My Apology

Apologetics is the field of Christian theology devoted to defending the faith. Strange word -- Apologetics. We think of an apology as an "I'm sorry; I was wrong." That's clearly not what's in view here. According to the dictionary, the first definition includes regret, but the second is "a defense, excuse, or justification." Rooted in the Greek apologia, the word referred to the defence's arguments in a prosecution. The word appears in our Bibles 7 times (if I counted correctly), but the term "Apologetics" as a defense of the faith comes primarily from 1 Peter 3:15.

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

There it is. "Make a defense to anyone who asks you." Apologetics. Except ... that's not really what it says. I mean, it's sort of there, but not quite. Notice, for instance, that in that quote above there is neither a capitalization at the beginning nor a period at the end. This verse is the middle of a sentence. The topic is "if you should suffer for righteousness' sake (1 Peter 3:14) and the aim is that you would have "a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame" (1 Peter 3:16). Note, also, that it does not say to be "prepared to make a defense" of the faith. That's not there. It is in Jude where we are commanded to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). So, yes, make that defense, but that's not in 1 Peter. What is Peter telling us to make a defense for? What is "the hope that is in you"? Well, he tells us early on.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)

Peter wrote to a church expecting trials (1 Peter 1:6-7; 4:12-13; etc.), and he wanted to convey to them -- the "elect exiles" (1 Peter 1:1), the "sojourners and exiles" (1 Peter 2:11) -- that they were first and foremost born again to a living hope. He says the world will be surprised you don't join them in their "flood of debauchery" and they will malign you (1 Peter 4:4), so you need to be ready, in the midst of trials and hard times, to give a defense of that hope into which you were born again. That hope.

We are commanded to be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" and to do it "with gentleness and respect." That hope is built on nothing less than Jesus's blood and righteousness (to borrow from the hymn). It is predicated on His resurrection and it is accomplished by God. It is "imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you." We are defended by God Himself. These are reasons for the hope within you. And you may be asked to give those reasons. You may be asked to defend those reasons. But the defense is of the hope they see in you when it would appear to be hopeless for you. Your life should reflect that hope, and you should work at being able to give a reason for it. That may include some defense of the faith, but it requires something different in your attitudes and actions if they're going to ask. It is your hope and not just your belief system that you are defending.

Without Apology

At Merriam-Webster definition #2.a. for "apology" reads, "something that is said or written to defend something that other people criticize," the idea behind the use of the word, "Apologetics." One of the clearest texts for the concept of Apologetics -- the defense of the faith -- is found in Jude.

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4)

Here we read Jude's appeal that we "contend earnestly" for something. What? "The faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." Not something new. Something, for us, quite old, in fact. We're not defending new ideas and new notions; we're contending for something handed down "once for all" -- the faith.

Jude explains where the threat comes from. It comes from false teachers among us ("crept in unnoticed"). What marks them? They "turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Now, that word, "licentiousness," doesn't really work in today's vernacular, so newer translations use words like "sensuality" or "unbridled lust." The idea is that they make God's grace into justification for "my personal pleasure" which, obviously, requires that they deny Jesus as Master and Lord. They make grace "all about me" -- my plaything. They use God's grace as license. "God doesn't mind at all if I sin; He's okay with it." They don't merely ignore God's view; they use God to indulge in and defend their own sinful passions. "Only God can judge me." They minimize the Son and maximize their own personal pleasures.

Jude goes on to point to Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of this kind of thinking and God's opinion of it. They "indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh" and suffered "the punishment of eternal fire" for it (Jude 1:7). "Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties." (Jude 1:8) A clear marker of these false teachers is their rejection of existing authority (such as God's Word) and their abuse of authority. Remember, it's "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints," not their new version, whatever it might be. They cause divisions, "worldly people, devoid of the Spirit." (Jude 1:19)

The "problem" is clear. What, then, are we to do?

But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh. (Jude 1:20-23)

It isn't "nothing." Nor is it "go to war." It is immersing yourself in the faith and praying. It is keeping yourself in the love of God and trusting in Christ. It is showing mercy to some, snatching some from the fire, and avoiding their sin. It is, ultimately, a reliance on "Him who is able to keep you from stumbling" (Jude 1:24).

Jude has been very clear about who it is that has "crept in." They are disguised as one of us. They use God's grace as license. They deny Christ as Master and, ultimately, as God and instead revile authority and pursue self-interests. If you see them, be aware of them. Jude, under the inspiration of God, told us what to do. Oh, and Peter asks us to do it "with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) You have your marching orders. Go and apologize without apology.

Give a Defense

You all know about Apologetics, the defense of the faith. We take the term from the "go to" verse, "In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) The Greek word, apologia, is translated "make a defense" here, so we get "Apologetics."

I was struck the other day with some points I've never seen before on this text.

First, "In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy." That's the origin, the basis, the primary thought. It is this that spawns the command to always be prepared. The thought is "Have no fear" (1 Peter 3:14) because you have set Christ aside in your heart as holy. There is no higher, no other, nothing else. The honor we offer Christ is exclusive. He is all we need, all we desire, all that matters. He is complete and completes us. There is nothing else. Set apart. This makes sense, then, as an answer to fear. Do you fear suffering? Don't; you have Christ. Do you fear need or pain or harm or lack? Don't; you have Christ. Do you fear evil or failure? Don't; you have Christ. What Peter wrote to Christians in Nero's Rome we need today. What do you fear? Don't; you have Christ. As long as He is it -- singular, alone, all there is, complete -- then you have nothing to fear.

That leads directly into the second point. The text doesn't say what we all seem to think it says. It doesn't say, "Be prepared to make a defense for your faith." It's just not in there. What are we expected to defend? "The hope that is in you." That hope is what we have in the face of all sorts of bad stuff because Christ is all we need and we have Christ. So, in the midst of otherworldly hope, expect questions. Expect challenges. Expect people to ask about this. When our dear sister in Christ discovered she had a brain tumor and not much more than 4 months to live, she responded with cheer and hope and the Gospel for all -- family, friends, neighbors, medical people, anyone she comes across. That is the kind of thing that makes people ask questions. When I was in Basic Training in the Air Force and did not respond with the same despair that other recruits had with the psychological assaults from trainers, fellow recruits asked me how. Why does my sister in church have hope where there appears to be none? Why did I bear up so well in training when others were ready to collapse? What we are told to be ready to defend is not our faith; it is our hope.

A couple of thoughts on that. First, Hebrews says, "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for." (Heb 11:1) So while I snatch "defend the faith" from the text and substitute "defend your hope," keep in mind that the two are irrevocably linked. The reason for our hope is our faith. Our faith in Christ, our assurance that He is sufficient, our singular vision of Christ as all in all. So, one stepped removed, we will need to defend our faith. But the starting point is hope. Second, you have to ask yourself. "Do I have supernatural hope?" Do we live lives of unexplained hope? Do people see us and think, "What in the world makes those people tick?" Do we exhibit hope in apparently hopeless situations that will make them ask about it? You see, if we hide the hardships and just put on a plastic smile, they won't see it. If we take on other values than the singularity of Christ, we won't have the hope-filled lives that make people ask about our hope. In either direction, they won't ask, so you won't have to defend or explain it.

Apologetics is commanded in Scripture. It is not commanded that we each take courses to learn the logical, philosophical, and theological reasons for what we believe. Some should, but this is not a command for that. This command is premised on a life built on Christ alone in a fearful world and a life that will make people ask. We are required to be able to explain why we have hope when all outward appearances would suggest we shouldn't. That will certainly include defending our faith. But the command is to be ready to make a defense for your hope. So, do you have hope? And are you ready to tell others why? That's the point.

Out of Context

Peter was in favor of Apologetics.

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, (1 Peter 3:15)

Right there where it says "make a defense" the Greek word is ἀπολογία -- apologia -- the origin of our word, Apologetics. That word is not "apology" as in "I'm sorry." It refers to a verbal defense or a reasoned argument. It was basically a courtroom term, the way your lawyer would argue for you. Thus, to Christians "Apologetics" refers to the reasoned defense of the faith, and we like it because, after all, it's in the Bible.

There are a few, of course, who aren't sold on the idea. Mostly not that they don't like it; it's just that they don't seem to get the hang of it. You have to know too much. You have to sift together philosophy and rules of logic with archaeology, history, science ... the whole gamut of this stuff. "Can't we just preach Jesus?"

I think, however, that this is a misunderstanding ... on both sides. If you were paying attention, my quote above started without a capital letter and ended with a comma; it's not a complete sentence. That should be a warning that we are not getting the context.

Peter is listing a whole bunch of instructions to "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." (1 Peter 2:9) Instructions include everything from "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution" (1 Peter 2:13) to suffering for righteousness' sake (1 Peter 3:8-20). That last section, verses 8-20, starts with "Finally" and it is in that final set of instructions that we find verse 15. It includes commands for unity, brotherly love, not repaying evil for evil and seeking peace. Peter says, "Who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed." (1 Peter 3:13-14) It is here that we pick up the sentence in question.

Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:14-16)

I know it's a lot, but I hope you can begin to see the context so that you can begin to understand the text. The context is suffering. Our job, here, is to honor Christ the Lord as holy. Our job is to retain a good conscience. Our job is to be holy ourselves. Our primary aim is to "proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." The direction of the text is inward -- we need to be a reflection of Christ and to be prepared to suffer and to know that we are blessed for it -- and outward in the sense of being good witnesses for Christ. In that we should know why we believe. Why? Well, if we are examples of all that is good and we suffer for it, people are going to want to know why we're maintaining such a good attitude. We need to be able to tell them why. That is the concept.

I'm not saying that the formal field of Apologetics is a bad thing. Not at all. But the formal field is not for everybody. We are called to suffer for Christ and rejoice. We are called to be prepared to tell others why we rejoice in suffering. And, oh, by the way, we're supposed to do all that "with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience." When Apologetics advocates do it with fierceness and glee at defeating their enemies, it just doesn't seem like "gentleness and respect." When we fight for our cause, is that "gentleness and respect"?

We are supposed to be holy as God is holy. We are supposed to live godly lives as ambassadors for Christ. We are supposed to be ready to give an answer as to why we have hope in Christ. That may include a philosophical discussion, a logical train of thought, or a robust argument (or arguments). In all cases, though, we are ambassadors for Christ, His representatives, where our deeds and our words glorify Him. We are to "proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." When Apologetics supersedes that, we're not doing what Peter was talking about. When are not giving a reason for the hope that we have with gentleness and respect, it's called sin. Obviously defending the faith by sinning makes no sense at all.

The Lawyer for the Accused

One thing that almost everyone agrees on about President Trump is his mindless tweeting. His advocates have suggested taking away his phone, terminating his Twitter account, or doing something to just get him to stop making all these largely offensive and inappropriate tweets in the night. Someone needs to get him to just shut up at times.

In a similar vein, perhaps God needs a better lawyer. You know, the kind that sits next to Him and urges Him, "Don't answer that." The kind that tells Him to rest on His right not to speak. Certainly not about that subject and absolutely not in that way. But God doesn't have that lawyer and we're stuck with the things He says about Himself. Try some examples.

Thus says the LORD of hosts, "I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam 15:2-3)

Well, now, that seems pretty harsh. So we apply our 21st century morality and our carefully thought out moral relativism and our certainty that this cannot be a good thing and try, as hard as we can, to get God off the hook. Maybe it never happened and the Israelites of the day made it up or maybe it was a reference to a small group of Amalekites and not an actual genocide. (Note: Saul did not kill all the Amalekites and relatives of Agag, the king of the Amalekites, came up in later events (Est 9:24) to harass Israel. It was not a genocide.) Maybe Samuel misunderstood or maybe it's just a lie. Surely God would never say something like this. And God's lawyer shakes his head in frustration. "Don't answer that. You just need to keep quiet."

In Isaiah we read, "But now, O LORD, You are our Father; we are the clay, and You are our potter; we are all the work of Your hand" (Isa 64:8). So it gets a little sticky when Paul tells us, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom 9:21). Now, hang on a minute. God makes some of us for honorable use and others for dishonorable use? Solomon pipes in with, "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Pro 16:4). "Hey, hey!" God's lawyer would protest. "Strike that from the record. You can't say that."

There is no doubt that the worst sin ever perpetrated in the history of the world was the unjust murder of the Son of God. On this we read that Jesus was "delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23), that "there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:27-28). Wait ... hold it. Are you saying that God planned the worst sin in history and God predestined that it happen? "I'm sorry, folks," the lawyer is surely saying, "we have no comment. My client is clearly disturbed by events and we'll have to wait until He feels better to continue this."

So God lays out claims about His character and those claims sometimes don't line up with our popular ideas or our moral judgments and we have a problem. Some decide to pass judgment on Him. (Note: I put links in there to let you know that some are doing it and not to endorse their arguments. Some Christians don't know that this is going on.) Some explain that you can't trust the Bible to tell you what God is like. Some decide to try to get Him off the hook. "Oh, no He didn't mean that. Let me tell you how He actually aligns with our popular ideas and our moral values." (I read one debate between a believer and an unbeliever about the morality of God where the believer argued, "The Bible cannot be taken literally." Not helping.)

The simple fact is we don't get to do this. We don't get to judge God. We don't get to evaluate His choices and determine whether or not He was right or moral in them. We don't get to argue with Him about what He does or if it's okay. I once heard a Christian say after a difficult event in life, "If God was behind what happened to me, I'm going to have a problem with God." We don't get to do that. God is God. He is the Creator. He is the Master. He is the Lord. It all belongs to Him and what He does isn't only good; it defines good.

The problem is called "theodicy" and we do need to keep answering the questions, but in the final analysis we don't get to pass judgment on God. It is not rational to say, "If God is like the Bible says He is, I want nothing to do with Him." We don't get to evaluate whether or not He is good or just or true. He defines these things. So what we need to do is think His thoughts after Him, correct our views when we fail to do so. Sometimes we misunderstand what He said and we need to fix that. Sometimes we thoroughly understand what He said and we need to realign our thinking to His revealed character. We do need to "contend for the faith" (Jude 1:3) and be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15), but not for God's well-being. He's got this. The confusion is on our end. We don't need to defend Him, just agree with Him.

The Moral Problem

I am a fan of Apologetics, the defense of the faith. I think we are commanded to defend the faith. In an appropriate-for-our-day message to the people of Peter's day he says, "Even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:14-15) Jude calls us to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) So I see it as a Christian duty. On the other hand, I do not believe we can argue anyone into the kingdom. I think that God can use Apologetics as a means of reaching the lost, but that's His job. Our job is to be prepared, to contend for the faith.

You'd think, though, given the piles of reasoned arguments and actual evidence available today, there would be more people who would say, "Well, I see it now! Your arguments make sense! I believe!" We have arguments from practically every arena. There are philosophical and historical and scientific and biblical arguments. There are arguments for the existence of God, arguments for the reliability of Scripture, arguments for the deity of Christ, arguments for the Resurrection, and on and on. Sure, there are bad arguments for some of this stuff, but there are certainly good and even incontrovertible arguments as well. (Note: By "arguments" I don't mean "Mom and Dad are arguing", but "arguments" in the courtroom sense.) Let's face it, there have been and continue to be a lot of excellent thinkers out there with excellent arguments from all sorts of sources and in all sorts of directions to provide us with a solid defense of the faith.

So, what's the problem?

The problem is that people still don't believe. How can that be? We've got the facts. We've got the logic. We've got the evidence. We even have white papers on it. And yet, they aren't convinced! How can that be? Those that aren't convinced will tell you that our arguments aren't convincing. And I discussed that some time ago in The Problem of Proof. If "proof" is defined as "that which convinces", we have no proof. Of course, neither does anyone else ... for just about anything. Still, we have a preponderance of evidence. Why do they not see it?

That last question is the clue. Scripture says "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers." (2 Cor 4:4) How has he done this? In what sense are they "blind"? In the same sense that they are "dead" (Eph 2:1-3). You see, the primary problem is not that they are irrational or stupid or lack evidence. The primary problem is that they are spiritually dead, hostile to God, blind. "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14) There is a block outside of reason and evidence. I would suggest that at least part of this block is a changed life.

Let's see if I can illustrate from my own life. I grew up in an excellent Christian home. When I was a newly minted "adult" (you know ... 18 or over), I realized that my raging hormones and my biblical training were at odds. If I was going to satisfy my desires, I would need to jettison my training. So, I told people "I have issues with Christianity." I could expound on my "issues" and tell people, in the kindest way I could, how I was no longer sure that Christianity was true. This, of course, was pure smokescreen. Oh, I wasn't aware of it at first. I thought they were genuine issues. But the real issue was I wanted to sin without guilt and the truth was getting in the way.

Thanks be to God He didn't leave me there, but that illustrates the problem of morality. You can do your best to drum up excellent arguments about the faith. You can produce empirical data, show irrefutable philosophical arguments, explain historical evidence, and so forth. The problem is you will run up against one primary problem: "I don't want to change." Ask some skeptic sometime. "If I were to answer every question you have with clear and irrefutable logic and evidence, would you be willing to change how you live?" If it is an honest skeptic, I think he or she would honestly tell you, "No." Because the problem isn't proof; the problem is change. The problem is God. Someone once said that the most offensive verse in the Bible is "In the beginning, God ..." because putting primacy on God is the highest offense to sinful humans. Giving Him the right to tell you what to do is not acceptable. Asking you to change to conform to His guidelines is unbearable. "So ... all that proof you have? It doesn't amount to much if you're expecting me to change."

Now, to be fair, that's only one of the problems. Faulty arguments are a problem. Christian hypocrisy is a problem. The spiritual condition of Natural Man is a problem. The rot of the mind that sin produces is a problem. The violation of human wisdom (1 Cor 3:18-19) is a problem. There are lots of problems. But I'm pretty sure that very near the top is the simple requirement to bend the knee -- to give up autonomy and follow Him. So I am in favor of Apologetics because God commands it, but I would recommend you remember what it is you are up against when you go down that path. I would recommend that you count on something other than your careful application of evidence and argument to achieve your goal. We can defend. God alone can convince. Biblically it's termed "an opened heart" (Acts 16:14). We don't get to do that, although it can be rewarding to be part of it.

Apologetics

Those of us who like to defend the faith (it's called "Apologetics") take our cue from Peter. He told us to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). Indeed, that word "defense" is pros apologia (which gives us our "Apologetics" term). So we figure, "All Christians are commanded to be prepared to make a defense" and, frankly, "If you're not, you're not being obedient." Yeah, I know, sounds kind of arrogant, doesn't it? But you have to admit there is a seed of truth in there.

It is interesting, then, when you stop and examine the context of the statement. As it turns out, 1 Peter 3:15 isn't even a complete sentence. It starts with "but" and ends with a comma and is in the middle of a thought, not the primary point. So what is the primary point?

The chapter starts with the ever-unpopular "wives, be subject to your own husbands" (and, worse, "even if some do not obey the word") and meanders through "husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way" (1 Peter 3:7). So far, no good. Okay, good, but we don't really like it much. He goes on to say that we ought to have unity, brotherly love, and humility (1 Peter 3:8). He then tells us not to repay evil for evil (1 Peter 3:9). Payback is God's job. So Peter reasons, "Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?" (1 Peter 3:13). Peter knows there is actually an answer to that question, so he says, "But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed" (1 Peter 3:14). Good! And then he begins the thought that carries through 1 Peter 3:15 all the way into verse 17 and beyond:

Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil" (1 Peter 3:14-17).

The topic, then, is not "be prepared to make a defense", but be prepared to suffer. Be model Christians, but know that you will suffer for righteousness' sake. Have a good conscience and be prepared. "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18). Expect it.

How, then, are we supposed to prepare for suffering? Well, clearly we start by being good wives and husbands (in stark contrast to today's concept of "good wife" and "good husband"). We start by being united, loving, humble. We start be relying on God to repay while we "turn away from evil and do good" (1 Peter 3:11). That's how we start.

Then we need to be prepared to make a defense. Mind you, this isn't a legal defense. This isn't a "go to court and get your just due" defense. This is a defense aimed at explaining "the hope that is in you". This defense is first and foremost structured with "gentleness and respect". And the outcome we can expect is ... suffering.

We're not being asked to convince anyone. We're not being asked here to make converts. We're not being asked to build a logical argument based on science and philosophy and ... whatever. We're simply told to, with gentleness and respect, be prepared to explain why we have hope when people cause us to suffer for doing what is right. It is premised, then, on doing what is right with the expectation of abuse because our Savior was abused and that will be God's will.

Is that the kind of "defense" you're prepared to make? That's the defense we are commanded to prepare.

Paul on Apologetics

For those unclear, Apologetics is essentially the rational defense of the Christian faith. The word is derived from the Greek behind 1 Peter 3:15 which says we are to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." That word, "defense", is pros apologia and the apologia is the root of our word, "apology". And I favor (it should be obvious) being ready to give a reason for the hope that lies within me. That's good. But I'm wondering about today's Apologetics.

There is value in giving Christians reasons to believe. That is, having believed because God has opened our hearts, it can be helpful -- fortifying -- to be given reasons, arguments, evidence, points of fact that build up that faith and help hold it strong. But today's Apologetics seems largely to be aimed at the non-Christian, and much of what is being said out there suggests that if we don't have a strong (and often extra-biblical) argument for Christianity, we won't be able to reach people. I find myself wondering what Paul would think of that.

First we know that Paul holds that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17). Apparently faith is not premised on good arguments, but the Word. But Paul has a lot to say about the wisdom of the world in this context. He assures us that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). Hmmm, not wisdom, but folly. He actually revels in the fact that "not many of you were wise according to worldly standards" (1 Cor 1:26), but, instead, "God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise" (1 Cor 1:27). I don't know. It doesn't sound a lot like Paul is encouraging using the wisdom of our surroundings to convince unbelievers.

Paul gets more pointed in the next chapter of 1 Corinthians. "My speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," Paul tells the Corinthians, "that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5). Instead, "we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit" (1 Cor 2:13). Indeed, "we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God" (1 Cor 2:7). Now, in truth, that kind of thing is anathema in the arena in which Apologetics is used as a witnessing tool. Suggesting "secret wisdom" is not going to gain you points in a logical debate. But that's Paul's claim. And he tells why. First, "These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit" (1 Co 2:10). It takes the Spirit to reveal the truth of the Gospel. And that would be fine, except for the second problem: "Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). It doesn't really sound at all like Paul believes that we can produce sufficient reasoning skills to argue people into the kingdom of God. It sounds, instead, as if Paul is saying that Natural Man cannot receive the truths of God. That requires a fundamental change, and that fundamental change ("the mind of Christ" -- 1 Cor 2:16) is not brought about by clever arguments or coherent reasoning.

One last thought from Paul on this:

For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile" (1 Cor 3:19-20).

Say what you want, but I don't think Paul placed a premium on the world's extrabiblical reasoning to accomplish God's work. In fact, it doesn't look like God does, either.

Now, I know that God uses all sorts of means to accomplish His ends. I know that in some cases God has used cogent arguments to prick the hearts of individuals to open their eyes to the truth. I am not saying that we should abandon reason and jettison a rational defense of the faith. But it would seem from Scripture that receiving the truth about Christ, about salvation, about those things that make up the Gospel and Christianity is a matter of the Word from our end and the Spirit from God's end. We are not overcoming faulty thinking. We have to overcome the dead spirit of Natural Man. A clean argument won't do that. God appears to want prayer and the Word from us for that. We ought to give God what He wants.

The Problem of Apologetics

I've said it before. We are commanded to contend for the faith, to give an answer for the hope that lies within us. (The phrase in 1 Peter 3:15 -- "give an answer" -- is pros apologia in Greek. See that "apologia"? That's our origin of "Apologetics" in this context.) And so we, if we are to be obedient children, engage in the defense of the faith. The defense is a reasoned defense. Although we are defending faith, it is the mind that is doing the defending. Biblically, the two are interlinked. We are to learn, to examine, to understand, to renew the mind, to "think on these things". We are required to engage the brain in our walk with Christ, and we are required to engage the brain in our defense of the faith.

Therein, it seems, lies the problem. The Bible presents a pretty grim view of the thinking processes of Natural Man. I've already beat to death (perhaps) the claim that "Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). That doesn't bode well for the logical discussion of the truth. And it only gets worse from there. Paul says "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Cor 4:4). That's Man's natural condition -- blinded minds. In his explanation of the Gospel, Paul tells the problem that the Gospel addresses: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). The "bad news" that the "good news" addresses is that Man is under wrath. Why? Because he has decided that unrighteousness is preferable to righteousness and, to maintain that unrighteousness, he must suppress the truth. The effect of this little piece of insanity is cumulative.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things (Rom 1:21-23).

Natural Man, then, is quite sure of his own wisdom ... but is quite futile in his thinking. That's God's evaluation, not mine.

You should see, then, the dilemma we face. We are commanded to make a rational defense of the faith. We are obligated to stand for the truth, to argue our case, to contend for the faith. And at the same time, we are absolutely assured that the ones to whom we are presenting our defense are blind, incapable of understanding, futile in their thinking. We are to present this reasonable argument to those who, when it comes to this particular topic, cannot be reasonable. That's the primary problem of Apologetics.

Is there no hope, then? Not at all! I gave you 2 Corinthians 4:4 a moment ago. Look at the rest of the passage.

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:4-6).

Do you see the solution? Yes, indeed, they are blinded in the mind. No doubt. They cannot see "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ." But we're talking here about God at work now. Remember Him? He's the one who said, "Let there be light" and there was light.

We are faced with the impossible task of presenting a rational defense to an irrational audience. We do so because we are commanded to do so. God requires it of us. That's the problem. The good news is that while we are responsible to present the best possible defense, we are not responsible for the results. That is God's job. And while we might have no means of overcoming futile thinking and blinded minds, God isn't limited like we are. Thus, when we engage in this necessary practice of contending for the faith and making our defense, we are participating in the work of God with certainty that when God wills He cannot fail. When He chooses to turn the lights on, they will see ... and you get to participate.^*
________________
^* Little hint here. As it turns out, this is the way we all get to understand. Paul told Timothy, "Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything" (2 Tim 2:7). See how that works? He says to think things over because in the process "the Lord will give you understanding". Just so you didn't think you figured it out all by yourself ... or that you don't need to think.

Winning Isn't Everything

I am very interested in the process of Apologetics, the rational defense of the faith. The Bible commands it. Reason demands it. I'm in favor. There are a lot of areas in which I find myself engaged in this defense. There is the defense from without -- defending the faith against skeptical unbelievers. There is the defense from within -- defending orthodoxy against skeptical believers. On any given day I may have to explain why I believe there is a God at all or why I am quite certain that the Trinity is basic Christian doctrine. Beyond that, I find myself defending against other assaults, like this whole "same-sex marriage" concept. They are not, technically attacking my faith, but they are indeed making threats. (For a very good explanation of what the issues are and why we need to engage in that debate, see Prop 8: Why Engage the Issue? from Stand to Reason.) And so I find myself often engaged in debates with dissenters, friendly and hostile, over a wide range of positions and concerns. I believe that my positions are rational and biblically and rationally defensible. So I do it and even enjoy it.

This whole thing is not without its problems, however. When it comes to Atheists and liberal Christians and outliers like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses or "gay" rights activists or any other group who may be hostile to the faith (as opposed to those with friendly disagreement), defending the faith has its down side. These types will have run into a host of others who have poorly represented both Christianity and good reasoning. They will have heard all sorts of things that I don't believe and experienced a variety of responses that I don't offer. They will arrive with preconceptions about their positions, to be sure, but also with preconceptions about mine. And most of the time I'll end up defending myself from positions I never have had. Guilty by association. "Oh, yeah," they'll think (or say), "I know your type. You believe _____" ... and I don't, but by now the entire conversation has derailed.

The other major problem is the animosity it creates. You see, the concept of a "debate" includes the concept of "win or lose". And now we're no longer comparing evidence and rationale; we're competing. In this situation, there are winners and losers, and no one wants to be the loser. Of course, there is no "set of rules", no judge who rules on the outcome -- "I declare this side the winner!" No, the judges are the individuals making the arguments and the observers listening to them, and their conclusions may not be based on merits of the arguments, but on the presumptions they brought in with them (especially in terms of the previous paragraph).

So we end up with a question. Of what value is it to defend the faith, to hold your ground against lies? You see, providing the best possible argument (typically the intent of the word "win") isn't the only concern. Are we representing Christ well? Is there the possibility of a good outcome (like someone might change their mind), or is it more likely that the whole thing will result in negativity regardless of the quality of the argument? Factor in the reality that many attacks are smoke screens, not actually thrown up to "win", but simply to avoid the question. Here, think about it through an example. It is abundantly clear that the Bible defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Scripture and human history undeniably affirm this. Beyond that, there is no doubt that the Bible considers homosexual activities as sin. The facts are indisputable. The arguments are seamless. The only problem is this: If you make those arguments, you will be perceived as a hater, a bigot, narrow-minded, a "fundamentalist" (which is intended as an insult). Prove that marriage is defined as an exclusively heterosexual relationship and homosexual relationships are sinful, and you won't be winning over the homosexual community; you'll be making enemies of them. Stand your ground on marriage and sin and then try to share Christ with a "gay" coworker and see how that goes. See the problem?

It is true. Winning isn't everything. I think, perhaps, it is in that win/lose mindset that we run into problems. The goal is not winning. We are commanded "always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). The goal is not to win, but to "give an account". And there is, in this very command, another hint. We are to make a defense "with gentleness and reverence". You see, as in all things, the goal is love. From that perspective it is important, if we love God, to stand for what He stands for for His sake. It is important, if God knows what's best for His creation, to stand for what He stands for for the sake of His creation. Conversely, if we love God and others, failing to stand for the truth is failing God and failing others. Using a simple illustration, refusing to warn a loved one that they are about to swallow poison because they are enthusiastic about drinking it is not love, even if you will be perceived negatively. It's not about us. It's not about winning or losing. It's about God and our neighbors. We must stand for the truth. We must do it with gentleness and respect. We must do it for others. Because, indeed, winning isn't everything. In this situation, it actually isn't anything. Love is.

Ten More Signs

I commented the other day on Ten Signs You are an Unquestioning Christian. I also pointed you to the good folk over at Pyromaniacs who are addressing each of these points logically. I got to thinking that there is another issue here. The suggestion of those "ten signs" is that "We're right thinking people and you are not." I got to thinking that it might be interesting to turn the tables and point out, in similar format, that it's just not the case. So here are my "Ten Signs You are an Unquestioning Anti-Theist". Some of them track their points. Some don't. I've tried to avoid the problem of ad hominem and am not trying to ridicule. It just seems that logic demands that the other side be examined as well.

Ten Signs You are an Unquestioning Anti-Theist

10. You cannot recognize the simple, logical, undeniable fact that if there is one, true God, all other gods would be false.

9. You find ultimate value in creatures you are quite sure evolved by chance from a pool of chemicals.

8. You reject any evidence and logic that is contrary to your view because you are a person that only accepts evidence and logic.

7. You make Christian beliefs a matter of ridicule without subjecting other religions or even your own beliefs to the same standards.

6. You are confident that you know more about Christianity than the average "Christian".

5. You are quite sure that science, history, geology, biology, and physics have disproven the existence of God.

4. You have comfort to offer in times of death and suffering even though there is no overarching basis for such comfort.

3. You believe that faith in science is reasonable, but faith in God is believing something when there is no reason to believe it.

2. You are comfortable claiming that life is meaningful when you're convinced that humans are biochemical bags who cease to exist at death.

1. You hold that there is no "Supreme Moral Agent", but affirm that there are moral atrocities that occur and moral values that all of us should have.

Ten Signs

It has been around for awhile, but it has been making the rounds lately on largely anti-theist blogs. It is titled Ten Signs You are an Unquestioning Christian (or something like it), and it's hailed by anti-theists as a glorious assault on Christianity.

There are so many approaches to take with this whole thing. Unfortunately, it is designed to make it impossible to do so. The idea is to ridicule, so if you respond, any response is considered ... ridiculous. The assumption is "This thing is so right on that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot."

Stepping into the accusation of idiocy, then, there are still so many things to consider. Take, for instance, the repeated ad hominem arguments. As an example, if you are a Christian you will "vigorously deny", "feel outraged", "feel insulted", "laugh", your face will turn purple, you will "spend your life looking for little loopholes", and so it goes. There is also a series of more subtle ad hominem approaches nestled in many of the points. Intentionally using the lower case "g" for "God" is intended to minimize God. Take, for instance, the first argument. If, in truth, there is a God with a capital "G", then it is only logical to dismiss (not "vigorously deny") the existence of other gods (with a lower case "g") because the capitalized version is genuine and the lower case version is not. It's like dismissing the entire set of numbers except "4" to answer the question "What is 2 plus 2?" Another dig is in the obvious notion that anyone who believes this stuff is an idiot without actually making the argument. The frequent use of quotation marks is intended to besmirch Christians. If, for example, you claim that Christianity is the most tolerant and loving religion, it is not perceived the same as when you claim that it is the most "tolerant" and "loving". The quotation marks clearly say you're lying without actually having made an argument. And that whole thing about "with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects" is unnecessary, isn't it? Taking the outlying ideas of a few crackpots as the standard view of Christianity isn't reasonable. The whole thing is riddled with these ad hominems. Now, an actual series of arguments doesn't require the pejorative descriptions to make the point. Generally, when the descriptions designed to insult are pulled out, it simply means you've run out of logical points.

Another point to consider is the piles of purely erroneous statements. God did not slaughter all the babies of Egypt in Exodus. It is utterly inane to refer to the authors of the Bible as "pre-historic tribesmen". "Prehistoric" means "before recorded history", so if they're recording history, they cannot be prehistoric. I was also unaware of the study done where some statisticians did a careful examination on the number of prayers God answered (in the positive, I assume). I won't call it a lie, but I suspect that there is no genuine data and no scientific study that would give us a "0.01% success rate" for answered prayers. I won't say for sure, but it seems to me that this is less than honest. So when you read through these arguments, realize that there are simply false statements in them.

Then there are the whole host of false premises. There is the faulty correlation of "Trinity" to "polytheism". The two are not connected and the suggestion is false. There is nothing in Christianity that suggests that the Holy Spirit "slept" with Mary. Science, history, geology, biology, and physics have not offered evidence that there is no God or that Christianity is false. I mean, they're not even looking in that direction. Find for me, for instance, the experiments in physics that were done to test the hypothesis "There is no God". Interestingly, the #1 argument listed is based on the strange notion that a person is a Christian based on what they know about the Bible, Christianity, and church history. Now, I don't know anyone in Christendom or anywhere in the Bible that determines your status of being a Christian or not based on comparative knowledge. Logically, false premises nullify conclusions. If I build a syllogism -- "All men are dogs", "Socrates was a man", therefore, "Socrates was a dog" -- may work out logically ... until you recognize that the first premise is false. If it is not true that all men are dogs, then it cannot be conclude that Socrates was either.

All of this is just the start. The good folk over at Pyromaniacs are addressing each of these points logically. They are assuming them to be genuine arguments to be addressed. They will likely do a far better job than I will, so I'll leave it to them. There is one of the arguments, though, that really forces me to respond. Their Item 3 is this: "While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor 'speaking in tongues' may be all the evidence you need." I won't defend "some idiot rolling around on the floor 'speaking in tongues'". It's pointless. But there is an implication there that must be addressed. One of the popular approaches among anti-theists is that if God really existed, it would be easy for Him to prove it. Just do a miracle or something. This item, however, leaks their dirty little secret. No amount of miracle will do it. We know this is the human condition. When Israel escaped Pharaoh by nothing less than undeniable divine intervention, their response was to grumble. Awhile later they experienced the direct presence of God, and before the whole thing was over they were having a worship service for a golden calf. In the New Testament, the Jews witnessed Jesus calling a certainly dead Lazarus out of a tomb, and their response wasn't, "Oh, now we believe." It was to seek to kill them both. This point of theirs, then, is to affirm that no amount of genuine, observable evidence would be sufficient to change their minds. And that, they are quite sure, is good logic.

My point is not to complain about ad hominem arguments nor is it to demonstrate that the arguments are not arguments at all or to even prove a point. Sure, there are errors, logical fallacies, and other nonsense going on. You might even benefit from looking for it. I am simply saying that there are answers to objections. We are commanded to contend for the faith, to make a defense. Despite the popular notion, faith and reason are not enemies, but, properly understood, compatriots. If the attack on your beliefs upsets you, perhaps you need to examine the questions more carefully. It doesn't require idiocy to believe. There are reasons to hold to Christianity. Too often we sit there and say, "Well, I believe and that's all there is to it" as if there is no reasonable response. Don't buy the line.

Faith and Reason

In a recent article by Dr. Albert Mohler he asked the question, "Just how secular can an education be?" The question is in regards to a battle at Harvard University over whether or not undergraduates should have "at least one course in religion". The notion was that they should be prepared, along with everything else their education gives them, to deal with questions of faith. The question, of course, was struck down with vigor. The modern university, you see, must only be concerned about reason, not faith. Stephen Pinker, the most outspoken opponent of the idea, wrote,

The juxtaposition of the two words makes it sound like "faith" and "reason" are parallel and equivalent ways of knowing, and we have to help students navigate between them. But universities are about reason, pure and simple. Faith—believing something without good reasons to do so—has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these.

This is what we're up against. It is a common perception, even among Christians, that "faith" means something radically different than "reason" -- that faith is faith and reason is reason and never the twain shall meet. "Faith", it is popularly held, "is believing something without good reason to do so."

I looked the word up. According to a variety of dictionary sources, the primary meaning of "faith" is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Funny thing ... I don't find anything in that which requires "without reason". In the Encylopedia of Judaism on the topic of faith in the Old Testament it says, "To those who lived in the biblical period, it seemed that evidence of God's presence and activity was so apparent that only willful blindness motivated by self-interest or being misled by a false prophet could explain disobedience." That phrase, "evidence of God's presence and activity", should shake you if you hold that sharp distinction between faith and reason because at its core faith does not require the complete lack of reason.

In the New Testament the word used most often for "faith" is peitho (in its various forms). Strong's defines the word this way: "to convince (by argument, true or false)". In other words, the New Testament concept of faith is reason that leads you to become convinced of something. In fact, without this definition there are commands in Scripture that make no sense. We are told, for instance, to "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). Jude calls us to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

If we acquiesce on faith, making it something without reason, we are giving up our ability to obey these commands. You cannot defend something that has no reason. The root word there is apologia and is the word used in Greek courts for the legal defense. It is defined as "a reasoned statement or argument". Thus, if you allow "faith" and "reason" to be severed, you cannot make a reasoned statement about faith.

Tertullian, a 2nd century lawyer-turned-Christian, asked, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" He was warning against mingling Christian revelation with human philosophy. We've adopted the view by warning against mingling faith and reason. And there are fundamental problems with both. If reason is not an issue, why did Paul reason with the philosophers at Athens? If reason is not an issue, why did Paul use classical logic to argue for the Resurrection? If reason is not an issue, why did biblical writers offer reasons for faith? Paul wrote of eyewitnesses. John and Peter both spoke of being witnesses themselves. Why bother if reason is not an issue? Indeed, why would we be commanded to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is" if faith is without reason, the mind is irrelevant, and proof is pointless?

You'll hear that drivel a lot. Don't buy it. The Bible itself gives us reasons for believing. We are commanded to make logical arguments and proofs. Modern atheists would like to strip away one of the basic positions God requires -- reason -- but don't you let them. Some of faith may have components that cannot be tested in a laboratory, but there is no reason to think that this requires that you fold up your brain and put it away to be a Christian. The Bible demands the opposite. Don't do it.

Reliability of Scripture

The reliability of Scripture is constantly under attack. Of course, skeptics are happy to take you to task for believing that your Bible is the Word of God while other scriptures are not. Even "Christians" question it. A popular phrase these days is "The Bible contains the Word of God". We are constantly being asked to defend our belief that the Bible is the God-breathed Word, infallible and inerrant.

Over time I have found lots of reasons to believe it. When I say "reasons" I refer, essentially, to "evidence". Despite what you may have been told, there is evidence both for the existence of God and for the reliability of Scripture. These both fall under the broader category called "Apologetics". What kind of evidence have I found?

Well, there is the obvious. The Bible has large portions of prophecy made (and documented) long before events occurred and then perfectly fulfilled. It's not vague stuff like Nostradamus. It's quite clear. And chalking up that kind of track record to "chance" seems less logical than admitting it is inspired. One of the evidences that I personally find interesting is the fact that it was written by some 40 different authors over a couple thousand years but retains one, coherent message. I find that interesting because I am a writer. Once, I tried collaborating with a friend to write a novel. We worked closely together on it and found it extremely difficult to retain coherence. Both C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien wrote their fantasy stories because they complained that single authors couldn't maintain coherence in their own stories. Now, if lone writers have difficulty with it and two authors working closely together have difficulty with it, what are the chances that widely diverse authors over a long time period could do it? A blithe "It could happen" seems more like a fairy tale than admitting Divine Inspiration.

There are lots more reasons for defending the reliability of Scripture. On the other hand, despite all the reasons (read "evidence") that are offered, there will always be detractors, skeptics who deny it. Given the large volume of disagreement, why is it that people like me (and we aren't a small number) continue to hold to the reliability of the Bible? There is a less spoken but nevertheless true reason that underlies it all. Christians (not merely those who profess it, but those who are genuine) have an extra, bottom line factor. We have the Spirit of God. The same Spirit who breathed the words of the Bible to the human authors who wrote it lives in believers. That Spirit teaches us the Word and confirms in us the truth of it. Oh, sure, we may disagree on interpretation at times. We may listen more or less to the Spirit. We may make our own mistakes. Still, in all the disagreement and variation, we still concur together that the Bible is the God-breathed Word, reliable and infallible, because we have the Spirit of God in us confirming it.

I know. That argument doesn't hold much water in an open debate. It's doesn't serve as useful evidence to the skeptical world. On the other hand, we who have the Spirit in us don't really have much choice, do we? We can either deny what is absolutely certain to us (with much or little evidence provided) in order to appease detractors or we can concur with the Spirit because we have the Spirit. To the skeptics out there, perhaps you can see that we're kind of stuck with this notion of divinely inspired writings, then. To deny it would be to deny ourselves and to fly into fantasy and lunacy. Oh, sure, we have evidence -- reasons to believe -- but the bottom line is we are quite sure that God is the one who breathed that Bible for us. We can tell that the so-called "lost books of the Bible" don't fall in the same category. We are quite confident that it wasn't the Church that gave us the Bible, but the Spirit. Absolute proof? No, we don't have it. But we don't have the option of denying what we know because you don't like our reasons, do we?

Apologetics

Andrew Tallman is a local radio talk show host. On Wednesdays, he does a show he calls "Wacky Wednesday" where he argues for ideas with which he disagrees. His aim is to help his listeners to learn how to argue ideas. Last Wednesday he argued that it was wrong to engage in apologetics for Christianity.

First, a brief definition. "Apologetics" is only a distant relative of today's concept of "apology." It comes from a Greek term that was part of a Greek court proceeding. It was, in essence, the argument of the defense. It simply refers to the reasons why you should believe that he didn't do it, so to speak. It is, then, a reasoned defense. (Our evolved use of the term, then, is the "defense" asking for forgiveness.)

Okay, fine. So how did Wacky Andrew (that's how he refers to the Andrew that argues against the truth) argue against Christians using apologetics? Well, there were a variety of points. It doesn't work. (You can't reason a person into the kingdom.) "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Argumentation isn't love. All of the objections, in fact, turned on the concept of warfare. The idea, it seems, is that apologetics is an attack. It is intended to argue people into the kingdom -- to win converts by reason. This is not a good thing.

I would have to agree with Wacky Andrew in that perspective. Attempting to argue people into believing is not a good idea. But ... that's not what Apologetics is, is it? Notice what I said in the definition: "It is a reasoned defense." I suspect that many over-zealous Christians jump into Apologetics with both feet hoping to do exactly what Wacky Andrew argued against. They want to win converts. They want to argue people into the kingdom. They want to tell you why you should believe. Oddly, that's not something we are told to do. Oh, we are commanded to engage in Apologetics, but we are not commanded to win converts by it. Look at the command:

In your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame (1 Peter 3:15-16).

We are not commanded to "always go on the offense"; we are commanded to always be "prepared to make a defense." See that? We aren't called to give reasons why they should believe; we are called to explain why we believe. It is not a matter of convincing them, but explaining us.

More importantly, perhaps, note the section I highlighted in bold. Our defense is not to be ... offensive. It is not to be angry, irate, disrespectful. It is not to be snarky or sarcastic. It is to be "with gentleness and respect." You see, that is a whole other approach to Apologetics. Peter in this passage does not say, "Dazzle them with your brilliance." He says, "Have a good conscience and behavior so good that they have nothing bad to say about you." Somehow "Argue them into the kingdom" doesn't seem to fit into this concept at all.

When was the last time your Apologetics was based on good behavior? When was the last time your argument fundamentally resting on gentleness and respect? When was the last time you viewed it as a defense rather than an attack? This is what we are commanded to do. If you are doing something different, maybe it's time to reconsider. As wacky as Andrew can be, I think he had a lot of good points about what Apologetics ought not be.

God Is Good

The most common thorn in the side of Christianity for skeptics is the existence of evil. How can there be evil if God is good? There are a variety of answers and a variety of positions and a variety of approaches, but skeptics still hold it as their "trump card." "Aha!" they exclaim, "Proof that there is no god."

One of the approaches offered that is mostly discarded out of hand by the skeptic is equally disliked among a lot of believers. The argument is that God is good. That's it. End of argument. We're done. The argument is that God is good and whatever God does is good by definition. He is not held to a higher standard of "good" or some greater justice. Whatever He does defines good. The fact that there is evil, then, would be defined as a good thing because God has allowed it.

Not too many people like that at all. The last time I saw it thrown out (in both senses -- thrown out the door and thrown out as a challenge) was actually from a believer. "God must conform to some sense of good that we can understand or He isn't good." From a skeptic, that's odd, since they deny the concept of absolute good, but from a believer it's just disturbing. Frankly, from neither side do I understand the denial.

Here's the thing. Assuming there is an Ultimate Being, we would necessarily have to assume that this being is ... ultimate. He is above "good" as we know it. Further, He is above us. These two are the significant facts. It seems to me that these two significant facts prove the position. First, if this Being is Ultimate, then it is simply impossible that there can be anything higher ... or He's not Ultimate. This being would be the starting point of everything, including right and wrong. It simply has to be.

The second significant fact -- that He is above us -- brings us what I call "the Order of Being" condition. The easiest way to explain this condition is to look at normal life. Assume a parent and a small child. If you were to ask the small child if the parent was good, what would they say? It is not unreasonable to guess that the small child might conclude that the parent is bad. "I have to go to bed at 8 every night, but they get to stay up as late as they want. If I try that, I'm being bad. I can't drive a car and if I did I'd be in big trouble, but they do it all the time." You get the idea. What a parent can do morally is not defined by what the child can do. The parent can do things that the child is not allowed to do. We all know that. A parent is a different order of being. Imagine taking that idea a step further. What if you asked an ant if humans were good? "Oh, they're horribly immoral. They kill us whenever they feel like it. We work all the time but they only work 5 days a week at most. And look at their method of government! They almost invariably follow a male leader with often an elected government. Everyone knows that the only right government is a single queen. How bad can they get?" But we know that different orders of beings follow different rules. A "good dog" is not the equivalent of a "good man." But here we are. We are creatures, standing with a hand on our hips, and a finger wagging in the air telling the Creator, "If you don't conform to what we think is good, you're not good. Bad God! Bad, bad, God!"

The argument that God defines good is typically dismissed out of hand, often by both sides. They see it as too simple. I see it is unavoidably logical. If there is a God, an Ultimate Creator, He has to define good and He would not conform to our simplified measure of "good." Why would we think otherwise? Sounds like arrogance to me ...

Put Up Your Dukes

Someone pointed me to a new blog. I won't offer a link to the blog. The disrespect is unnecessary. However, the opening statement for the purpose of the blog includes this: "This blog is basically a chance for apologists to put forward their arguments to someone who has absoloutley NO respect for religion whatsoever."

Does that do it for you? In your mind, is this a red cape to a bull or a bucket of water to a fire? Is that a challenge or a turn off?

I read that and here's what I hear: "I think you're a complete idiot, so bring me your best defenses so I can laugh at you and call you an idiot. No, I have no reason to listen. No, I don't intend to actually consider anything you have to say. No, this won't be an actual dialog. If you thought otherwise, you weren't paying attention. 'I have absoloutley NO respect for religion whatsoever.' So, regardless of how well thought out, cogent, rational your views are, I'll snub you. (And, please, don't try to pull that 'If you're so smart, why can't you spell absolutely?' kind of thing. This is not a matter of 'smart'.)"

Well-meaning, sincere Christians seem to like to rise to these occasions. "They asked for my input. I'm going to give it to them." And true believers understand the need to share the Gospel. However, it is situations like these that clearly illustrate that "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). We do indeed need to have answers. We do indeed need to be ready to give reasons. But we also need to keep in mind that it is not our wise, well-considered, carefully reasoned arguments that will convince people. So have them, use them, but don't rely on them for results.

Faith in Crisis

What is faith? If you talk very long to an atheist, you'll likely get a limited response. Archie Bunker suggests "Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." One of the most common definitions of faith is "Believing something you know isn't true." Of course, both of these are inaccurate. Everyone knows that faith is really defined as "firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof." That's where it is left. That's where most people will go. That's even where most Christians will go. For many people "Faith is believing what you want to believe, yet cannot prove." It's a nice place for them to be. They don't have to give a reason for what they believe because there is no reason by definition. (Oddly, although they define faith as lacking reason, they will still try to use reason to defend their faith.) Of course, to a thinking person it would mean the death of the intellect, an act of mental suicide. So some reject faith out of hand.

To me, these are quite inadequate methods of defining or describing faith. For some reason, it seems, faith must be defined differently when it comes to religion than in other places in life. Religion tends to require "lack of evidence" but the rest of life has no such demand. If I tell my wife, "I have faith in you," I'm expressing trust. It would be foolish to trust someone without reason. I've spent sufficient time to know that she's trustworthy and, so, I trust her. That's evidence that produces faith. Faith says, "I know this up to here so I can expect this in the future."

There is a well-known story of a French tight-rope walker named Blondin. He made his name by walking across Niagara Falls on a rope. The story is told of a time when walked across and the crowd gathered to watch. Then he walked back and picked up a wheelbarrow. "Who believes I can walk across with this wheelbarrow?" he asked. Some raised their hands. And he walked across with the wheelbarrow. On the other side he picked up several large sacks of flour and made the return trip. Everyone applauded. So he asked, "Who thinks I could walk across with a man in this wheelbarrow?" Most raised their hands. "Who will get in the wheelbarrow and go across with me?" The story is told that only Harry Colcord, Blondin's manager, would ever consent to go across with him.

The story is told to illustrate biblical faith. It is an accurate illustration. What is biblical faith? It is not "that you believe what nobody in his right mind would believe." It is not believing something for which there is no evidence. Despite the popularity of such an answer, even among Christians, it is not accurate. In the illustration, the crowd had sufficient evidence. They saw him walk the rope without a problem. They saw him walk the rope with a wheelbarrow. They saw him walk the rope with weight in the wheelbarrow. There was sufficient evidence to convince them that it could be done. There was not absolute proof, but there was sufficient evidence.

Biblical faith is like that. It is not belief in a vacuum. It is belief with evidence. There are reasons for believing. Reasons do not negate faith. The only difference between biblical faith and the faith of that crowd is that biblical faith takes that final step -- it gets in the wheelbarrow. There are reasons to believe what we believe. Without such reasons -- without evidence at all -- the whole concept of apologetics is nonsense. Atheists demonstrate faith when they assert there is no god. They don't have proof. They follow their own line of reasoning and, believing this much is so, they conclude there is no god. They can't prove it; they believe it ... and place their weight on that wheelbarrow. But it is still unproven.

I'm tired of being told that faith is anti-intellectual. I'm tired of being told that faith and reason are incompatible. I'm tired of having my terms defined for me. "Here ... 'faith means belief without evidence' ... okay, now you work with that." It leads to the wrong questions and the wrong problems and the wrong answers. We who believe God should not allow those who do not define for us what we mean. It terminates any chance of explanation, of "being prepared to make a defense" (1 Peter 3:15).

It is true that we do not play on the field of physical evidence alone. It is true that we will run into things that are beyond our understanding. If there is a God, it is required. The finite cannot grasp the infinite. True Christians will always live in a world guided by faith. However, that faith is shaped and directed by evidence. It holds to reason, but doesn't allow reason to pass judgment on the content of faith. Instead, it allows reason to offer meaning and means for ways to pass on understanding of its content. Like Blondin, we walk a careful tightrope of faith. It is not devoid of reason, but it is not solely based on reason. When we subject faith to evidence, then evidence becomes our sole source. When we divorce faith from evidence, then the defense we are called to make for faith becomes meaningless. Reason will, at times, confront the incomprehensible. That doesn't damage faith because faith is the basis, with reason as its support. This type of faith has sustained theism for all time and despite the best efforts of the skeptic, it remains intact. So, what are you going to believe -- the anti-Christian's definition of your faith or the truth?

The Inconsistent Atheist

In the dialog between Christians and atheists, atheists often complain that Christians portray them as immoral people. The suggestion, they think, is that it is impossible to be moral if you don't have a belief in God. Now, this isn't entirely accurate. Nor is it entirely inaccurate. Christians believe that atheists are immoral ... because Christians believe that all people are sinners. That would include Christians. So on one hand it is accurate to say that Christians portray atheists as immoral, but that's only because they portray all humans as immoral. On the other hand, it isn't accurate because the suggestion is that Christians hold that atheists are immoral because they are atheists. That's not true.

The position is that morality is based in God. That is, for moral law to have any meaning, there must be a Law-giver. And for it to carry any weight, there must be ultimate justice. Since we know that ultimate justice does not occur here on Earth, there must be a final, Ultimate Judge who dispenses ultimate justice. The characteristics of this Ultimate Judge include omniscience so that He knows all aspects of the case, omnipotence so that He can carry out the sentence, holiness so that He is not able to be accused, immutability so that He doesn't mete out varied rulings, and, of course, justice. In other words, for morality to mean anything, there must be a God. The position, therefore, is not that atheists are immoral because they don't believe in God. The idea is that they don't have a logical basis for morality. The fact that there are indeed relatively moral atheists isn't in question. The fact that they are moral without any rational basis is the question.

To get this across isn't easy because, well, we all seem to "suffer" from Christian influence. Whether we are religious or not, there is a Christian moral heritage built in to most of our thinking. We call it the "Judeo-Christian ethic". So we basically agree on things like "murder is wrong" and "rape is wrong" and "it's wrong to steal" and the like. We are almost universally in favor of protecting the more helpless members of society. Very few would argue, for instance, that torturing a 2-year-old for private enjoyment would be anything but evil. We agree. But why? Well, in Jewish and Christian thinking, Man is made in the image of God. As such, we are required to respect human beings. Murdering them is immoral. Stealing from them or violating their well-being is akin to attacking God Himself. And it is moral, based on that premise, to protect those who can't protect themselves. It's obvious. Everyone sees it. But that's because it's such an ingrained product of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Try removing that ethic and replacing it with an ethic without God. Let's assume that human beings are the product of billions of years of evolution, the top of the animal chain, with no "higher being" to whom we have to answer, no "heaven" or "hell", no "Law-giver" or "Final Judge". It's just us, folks, human animals living on this rock we call "Earth", biochemical bundles of nerves, flesh, and bones. We're on our own. Where does that leave us morally? Well, let's see ... Rule #1: Survival of the Fittest. If there is any rule to which we must adhere, it has to be that one. Without it we could end Evolution entirely. So, all this protecting of the weaker members of society must stop. It's bad for the race. It's bad for the society. They're using up resources. Think, for instance, of how much we spend trying to take care of sick people. Stop it! If they can't fight off sickness, do we want them reproducing? I mean, look at the animal kingdom as a whole. They don't do it, do they? Sick members of a herd are simply food for predators. Sure, protect them to some extent, but not at any risk to your own life. "Your own life" -- that would be the essence of Rule #2. Take care of yourself at all cost. Nothing else matters. Anything else is meaningless because all you have is here and now. Killing a rival if you can get away with it is no problem. Taking what you need if you can do it isn't an issue. If you can kill a chicken for food, you can kill a coworker for a promotion, right? What difference does it make? Oh, sure, sometimes it benefits you to be nice to others. That would be fine. But to limit your survival strategy to that would be unnecessary. Now, maybe you're ambitious. Maybe you want your influence to carry on beyond this life. How would you do that? Well, have lots of kids, of course! That will likely include a promiscuous lifestyle, but that's not a big deal because the rules are "Survival of the fittest" and "Look out for #1", and "promscuity" doesn't violate either of those. You'll likely need to make a lot of money to ensure the survival of lots of offspring, to do whatever is necessary. Beg, borrow, or steal. All that matters is your goals and desires. Is that little 3-year-old not showing any potential? Kill it. Who cares? Or, better yet, sell it to some bleeding heart type. Income, you know, for yourself.

None of this falls in the realm of Christian morality. It is abhorrent to Christianity. And, the truth is, generally speaking it is abhorrent to most atheists. Oh, sure, you find a Peter Singer or the like on occasion who suggests that it's okay to experiment on the sick and useless. There are still Joseph Mengles around who value human life like oxen and don't mind sacrificing people to personal goals. But, for the most part, it's wrong in most everyone's book to operate the way I just described. The question is not whether or not atheists are that way. The question is why are they not? I agree that atheists are often very moral people -- sometimes even more than some Christians. They act as if they have something to prove. But the question is ... why?

I have no animosity towards atheists. I obviously think they're mistaken, but I don't view them as worse than any other humans in terms of morality. I simply hope that they remain inconsistently moral because the world that they offer without Law and Judge is a frightening world to me.

The Trump Card

The trump card for the atheist, it seems, is the claim that the God of the Bible is evil. You don't have to look at the debate very long to find them pointing to the command of God to wipe out the Canaanites and the Amorites. Look at the Flood. God killed the entire human race except for eight people. That means that men, women, and children were all drowned by God. "Clearly," they hold, "that portrays God as evil." Then there are those nasty commands of Scripture, like "He who reviles father or mother must surely die," and the fact that Jesus agrees (Mark 7:10), and we're left with a mean, spiteful, evil God.

Christians have offered lots of answers over the years. Many of them are good answers. The part that puzzles me is not the Christian position on these "problems," but the atheist position. You see, if the premise is that there is no God, the argument falls apart. Allow me to illustrate from my birding experience. A few months ago a hawk pounced on a quail in my back yard. It was amazing to watch. The predator pinned his prey to the ground and simply stood there. The poor meal struggled to get free but was trapped by the powerful claws and sheer weight of the hawk. Then, without waiting for the quail to die, the hawk started pulling apart his meal for the day. My wife was appalled. I was impressed. But neither of us thought, "That's immoral." It didn't occur to us to think that the hawk was being evil. It's not evil for an animal to kill another animal. It's nature. So, strip out "God" from the equation, and humans are simply another animal on the animal chain. In this position, why is it evil for one human animal to kill another human animal?

The argument is tossed out there as if it's a done deal. "It's wrong of God to kill human beings," as if the idea of killing human beings is a de facto evil. Everyone knows it. End of argument. Do they? In gang mentality it is good to kill people from rival gangs. In cannibal mentality, killing another human is providing a meal. In much of Islam it is godly to kill people from rival religions. Logically, if humans are animals on the animal chain, then killing a human is no more immoral than killing an ant. It's just degrees. In fact, some evolutionists have a term for the belief that it's wrong to kill humans, but not wrong to kill other animals; they call it speciesism. "You guys are showing unwarranted bias toward your species," they would say. Logically, they're right.

So the atheist plays his trump card. "God is evil for killing people." Then he removes God. Suddenly it cannot be evil for a biochemical bag to terminate the existence of another biochemical bag. And the problem goes away. Indeed, without a moral law giver, it cannot be maintained that there is a moral law, and all the complaints we hear about how "evil" religion is have to go away. It becomes self-contradictory.

Okay, so maybe it's not a very good trump card. But, trust me, they'll keep on playing it, and Christians will keep on providing reasons why God isn't evil for doing what he did. They won't stop playing the card, nor will they accept the answers. At some point you have to wonder if there's a point to this game.