenceisbetweenbeinginconsistentand
beingheretical.
Iamprecipitouslypersuadedthatperhapspeople
propagatethischargeofheresyasanexpressionofdisdain.It
isanemotionalinsult.Itislikecallingsomebodyanidiot.In
theheatofthedebate,overwhelmedbyfrustration,youemit
theword,heresy!Thissortofbehavioreruptsasa
manifestationofourinabilitytocommunicatewithone
another.Wearesoincapableofhandlingdifferencesthatwe
justbecomefrustratedwhenanybodydisagreeswithus.
Thereasonforthisseemstobethatwearejustnotaround
peoplewhoaredifferentfromus.Christiansareurgedtoward
monolithictendencies,sothatwehavetohavewithinour
congregation’speoplewhoagreeabouteverysinglepoint.A
denominationalseparationmakessenseonlyinthecaseof[1]
heresyand[2]ecclesiologicaldifferences.WhatImean[by2]
isthatifwejustcannotworshiptogetherbecauseour
practicesaresodifferent,thenitmakessensetoseparate.
AnexamplewouldbePentecostalsandnon-Pentecostals.
TheformerbelievesthatthegiftsoftheHolySpiritare
prevalentinthebodyofChrist,whilethelatterthinksthat
theyceasedatthedeathofthelastapostle.Itmakessense
thatwhileacknowledgingeachotherasbrethrenthatwe
wouldseparatebecauseofthisecclesiologicaldifference.
ButforArminiansandCalviniststoseparateandnot
worshiptogetherdoesnotmakesense.Thereareno
ecclesiologicaldifferencesandthisseparationonlymakesit
moredifficulttohandledisagreementswhentheyarise.For
centuries,wehavetrainedourselvestohavethisinabilityto
handledisagreement.Wehavetrainedourselvestocall
peoplehereticsforwhentheyshouldbecalledinconsistent.
Weareexpertsinshuttingdowncommunication.Weare
expertsinpluggingourearsandrefusingtolistentowhat
anybodyhastosayasidefromthosewhowillremindusthat
wewererightallalong.
Thatiswhatpromptedthisbook.ThisisapleatoChristians
tojustbequietandlistentowhatyourbrethrenaresaying.
Askthemwhattheymean.Donotisolatethemjustbecause
theydisagreewithyou.Bydoingthis,wecantrainourselves
tohandledisagreementsandthereforebemoreeffectivein
preachingthegospeltothelost.
AboutTheAuthor
WhenIfirstcreatedmyblog,www.thereforegodexists.com,
in2012,Iwas(andremaintoday)verymuchfocusedon
providinggoodanswerstodifficultquestionsthatpeoplewill
haveabouttheChristianfaith.Backthen,Iwouldfindmyself
engagingwithalotofatheists,andIwasjustappalledatthe
terriblebehaviorthatIencounteredandthemean-spirited
dispositiontowhichmanyoftheseindividualsclung.
Perhapsinmynaivety,IexpectedChristianstobehave
better,andtheyusuallydo,butthereisstillanegative
dispositionaboutanybodywhohappenstodisagreewith
them.Sothroughouttheyearsinmystudyoftheology,
pursuingaBachelor’sinReligionatLibertyUniversity,
bloggingabouttheologyandphilosophyofreligion,Ihave
noticedhowpoorlymanyChristianshandledisagreements.
Thatiswhatpromptedthisbook.Iampassionateaboutthe
gospelandorientedtowardsharingthegospelwiththisdark
anddyingword.Christiansneedtodoseriousintrospection
andself-reflectionwhenfulfillingtheGreatCommissionlest
theydamagethegospelofChrist.