Stand to Reason Blog

Update Your Bookmark and RSS Feed for the Stand to Reason Blog

You may have noticed we didn’t have the usual new post here this morning. That's because it's at str.org! We have now fully integrated our blog into our website. You'll be able to see the six most recent blog posts there on the home page, or you can go straight to our blog.

To keep reading our posts, make sure you update your RSS feed or subscribe to our blog highlights email.

Be Prepared to Give Up Whatever Contradicts God and the Gospel

In Impossible People, Os Guinness calls us to the kind of love and allegiance to God and the Gospel that will give us the courage we’re going to need in the future:

Such is the character and record of the gospel of Jesus that we may trust it absolutely however dark the times and however bleak the challenge….

The gospel of Jesus may be trusted to be the transforming power that it is. It is, after all, the very power of God for the saving of humanity, and the record of its impact in history is glorious and undeniable. Our allegiance to it is the concern today. We have to rise to the challenge that the gospel raises to all who say that they believe it—we must demonstrate our confidence in the gospel by a courage that is prepared to break with all that contradicts with what God says. In short, by faith we must be prepared to wager our comfort, our livelihood, our honor and our very lives on God and his Word against all other claims and authorities. We must therefore live as we have been called to live: to take up our crosses and to count the cost of living lives that are true to the gospel and to the lordship of Jesus, regardless of the cost and the consequences in our day—and so be worthy of the great cloud of witnesses behind us in history and around us in the world today.

You can hear Greg’s recent interview with Os Guinness on Impossible People here and read about the prequel to the book, Renaissance: The Power of the Gospel However Dark the Times, here.

We’re Seeing a Clash of Worldviews, Not an Inevitable Force of Progress

In his analysis of David Gushee’s recent article exhorting Christians to not be “left behind” by all of the other American people and institutions on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, Jake Meador calls attention to (and argues against) the idea that this revolutionary change in our society is the result of some kind of inevitable force:

To read Gushee is to be told that we aren’t seeing a fight between two fundamentally different visions of reality with competing claims about the nature of human beings, sexuality, and family life. We’re simply seeing a fight between the inevitable forces of progress objectively understood and those backwards people who would oppose it.

The trouble here is that this completely misrepresents what is actually happening. What we are witnessing is the triumph of one understanding of reality over another. As I noted last week, market-enabled, government-backed individualism is ascendant; Christianity is in decline….

And here’s the thing: If we’re honest about the fact of the conflict playing out in front of us, we can be honest about the stakes of the debate, which are enormous: Either we are completely autonomous, self-defining human individuals and the government has an obligation to protect our right to self-definition or we enter into a world given to us in a certain condition, shaped by certain factors outside our control, and filled with norms, rules, and laws we are powerless to change and can only submit to. Gushee’s attempts to obscure this fact do nothing to change it….

The fact that a huge number of people, including Gushee and his friends, absolutely refuse to see this point doesn’t change the facts of the debate. We either have a right to define our own concept of existence—in which case we should just be done with Christianity altogether—or we do not. There can be no attempt to pretend that our current social revolution is simply the natural progression of history happily moving toward climax as those awful, backwards bigots die off in its wake. Such claims are not only dishonest; they are cowardly.

Meador explains how distorting the conflict in this way damages our society:

Here’s the truly awful thing about all this: This sort of framing makes both real debate and real pluralism impossible. If we recognize the radical nature of our dispute, we might also be able to recognize ways of living together peaceably in the midst of those differences. Consider the many examples of close friends who are fierce ideological opposites. But as long as we insist on this absurd idea that one side is simply going along with history and the other is bitterly clinging to their bigoted religious beliefs, there can be no understanding of the other. And where there is no understanding, there can be no functioning polis.

Meador’s whole piece is worth reading. I’ve been pointing for a while to the fact that this societal conflict comes down to our opposing views on what it means to be human (see here, here, and here). This is yet another reminder that, as Christians, we need to be rock solid on basic worldview issues. The existence of the Christian God, the Creator of reality, affects our understanding of every aspect of that reality, so think deeply and carefully about the implications of being created by and for our good God. Otherwise, our secular culture will be happy to do your thinking for you.

Know Your Audience

I made a mistake. I should have known better. It’s something I’ve learned to avoid when speaking to an audience. This time, though, I didn’t pay attention. Perhaps I got comfortable, lazy, and sloppy. I didn’t follow a basic public speaking rule: know your audience.

I’ve been traveling to the Middle East and speaking there for six years now. I know the importance of adapting my material, modifying my jokes, and finding relevant illustrations. Perhaps, though, that’s exactly why I made the mistake. I got comfortable speaking to a similar type of foreign audience and then got sloppy. It wasn’t a horrible mistake, but nonetheless a bit embarrassing.

I was asked to teach on the problem of evil to an Egyptian audience outside of Cairo, Egypt. It was my first time teaching this material in Egypt and, in the interest of time, I planned to just adapt my material on the fly. Most of the presentation went well. I addressed how God and evil can both exist, where most evil comes from, why God might allow evil, and what His plans are to destroy evil one day.

It was my final comments that got me into trouble. I wanted to answer what God is currently doing about evil. I explained that God has given humanity three institutions to mitigate the impact of evil in this world: the family, the church, and the government.

The family is the fundamental unity of society. It civilizes men, protects women, and produces a healthy environment to raise and nurture healthy children. That’s why when families disintegrate through death, divorce, or other things, then people are hurt.

God has also given us the Church. Christians are responsible for rescuing and repairing a broken world. I don’t mean it’s their sole responsibility or they’re the only ones who do anything to help. The Church, though, is called to care for the poor and homeless, to serve the widow, and to protect children and orphans. Christians have often built hospitals around the world, started schools, and fought to abolish slavery.

Finally, I told them God has given the institution of the government, whose chief responsibility is justice. The government is supposed to protect innocent people and punish evildoers (Romans 13:1-4, 1 Peter 2:13-14). When government fails to do its job, evil flourishes.

Maybe you can see the problem. Apparently, I didn’t see it when those words tumbled out of my mouth. My Egyptian brothers and sisters, though, kindly helped me to see why my point didn’t make a lot of sense.

In Egypt, they told me, families aren’t healthy. Marriage doesn’t civilize men, especially Muslim men, who often treat their wives poorly. Consequently, women aren’t protected and children aren’t given a healthy environment to grow.

Churches in Egypt struggle to make a difference outside of their congregations. They’re stifled by the dominant Islamic culture and find it too difficult to repair and rescue their broken culture.

And the government? Well, that’s a joke, they told me. The Egyptian government doesn’t even have its own house in order, let alone have the ability to protect innocent people or punish evildoers. There’s been a lot of corruption within the government, and as a result, it isn’t effective at mitigating the impact of evil. Rather, it’s often a source of evil.

You can probably see why my comments fell flat. I should have known better. In fact, I knew each of the points they made about Egyptian culture. I simply forgot them when it came to my teaching material. I didn't consider my audience.

Now, are my points about the three institutions still valid? Yes, God still has given us these ways to mitigate the impact of evil. In Egypt’s case, though, there are problems with how these institutions function. What I should have done is adapt my material by stating the institutions but then explaining how they are specifically being undermined in their culture. That would have demonstrated that I knew my audience.

Well, you live and, hopefully, learn from your mistakes.

How Should I Talk to My Gay Friend about the Bible and Homosexuality?

Alan shares a loving, tactful approach if you want to bring up your Christian beliefs to your gay friend. 

Newsletters: Cultivating Confidence, the Orlando Shooting, and Theistic Evolution

In case you missed them on the website, here are Brett’s, Alan’s, and Tim’s July newsletters:

• Staring Down Skepticism: How Two Students Cultivated Confidence in the Face of Skeptical Challenges by Brett Kunkle: “Shane was thrilled. His girlfriend Francesca and he had just finished hours of conversation with their skeptical friends at a local restaurant.... A potentially faith-shattering skeptical encounter became a confidence-building, faith-affirming experience.... So what’s the difference between Shane and Francesca and the typical Christian student whose faith gets challenged? Training before the encounter.” (Read more.)

• Are Christians to Blame for the Orlando Shooting? by Alan Shlemon: “Our response to homosexuals is not one of violence, vengeance, or malice. Rather, it is love. We’re called to love those who identify as LGBT. Love, biblically speaking, means that we care so much about them that we tell them about God’s message of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:17-20). Since every human being has committed crimes against God, every one of us deserves to be punished. That means we are all destined to be separated from Him. God, however, offers to pardon anyone who turns from his rebellious life and submits his life to Him. That message of hope is what Christians are commanded to share with all people, whether it's the Muslim who fights for Allah or the one who identifies as LGBT.” (Read more.)

• Is Theistic Evolution a Contradiction in Terms? by Tim Barnett: “On a recent episode of the Stand to Reason weekly podcast, a supporter of STR took issue with one of the ways Greg Koukl and I argue against theistic evolution. Specifically, the caller did not agree with our argument that some forms of theistic evolution are a contradiction in terms. What I’d like to do is model for you how I would respond.” (Read more.)

You can subscribe to their newsletters here.

The Authority of the Scriptures

As the church continues to face cultural challenges from outside the church, we must strengthen our views of God’s Word within the church. Our culture is increasingly and brazenly running counter to the wisdom of the Word, and one of the church’s tasks is to help our people stand confidently and courageously in the face of such confrontations. Yes, make no mistake, we are in a war as the Apostle says in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5.

However, simple appeals to the authority of Scripture or mere assertions the Bible is God’s Word are inadequate for the church in this day and age. We must help our people, and especially our young people, understand WHY the Bible is authoritative. Thus, apologetic arguments for the reliability of the biblical text, the historicity of its claims, and its divine origins are vital. But some leaders in the church think such an approach is not the best way forward for the church. Instead they suggest we focus on the role of Scripture in our communities and ground its authority in its ability to accomplish Kingdom work.

However, these activities are neither necessary nor sufficient to ground Scripture’s authority. Do the positive actions of the church confer authority on Scripture? No more than the positive actions of Hindus confer authority on the Bhagavad Gita or positive actions of Muslims confer authority on the Qur’an. Furthermore, if the efforts of the Christian church were wholly impotent in the renewal of men and the world, would the authority of Scripture be diminished? Absolutely not. In fact, this is an important theme in the Old Testament narrative. Israel’s history is fraught with accounts of the nation turning its back on God’s Word, yet the Word of the Lord remains. And this is precisely the prophet’s claim: “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

Such attempts to ground the authority of Scripture in its functions fail to deal with the ontological status of Scripture itself. What something is is separate and distinct from what it does. Certainly God’s authority is displayed in His kingdom work through the church, but the functions of the church do not constitute that authority. Here is the central question we must ask: What is the status of Scripture as God’s Word? As Christians, we cannot ignore the rich reservoir of biblical passages that speak of the Bible itself. The self-testimony of Scripture and Jesus’ view of Scripture shed clear light on the source of the Bible’s authority. Our understanding of Scripture can certainly be aided by the narratival character of Scripture and discussions on how it forms the body of Christ, but we cannot avoid the discussion of the authority of Scripture grounded in the nature of Scripture.

How to Handle Opposing Theological Influences on Your Children

Brett helps you know what to do when friends or relatives with differing viewpoints seek to influence your children in negative ways.

 

The Third Mission to the West

So what do we do now as Christians in a post-Christian culture? Os Guinness has some thoughts about our “third mission to the West” in his book Renaissance: The Power of the Gospel However Dark the Times:

The first mission to the West centered on the conversion of the Roman Empire. This mission is well known, the extraordinary story of how those whom the Romans saw as a bunch of provincial misfits grew and grew until their faith replaced the faith of mighty Rome itself. (The Emperor Julian after his failure to turn back the clock: “You have conquered, Galilean!”)

But when the Western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, so also did much of the church in the West, so the second mission to the West centered on the conversion of the barbarian kingdoms. This took place against the backdrop of the Dark Ages and the tribal conditions and conflicts from the fifth to the tenth centuries. Less well known than the story of the conversion of Rome, this story was every bit as heroic. It included the celebrated “gentling” of the European people, as the cross of Jesus became what the poet Heinrich Heine called the “taming talisman” that subdued the “berserker rage” of barbarians such as the Celts, the Goths, the Visigoths, the Franks and the Vikings.

The second mission also includes the stories of Skellig Michael and communities like it. Skellig Michael was the rocky pyramid in the storm-tossed Atlantic, eight miles off the western coast of Ireland. For six centuries, part of the church clung to its faith by the skin of its teeth at a place that for them was the end of the world and at a moment they believed was the end of time. The second mission certainly includes the story of “how the Irish saved civilization,” the brief, bright hour captured by Thomas Cahill’s book of the same title when St. Columbanus and other missionaries from the Emerald Isle fanned out down and across Europe, a missionary journey that can still be traced today by the trail of Celtic crosses as far down as St. Gallen in Switzerland and Bobbio in northern Italy.

What those of us who are European Christians must acknowledge humbly is that when the Chinese and other peoples in the world had reached a high level of civilization, we were still barbarians and we might still be barbarians apart from the gospel. It took the gospel of Jesus Christ to tame our barbarian violence and unite our warring continent. For the intrepid missionaries who sailed forth from Ireland in flimsy coracles, or who journeyed up from Rome under the second St. Augustine, brought both the gospel and its fruits. Along with the gospel, they brought the Scriptures, then literacy, then education, and all the gifts of the gospel that later on were to lay the foundations from which Christendom was built.

Never forget the power of the Gospel. Jesus is in the business of changing human beings into people who love and follow Him. People who love and follow Him, when there are enough of them faithfully doing so, can’t help but affect the shape of the whole culture. In this way, God has transformed the cultures of greater and more wretched nations than ours. When He has chosen to. But whether or not He chooses to do so in our day, we’re called to follow Him. This, Guinness says, we must do faithfully and completely:

The deepest question concerns the Lord himself: Is it really conceivable that God will revive the Western church a third time, after it has gone cold twice? Another question concerns our response: What are we to do as we wait for God’s answer to that first titanic question? In other words, our deepest questions at this moment echo the very question God asked of the prophet Ezekiel as he surveyed a valley full of the sun-bleached bones of a defeated and slaughtered army, “Can these bones live?”

And like Ezekiel, our answer can only be, “O Lord, you know.”

The answer to the second question is the clearer. Acknowledging the essential part that only God can play should never lead to quietism or passivity. We may contribute little to our own renewal except the needs that make our renewal necessary, but to return to Christ in repentance is to shoulder our full responsibilities as disciples—including our commitment to engage to the fullest extent our callings in the world, and our dedication to re-evangelize the advanced modern world. For whether the times are bright or dark, whether we can see God in action in front of us or he seems absent and long delayed, and whether our cultural standing is once again admired or disdainfully cold-shouldered, we have our trust in him to be true to, our tasks to perform and our callings to which we must prove faithful.

As always, faithfulness is all, and the circumstances are beside the point. Our faithfulness must therefore show itself in a waiting that is vigilant, energetic and enterprising. Wherever there are men and women faithful to the Lord, let them trust God and live out their calling to Jesus and their callings in the world wherever those callings take them. That is the call to faithfulness and active transforming engagement that we pray will flower in a new Christian renaissance in our time.

Much of the recent debate about changing the world sounded like a clash between those who say, “Yes, we can,” and those who say, “No, you can’t.” That at least is an issue that can be resolved. The true answer is one we must both declare and live out: Yes, we can, because God can—and he has in the past, and he is doing so elsewhere in the world, and he is able to do so again even here in the advanced modern world, because God is God, and his is the last word in human affairs.

Let it be clearly understood that our hope in the possibility of renewal is squarely grounded, not in ourselves, not in history and the fact that it has happened before, but in the power of God demonstrated by the truth of the resurrection of Jesus…. The risen Jesus stands as the Lord of life, and the lesser challenge of Christian renewal looks puny in the light of the greater triumph of the resurrection of Jesus.

Guinness’s book can be summed up by this quote, and it’s one we should take to heart:

The time has come to trust God, move out, sharing and demonstrating the good news, following his call and living out our callings in every area of our lives, and then leave the outcome to him.

Make it the first priority of your life to conform your mind, your view of the world, your understanding of your profession, your treatment of others, the workings of your family, your willingness to sacrifice for others, and your love, to Jesus. As Guinness says, “We are called to define our faith, our lives and all we are and think and do by the standard of Jesus Christ our Lord, the precepts of the good news of the kingdom, and the authority of the Holy Scriptures.” You cannot skip over this in a misguided attempt to put all your efforts into doing something “big.” In the end, this is what makes the difference: one human being at a time being changed by Jesus, living in community with His other followers.

I just finished reading a book about Christopher Hitchens’s friendship with Larry Taunton, and it wasn’t Taunton’s superior argumentation that drew Hitchens to personally discuss Christianity with him; it was the fact that Taunton’s Christian life was lived with conviction, love, and sacrifice—sometimes shockingly so, to Hitchens—that moved him. The beauty of a life conformed to Jesus—His humility, His sacrificial love—demonstrates the plausibility of Christianity in a way that opens people up to hearing intellectual arguments. We dare not skip over conforming our lives to Jesus within a community of fellow Christians in order to focus on learning arguments.

I hope you feel as convicted by this as I do, and that you’ll take some time to consider ways your life could better reflect Christ’s love, humility, and self-sacrifice to the world.

Our Society Should Not Stifle Religious Dissent

Andrew Walker warns of our society’s need for allowing religious dissent and the danger of denying religious liberty:

Protecting religious dissent is at the foundation of America’s history and constitutional legacy. As Madison and Adams argued, religion is prior to the claims of the state. It provides the grounding for democracy necessary for ordered liberty. And if religion is prior to the state, its importance looms larger than the state’s reach. This understanding wasn’t a secondary feature to America: it was, arguably, its distinguishing feature. Seen in this light, the Constitution didn’t bequeath religious liberty. Rather, religious liberty helped bequeath a penumbra of other rights that are enshrined in our Constitution.

Two of the reasons why undermining religious liberty undermines our society: 1) Constricting debate by disallowing dissenting voices “is the enemy of reason itself.” 2) Removing the religious foundation of our society’s concept of human dignity and rights endangers everything that was built on that foundation:

Denying true religious liberty communicates that participation in civil society is conditioned exclusively by accepting contested categories for participation in communal life. This reality paves over the conscience by declaring some issues untouchable and beyond debate. Untouchable orthodoxies that are given official government sanction will treat any dissenting voice as an enemy to be vanquished. Secular progressivism isn’t only the enemy of religious liberty and civil society; it is the enemy of reason itself.

Religious liberty contributes to the diversity of civil society. By its very nature, civil society will be contested territory. Contested debate helps give rise to democratic order, and democratic governance relies on spirited debate. Societies, of which governments are but a reflection, consist of various voices, movements, and ideologies vying for acceptance. In the interest of advancing justice, prophetic difference and prophetic dissent are necessary ingredients if progress is to occur. Allowing citizens the freedom and space to appeal to transcendent duties forces reason to determine what is true or false. From our deepest understanding of truth, we order our lives accordingly, and our lives bear witness to whether our values benefit society. Signaling that Christians aren’t welcome in the public square undermines the public square by robbing it of the religious-ethical system responsible for fostering norms and values that protect individual rights and a humane public morality.

Read the rest of Walker’s article.