Sean McDowell

Finding Jesus in the Avengers Movie

Sean McDowell — Tue, 08 May 2012 11:33:54 -0700

I love movies. And I love superheroes. As you can imagine, I was eagerly anticipating the release of The Avengers movie. In fact, I was second in line Saturday night because I got there over one and a half hours early! And the movie did not disappoint.

Yet as I watched the movie I was struck at how much the basic storyline mirrored the Christian view of reality. It reminded me of how C.S. Lewis said that there are stories throughout the literature of the world that mirror Christian themes of love, sacrifice, duty, unity, and good versus evil. According to Lewis, God has placed this on the human heart. And we see shadows of this even in the most unexpected places.

The first thing that struck me is how similar the forces of evil are in Avengers with the forces of evil in the Bible. In Avengers an outside alien force invades earth with the intent of dominating it. The leader, Loki, wants earthlings to worship him as a God. Loki came to earth because his brother, Thor, “unjustly” stole his throne. Out of jealousy and pride, he desires to dominate the earth and force it into submission.

Sound familiar? Obviously, Loki is the Satan-type figure who was rejected from his own dominion—Asgard—because of pride. He wanted to be worshipped as God but was refused. So he came to earth to get his due respect. Christians have traditionally believed that Satan was rejected from Heaven because he desired to be like God. He was not content to be second in command (like Loki), but said to himself, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will set up my throne above the stars of God. I will sit on the mount of the gods’ assembly…I will make myself like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:13-14).

One of Loki’s powers is similar to that of Satan—he possesses people. In fact, Loki possessed Hawkeye by pointing his saber at his chest, which transformed him into his disciple. Once he was set free, Hawkeye described it like being taken over by an outside force. This is what happens in demon possession.

And the tactic of Loki is similar to the tactic of Satan—he aims to cause discord and disunity between the Avengers. His goal was to cause dissension among the Avengers so they could not fight as a united force. In an attempt to destroy them, Loki set the Avengers against one another. The entire book of Ephesians is written to emphasize the importance of unity among Christians since Satan aims to cause disunity. This is why Paul writes, “Therefore, I the prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk worthy of the calling you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, accepting one another in love, diligently keeping the unity of the Spirit with the peace that binds us. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope at your calling—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all…” (4:1-6a). Notice how many times he says “one”! Like the Avengers, Christians are called to fight as a united front against the forces of evil.

And of course, there is a Christ-figure who ultimately rescues the world from destruction. Surprisingly, it is Iron Man, the arrogant, rash, and sometimes reckless (but very cool) superhero. Early in the film Captain America foreshadows the sacrifice of Iron Man by pointing out how a true hero needs character (his implication, of course, was that Iron Man had none). A nuclear weapon is released at the end of the last battle that is headed towards Manhattan. Iron Man personally catches the weapon and takes it through a space portal—making the ultimate sacrifice of his life—to save the planet. He does survive, but the point was made…Iron Man saved the city by being willing to sacrifice his own life.

I have no idea whether the creators of the Avengers had these points in mind. They probably didn’t. But it does show how powerfully the gospel story resonates with the deepest intuitions in the human heart. The Avengers is a great fictional story. The Christian story, of course, is true.

Christian Students Engage Muslims

Sean McDowell — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Last week seventeen high school students from my Christian school went on a mission trip sponsored by Stand to Reason to reach Muslims in L.A. This was the first trip of its kind, so these students were really trekking out on faith! We were able to join an Iranian Christian Bible study, visit an Islamic center, engage Muslims in personal conversations, hear testimonies from former Muslims, get training from missionaries to Islam, share a meal with Muslims, and visit a major mosque. The students did not go unprepared – they had spent the last seven months reading books and attending training sessions outside of regular school hours. My thanks in particular to Brett Kunkle, Alan Shlemon, and Dawnielle Hodgman for planning such a great trip. Here are some highlights and reflections.

Worshipping with Iranian Christians

The first night we visited with an Iranian Christian church in Beverly Hills to hear testimonies from recent converts from Islam. The first woman, Shareen, grew up in a Muslim home but became disillusioned with Islam. Her hunger for a father figure drew her most deeply to Christianity. She decided to read the Bible and was so enthralled by it that she read it straight through in one sitting! The love of God drew her in. Another young man, Mosen, also grew up in Islam. He was obsessed with the question of how a person can be good enough to go to heaven. No Muslims could give him a good answer, and they suppressed his questions, which burned him on Islam. He eventually read the Bible and was drawn in by the friendship and love of God. He cited 2 Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” as his favorite verse, because he was transformed by Christ into a new creation.

Training for our Muslim outreach

The next morning we had a training session from Ramesh Wolf, executive director for Esther International. She talked about how Islam is growing by birth rate, but also by conversion. In fact, she cited the World Christian Encyclopedia, which says that each year there are 20,000 Muslim converts to Christianity but 50,000 Christian converts to Islam. There is one Christian missionary for every 400,000 Muslims. There are not professional Muslim missionaries because the typical Muslim sees himself as a missionary (unlike typical Christians). Ramesh pointed out that many Christians are reluctant to evangelize Muslims, but this is exactly what Muslims do to us!

She also made the very important point that Muslims are not monolithic. A Muslim in L.A. will likely believe differently than a Muslim in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or China. Some are conservative while others are liberal. There are Shi’a, Sunni, Sufi, and even charismatic Muslims. Despite what many Muslim leaders claim, there is significant divergence with Islam. Thus, there is no formulaic way to share Jesus with Muslims.

Conversing with Muslims

In the afternoon we headed to Garden Grove to have conversations with Muslims. We split up into groups of two and went looking for Muslims willing to talk. My son and I met a 50-year-old Sunni Muslim named Ahmad who was eating with some friends outside a Middle Eastern restaurant. We asked if they were open to conversation and they warmly invited us to join them. After learning about their faith and background Ahmad asked me if I had read the Qur’an (although he admitted to rarely reading it himself). After sharing that I just finished reading it, he wondered what I thought. I began by sharing how I accept much of what it teaches in regards to certain attributes of God (omniscient, omnipotent, creator) but that I could not accept the claim that Jesus was not crucified (Surah 4:157). This goes against the historical evidence and makes God a deceiver. I asked him why I should trust a book written at least six centuries after the life of Jesus [the Qur’an] that contradicts the earlier historical documents [the Gospels], which are based on eyewitness accounts. He pointed to the one test for truth within the Qur’an—it’s beauty and organization. Neither of our views was likely changed much, but it was a fascinating and cordial conversation.

Visiting the Iranian Islamic Society

This night was one of my highlights. We had a Muslim professor from UCLA speak to our group on the Islamic view of Jesus and the similarities between our faiths. He focused on our shared beliefs that all humans are equal, the common pursuit of peace[i], and the importance of reason. When it came to Jesus, he emphasized that both faiths agree that Jesus was human, that he cared for the poor, and was arrested for causing disturbance in the marketplace. But he disagreed that Jesus died on the cross. He believed that someone was made to appear like Jesus and died in his place. After a few tough questions from students he made an interesting move—rather than defending the Islamic view of Jesus, he simply said, “This is our narrative. I’m not giving you a historical answer. I’m giving you an answer from faith. The historical data is unrecoverable.” This was surprising since he had just emphasized the importance of reason within Islam. He even proceeded to cite The Da Vinci Code as a reason to doubt the biblical Jesus. The students were quite shocked to see an Islamic professor take the postmodern route in defending his views.

After his presentation we were able to break up into small groups and enjoy a meal and fellowship with some young Muslims. I was able to eat with a 30-year-old (self-described) liberal Muslim. He was incredibly bright, kind, and sincere. He clearly felt hurt by organized religion, and yet maintained some of the cultural components of Islam. We had a wonderful conversation about objective truth, the person of Jesus, and the purpose of religion. Our basic disagreement came down to the nature of man—he believed humans are intrinsically good, whereas I believe people are made in the image of God but corrupted by original sin (Romans 5). Thus, the idea of Jesus paying for our debt of sin made no sense to him.

Studying the Qur’an

Wednesday afternoon we heard a lecture from apologist Joe Carey on the historicity of the Qur’an. He made some helpful and insightful points. The common claim by Muslims is that the Qur’an has never been changed since its inception. Carey showed that this is not true. At the time of Uthman, the 4^th caliph, there was nearly a civil war over who had the correct Qur’an (competing Qur’ans had 111, 114, and 116 Surahs). Uthman chose Zaid’s translation and had the rest burned. Muslims often say the disagreement was over pronunciation, not content. But how would burning different Qur’ans change how people pronounce it? The debate was over content, not pronunciation. Carey also pointed out the myriad of scientific and historical inaccuracies in the Qur’an.[ii]

Reflections

Overall this trip was truly life changing for the students. They learned a few lessons in particular. First, the Muslims we met were very open to conversation. They were eager to discuss religion and to hear what we believed about Jesus. Many of the students were quite intimidated to begin discussions but they quickly realized how friendly American Muslims often are. In fact, the Muslims were more eager to discuss religion than the typical secular American. Second, we met many Muslims who converted from Christianity. They commonly cited having questions about God that the Christians in their lives could not answer. They saw Islam as bringing order and purpose to their lives in a way that Christianity could not. The female Muslim converts all had one thing in common—they met a Muslim man who introduced them to Islam.

Third, for the past 5 years I have been partnering with Stand to Reason to take students on apologetics mission trips to Berkeley, Salt Lake City, and L.A. We have had between 25-35 students on each trip. This year we opened up the trip to all high school grades, and the cost was less than before. Thus, I thought this would be our biggest trip. I was dead wrong. We had only seventeen 9^th-12^th graders. Why? Many students (and parents) were fearful in reaching out to Muslims. Those who went on the trip tended to have Muslim friends and neighbors and so their love for them cast out fear (1 John 4:18). Second, many simply did not think reaching Muslims was important. I heard many comments such as, “It doesn’t interest me. I have other more important things to do.” It truly breaks my heart that more people are not interested in reaching Muslims. Muslims are the largest unreached people group in the world and, believe it or not, they want to hear what you think about Jesus. They are zealous for God but lack knowledge. Will you reach out to them?

[i] I do believe that individual Muslims want peace. Yet theologically speaking, the Islamic understanding of peace is very different than the biblical view. Peace in Islam comes when the entire world is under submission to Allah. “Islam” actually means surrender, not peace.

[ii] For example, Surah 20:85-87 says the golden calf at Mt. Sinai (Horeb) was made by a Samaritan. Yet Samaritans did not even exist for another 700 years! The Qur’an also claims the sun sets into a murky pond (Surah 18:86). Some try to interpret this metaphorically, but the context makes it clear this is a story about Alexander the Great that is to be taken as veridical.

The Qur'an Unveiled

Sean McDowell — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0700

For the past few weeks I have been carefully reading through the entire Qur’an. One reason is because there are roughly 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide, including an estimated 3-7 million Muslims in America. Understanding the Qur’an will help me better relate to my Muslim neighbors and friends. Second, Muslims consider the Qur’an the greatest miracle and proof of Islam (Surah 10:37-38). It is considered the most beautiful, holy, and truthful book. I wanted to assess this claim for myself.

Following are some observations and criticisms of the Qur’an. Just one precursor: If the Qur’an were true, then I would believe it. I’m just not convinced it is. If someone begins with the conviction that the Qur’an is true, then certainly these critiques will have little effect. But if one begins with an honest attempt to evaluate the historical, theological, philosophical, and scientific evidence, I believe they would come to a very different conclusion.

The Character of Allah

There are clearly commonalities between the Islamic and Christian views of God. Both view God as omniscient (Surah 4:7), omnipotent (Surah 2:20), creator (Surah 6:1), and sovereign (Surah 74:31).

But the differences are also substantial. The Bible says that God is love (1 John 4:8). The Qur’an says that Allah is Loving (Surah 85:14). The reason for this difference is significant. The Biblical God can be love because He is one God who eternally exists as three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, relationality is within the nature of God. Allah, on the other hand, is Unitarian (Surah 112:1-4). Allah acts lovingly towards His creation but love is not one of His attributes. This turns out to be a weakness of Allah, for Allah is dependent upon His creation to express love. Allah can only act lovingly after He has created. Therefore, He lacks love as a maximally great attribute. Yet love is within the character of the Biblical God Himself. The Biblical God is thus more perfectly good than Allah.

The type of love Allah expresses is also different than the Biblical God. Romans 5:8 says, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” God loves unbelievers and yearns for their salvation. By contrast, the Qur’an makes it clear that Allah does not love unbelievers. Allah does not love mischief-makers (Surah 28:77), unbelievers (Surah 30:45), the unjust (Surah 42:40), as well as the unfaithful and ungrateful (Surah 22:38). Jesus told the story of the Prodigal Son, whom the Father lovingly accepted back upon his return. In contrast, the Qur’an says that Allah only loves those who first purify themselves (Surah 9:108). Simply put, the Qur’an says to love those who first love you. But Jesus said to love even your enemies. This may be why the Qur’an repeatedly commands Muslims not to build friendships with unbelievers (Surah 3:118; 4:89; 4:144; 5:71; 60:1). Muhammad did sign treaties with unbelievers when it suited his purposes. Yet Jesus was considered a friend of sinners (Luke 7:34).

Muhammad also misconstrued the nature of the Trinity. He believed the Trinity was God the Father, Jesus, and Mary! Yet this is clearly not what the Bible teaches about the triune God. But it does help to explain why so many Muslims fiercely condemn the doctrine as heretical. The Qur’an says: “And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Did you say to men, take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah.” (Surah 5:116). If the Qur’an were inspired, why would it have a faulty understanding of the Christian God? Even if Christians were wrong about God’s triune nature, it seems that the Qur’an should at least properly understand the Christian doctrine.

Jesus

The Islamic view of Jesus is fascinating. He is considered a prophet along with Adam, Lot, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. While Muhammad is considered a prophet of Allah, he had a normal birth, performed no miracles, and sinned. On the other hand, Jesus was sinless, virgin-born (Surah 19:18-21), and a miracle-working prophet (Surah 2:253). One key difference between the Bible and the Qur’an involves where the source of Jesus’ power comes from. In contrast to other prophets who worked miracles, the Biblical Jesus does miracles through his own power. This is one confirmation of his deity. But since Muslims deny that Jesus is divine, the Qur’an has Jesus performing miracles at the permission of Allah (Surah 5:110).

While the Qur’an does affirm traditional miracles of Jesus such as healing the blind and leprous, it also affirms extra-biblical miracle claims such as making a bird out of clay and breathing life into it (Surah 5:110). This story is actually from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a 2^nd or 3^rd century pseudepigraphical “gospel” about the early childhood of Jesus. Upon further research, I have discovered that much of the Qur’an is borrowed from sources outside the Old and New Testaments. There is not a problem with relying upon other sources (we see this in the Bible), but the Qur’an often relies upon spurious historical sources that undermine its credibility.

It was also interesting to note how the Qur’an turns Jesus into an Islamic prophet. In Surah 19:197, Jesus says, “Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet.” The Qur’an also does this with Abraham (Surah 2:131), the disciples (Surah 3:52) as well as Moses and Noah (Surah 42:13).

The Qur'an

The Qur’an records no miracles of Muhammad. So how do we know the Qur’an is inspired and true? The Qur’an itself is a testimony to its veracity. Surah 10:37-38 says, “And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds. Or do you say: He has forged it? Say: then bring a chapter like this and invite who you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.”

The Qur’an repeatedly charges doubters to produce a chapter like it (Surah 2:23; 11:13; 17:88). The Qur’an is believed to have such high literary merit that it can only be considered divine. And yet how do we really test this? This is a very different test for truth than what Jesus laid out. He did publicly verifiable miracles to support his claims to deity (John 20:30-31; Acts 2:22). The test for the Bible is external and objective, but the primary test for the Qur’an is internal and subjective.

And yet we can actually take the Qur’anic test. I would encourage you to read it and make up your own mind. I read it carefully. I mean no disrespect to my Muslim neighbors, but I simply do not see its literary merit. It is repetitive, redundant, oddly arranged, difficult to follow, and choppy. Qur’anic verses do not compare to the works of Shakespeare or the biblical Psalms, such as Psalm 23. Muslims claim that it must be read in Arabic to appreciate its beauty. But why would God’s universal and eternal revelation be limited to the (roughly) 20 percent of Muslims who are Arabic? If the Qur’an were truly inspired, its literary beauty would transcend one particular language understood by a tiny minority of the world’s population.

Violence

I write these words with fear and trembling. Not for my own life, but because I do not want to alienate Muslims. I truly believe that most Muslims in America are peaceful, hard-working people who want to live their lives according to the American dream and their Muslim faith. I have had Muslim students in my class and they have all been wonderful people. Many Muslims condemn and mourn violence done in the name of Islam. The Muslim people in America are not my concern. They have the right to practice their faith in America as much as any other religion.

My concern is Islamic theology. Before reading the Qur’an, I was familiar with a few Qur’anic verses endorsing violence. Yet I was surprised at how frequently violence is encouraged within the pages of the Qur’an. Consider a few Surahs:

“And fight with them [unbelievers] until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.” (Surah 8:39).

“I will caste terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” (Surah 8:12)

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the sayings of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!” (9:29-30).

Again, I write this not to condemn or judge Muslims. But it is unmistakable that Muhammad practiced violent methods to both spread his empire and propagate his faith. And his followers have as well. Sure, Christians have used violence, torture, and other abominable practices in the name of Jesus. But it should be quite obvious that they acted inconsistently with what Jesus taught and modeled.

Conclusion

Reading the Qur’an has been a helpful and insightful exercise. I learned a great deal about what Muslims believe about Allah and also how they practice their faith. I would encourage all Christians to do the same. You may agree with my analysis. And you may disagree with it. But either way, reading the Qur’an will help you better understand your Muslim neighbors.

Mormon Scriptures Revealed

Sean McDowell — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:51:15 -0800

Mormonism is everywhere. A leading Republican candidate for president is a Mormon, there is a play on Broadway about The Book of Mormon, and the LDS Church has launched a multi-million dollar ad-campaign about Mormons called “I’m a Mormon.” Even though I have been teaching a class on comparative religion for years, taking students on trips to Salt Lake City, and interacting with my Mormon friends, I had never read Mormon scriptures in their entirety.

Recently I asked some Mormon missionaries to show me that their religion is true. They said if I read The Book of Mormon with an open heart then God would impress its truthfulness upon me (they quoted Moroni 10:4). So, I earnestly prayed that God would impress upon my heart the truthfulness of the Mormon scriptures, and then I determined to read as many of their books as I could, including The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants (D&C), and The Pearl of Great Price.

It was time well spent because I now understand Mormonism better. But rather than being convinced of its veracity, I have more questions and concerns than ever before. The following are some personal impressions after spending a great deal of time interacting with the writings of Joseph Smith.

Mormonism puts a heavy burden of works on its followers. Although there are some passages that talk about grace and free salvation (2 Nephi 31:19; 1 Nephi 2:4; Mosiah 26:40), the overwhelming emphasis is on earning salvation through obedience to commandments and refraining from sin. For example, Alma 5:27 says, “Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble?” The next passage says you must be entirely stripped of pride or you cannot meet God.

Mosiah 10:32 says, “Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind, and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you.” God may have provided an opportunity for salvation through the death of Jesus, according to Mormonism, but you have to keep all the commandments and follow all the ordinances to experience that salvation. The onus is on you. This seems in sharp contrast to the grace-filled message of the Bible (Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5; John 6:29) where works stem naturally from a recognition that we have been saved.

Doctrine & Covenants has historical difficulties. Since the Doctrine & Covenants are later revelations than the Bible, Mormons believe they trump it. Two problems crossed my mind while reading Doctrine & Covenants. First, D&C 84:65-72 copies verbatim the text of Mark 16:15-18 (KJV). Even the footnotes in the Doctrine & Covenants cite these passages in Mark as if they are Scripture. While this passage remains in contemporary Bibles, it is almost unanimously accepted that these verses were not in the original Gospel of Mark. Our earliest manuscript copies do not contain them. Most Bibles have a footnote indicating this. If this passage were not authentic, why would Joseph Smith have received it as a revelation from God as if it were? A very likely scenario is that Smith simply copied from the existing Bible of his day (KJV) and was not aware of this problem.

Second, Joseph Smith made a false prophecy. D&C 87:1-2 says, “Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; and the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.” It’s true that the civil war broke out two decades later, but this is hardly a remarkable prophecy since the signs were already apparent. The problem is the second part of the verse where Smith says this war will “be poured out upon all nations.” This, of course, never happened.

The Book of Mormon strongly condemns polygamy. Given how prevalent plural marriage has been throughout Mormon history (beginning with Joseph Smith himself), it came as a surprise to me how strongly the Book of Mormon condemns it. The people of Nephi were condemned for multiplying their wives (Jacob 1:15) and the commandment is clearly made that men should have only one wife (Mosiah 11:2; D&C 49:16).

But later Joseph “received” differing revelations. To justify plural marriage, Smith pointed to Abraham, Solomon, and David as examples of those God blessed with multiple wives and concubines. D&C 132:38 says, “…and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.” While God may have allowed them to engage in polygamy, this hardly means they were not sinning. In fact, the Genesis account makes it clear that God created marriage to be between one man and one woman (a view the LDS Church has endorsed since 1890). It is highly problematic to say that God overturns a fundamental principle of creation elucidated in the first chapter of the Bible.

The view of faith in the Mormon Scriptures differs from the Bible. Alma 32:17 says, “Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.” In other words, faith involves believing something we do not know. If we knew it, there would be no need for faith. But the Bible proposes a different relationship between faith and reason. Rather than being opposites, the Bible presents a view of faith that is based upon what we do know. As philosopher J.P. Moreland put it, “Faith is trusting what we have reason to believe is true.”

For instance, in Exodus 7-14 Moses performs various miracles so the people will know there is a God and then in turn trust him (see 7:14 and 8:10). The pattern is:

1. God performs a miracle

2. The people have knowledge about God

3. They are called to believe

Exodus 14:31 says, “When Israel saw the great power that the Lord used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord and believed in Him and in His servant Moses.” The miracle that they could see and know came first, not the belief.

Knowledge is not the opposite of belief, as the Mormon scriptures suggest. Faith does not involve believing something without evidence. Rather, it is a trust in God in light of what we know to be true. Jesus healed the paralytic so the people would know that he has the authority of God (Mark 2:10).

I suspect the reason the Book of Mormon has this view of faith and knowledge is that the Mormons’ claims cannot be investigated. The cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon have not been located (i.e. Zarahemla), the gold plates cannot be examined, the hill Cumorah cannot be excavated because LDS scholars can't even agree whether it's in North or Central America, and the millions of bodies destroyed in the Americas are nowhere to be found. When there is no convincing external evidence corroborating a belief, it must be based upon experience, feeling, and blind faith. This may be the view of faith in the Book of Mormon, but it is decidedly not the biblical view (see John 20:30-31). There is much more that could be said. Here are a few quick additional observations and tensions in the Mormon scriptures:

· The view of God evolves from monotheism to polytheism (Compare 1 Nephi 13:41 with Abraham 5:3)

· Black skin is a curse from God because of wickedness (2 Nephi 5:21; Jacob 3:5, Mormon 5:15; Book of Abraham 1:26),

· Original sin is rejected, yet there is a recognition that humans are fallen and fundamentally corrupt (Articles of Faith, D&C 121:39). Which is it?

Some of these are more serious than others. Certainly Mormon scholars have considered these objections and offered responses (and Christians have offered counter-responses). Yet the weight of these problems was enough to convince both my heart and my mind that The Book of Mormon is not another testament of Jesus Christ. I feel the same about the Doctrine & Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price.

But don’t take my word for it. Read it for yourself and make up your own mind.

Ten Verses to Defend Your Faith

Sean McDowell — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:26:13 -0800

For the past few days I have been trying to think of the top ten verses that would be most helpful to apologists and evangelists. I have reflected on my own experience and also gotten feedback from many of you on Facebook and Twitter. So, here are my top ten verses to defend your faith (in no particular order):

1 Peter 3:15: “but 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;” As an apologist you may find yourself having to defend the purpose of apologetics. This is the classic verse indicating that everyone is to be prepared to give an answer with gentleness and respect.

John 1:1-3: “¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” This is one of the most compelling and clear articulations of the deity of Christ. It shows that Christ is the eternal creator and is one with (although distinct from) the Father.

Acts 5:3-4: ^“3But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? ⁴ While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” There is much confusion among Christians as well as groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses about the identity of the Holy Spirit. This passage shows the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 43:10: “ ‘You are My witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.’ ” This passage clearly lays out that there is only one God and there has always only been one God. Mormons have to get very creative to avoid the clear meaning of this passage.

Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” This verse helps with the question, “What about those who have never heard?” It establishes that people do have knowledge of God through creation.

Romans 2:14-15: “¹⁴For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, ¹⁵ in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,” This passage demonstrates that the moral conscience is written on our hearts. The moral law is universal, even among those who do not have the written law.

John 6:29: “Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.’ ” Many pseudo-Christian religions base salvation on works. In this passage Jesus clearly lays out the requirement of salvation—belief.

John 20:30-31: “³⁰ Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹ but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” Skeptics often believe that faith is blind. John clearly states that the miracles of Jesus were recorded as proof so we would believe.

2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” This passage clearly shows that God desires all to turn to repentance and be saved. This can be helpful when talking about Hell.

Luke 1:1-4: “¹ Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, ² just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, ³ it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; ⁴ so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” Some claim that the disciples were inventing myths and legends. This passage shows the clear concern with historical accuracy and eyewitness accounts.

This list is certainly not exhaustive. I’m sure there are many more verses that could be included. I would love to know of any other key verses that should be added. (All Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New American Standard Version.)

Is the GOP Anti-Science?

Sean McDowell — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:46:25 -0800

The GOP is dogmatically anti-science. They reject the conclusions of manmade global warming, which has been accepted by virtually all scientists. And they deny the overwhelming evidence of evolution. They are anti-science, anti-knowledge, and anti-progress. The possibility of an anti-science candidate getting elected to the White House is a terrifying prospect for it would put our economic, environmental, and political state into potential disaster. For the sake of the next generation, please don’t elect such a candidate!

If you believe this rendition, it’s likely you’ve been following the incessant portrayal of the GOP in the media. Consider a few recent headlines: “Republicans Against Science,” “Why Republicans Deny Science: The Quest for a Scientific Explanation,” and “Rick Santorum is King of the GOP’s Anti-Science Presidential Candidates.” The list could go on. But the message is clear: the Republican Party is full of ignorant science-deniers who are a threat to the future of America (of course, exception is made for John Huntsman, who has tried to cast himself as the pro-science Republican alternative by accepting evolution and manmade global warming).

Sure, more Republicans are skeptical of evolution and man-made global warming than Democrats. But why does this make them “anti-science”? Interestingly, studies show that anti-vaccine sentiment is higher in progressive areas such as Washington, Vermont, and Oregon. Arguably, the results of rejecting vaccines can be far more disastrous than rejecting evolution. So, why doesn’t this make Democrats anti-science? Do I smell a double-standard?

Let me begin with a qualifier. My purpose in writing this is not specifically to defend the GOP. I have not ever publicly endorsed a candidate for any party and I probably never will. This is not a political blog, although it clearly has political implications. My purpose is to challenge poor thinking about science. If the GOP critiqued Democrats for being anti-science with the same arguments, I would defend the Democrats. My purpose is to challenge the assumption that rejecting a particular scientific theory is akin to being anti-science.

My real question is why doubting evolution makes one anti-science in the first place. Why can’t someone be pro-science yet skeptical of evolution? Maybe the evolution-skeptic just thinks the evidence is lacking. It’s never been clear to me why doubting evolution automatically disqualifies someone from being pro-science. The skeptic may reject the consensus, but again, why does that make one anti-science? After all, even Darwin rejected the scientific consensus of his day. Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton said it best:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had…The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus…If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Crichton makes a powerful point—consensus is often claimed to avoid debate. That’s why the claim is incessantly made that the evidence for evolution is “overwhelming.” You may be tempted to think that the debate over evolution has been settled. But that may be premature. Yes, a majority of scientists do accept evolution, but a growing number of Ph.D. scientists from leading universities such as Harvard, Princeton, UC Berkeley, and the University of Moscow have come to doubt the efficacy of Darwinian evolution to account for the variety and complexity of life on earth. Does this make them anti-science? Of course not! Only someone blindly committed to a worldview would suggest so. These scientists value science—they just understand the facts differently.

The merits of evolution are actually irrelevant to my point. Maybe Darwin was right. Maybe Darwin was wrong. But it certainly doesn’t follow that someone who doubts his theory is automatically “anti-science.” In fact, such a claim is avowedly anti-science, for scientists are supposed to challenge the status quo and follow the evidence wherever it leads!

In a New York Times column titled, “Republicans Against Science,” Paul Krugman says, “Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as ‘just a theory,’ one that has ‘got some gaps in it’ — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists.” The majority of biologists do accept evolution. But is truth determined by numbers? Suggesting so is only meant to silence critics and avoid debate. Even if the majority of scientists would be surprised that evolution has “some gaps in it,” as Krugman suggests, why would that make skeptics anti-science?

Some Republicans may be anti-science. But so may some Democrats. Alex Berezow made this point in his recent USA Today column, “GOP may be anti-science, but so are Democrats.” To label an entire party as “anti-science” is mistaken and simplistic. We need to move beyond labels and actually engage the issues. But maybe I’m too naïve. After all, it’s much easier (and effective) to label someone than actually consider their point of view.

Who Made God?

Sean McDowell — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:50:05 -0800

Shortly before Christmas I received an email from Edgar Andrews, Emeritus professor from the University of London. He asked if I would be willing to review his book Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of Everything. While I’ve read many books presenting the scientific evidence for God, I thought it may be interesting to get the perspective of someone outside the traditional apologetics community. I was right!

If you enjoy the contemporary debate about the existence of God, then Who Made God? is a book you will want to have in your library. Andrews provides fresh and strong critiques of Dawkins, Victor Stenger, and other prominent atheists. He even debated Richard Dawkins a few years ago.

Probably the most controversial thing Andrews claims is that there are four scientifically inexplicable things: (1) the origin of the universe; (2) the origin of the laws of nature; (3) the origin of life; and (4) the origin of mind and thought. Not only is there no present explanation, he says there never will be a natural explanation. The main claim of his book is that any “theory of everything” must include mind. Purely material causes will never be able to explain certain features of the world. The God-hypothesis, says Andrews, explains the world much more thoroughly.

One of the most fascinating sections of the book is his defense of the reality of the human mind. He argues that thinking can change the activity and structure of the brain, which shows that human thinking is not simply an inconsequential by-product of brain activity. He points to a study from the Stanford Business School where a group of people were given the same wine on two different occasions. One time they were told it was a $45 bottle, and the other time they were told it was $5. Unsurprisingly, the group declared that the $45 wine tasted better. They even scanned the brains during consumption and found the pleasure centers of the brain lit up more for the expensive wine. Andrews concludes:

“[N]on physical mental expectations translate into bodily responses via real physical changes in the brain. If non-physical mind can affect the physical brain in this way, then mind can hardly be the mere by-product of brain activity…” (p. 259).

This is just one helpful illustration from Who Made God? Andrews also critiques theistic evolution, the power of natural selection and mutation, and other common atheistic arguments. Even if you disagree with Andrews (as I do at points), he provides a thoughtful scientific and philosophical defense of Christianity.

A Hurting Generation

Sean McDowell — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:10:20 -0800

In 2004 I read an eye-opening book called Hurt: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers, by Chap Clark. Dr. Clark is a youth ministry veteran who is currently the editor for YouthWorker Journal. In preparation for the book, he not only researched widely about adolescents, but he decided to be a substitute teacher for a year in a public high school to get inside the minds of midadolescents (14-20 year olds).

After studying this generation carefully, Clark concluded: “In this study I found a far wider relational and social chasm exists between adults and adolescents than I had previously considered.” In other words, the defining characteristic of midadolescents today is their abandonment by adults. Students spend only 4.8 percent of their time with parents and 2 percent of their time with adults who are not their parents. Now wonder between 14 and 15 percent of teens in North America report engaging in some form of self-injury (Chapter 9).

This year Clark released Hurt 2.0 as a follow up (Baker Academic, 2011). How has the situation fared in the past seven years? In the introduction Clark says, “Since the first edition, we believe the situation has gotten worse.”

Here are a few powerful quotes from Hurt 2.0 that give a glimpse into the lives of midadolescents today:

“Adolescents have been cut off far too long from the adults who have the power and experience to escort them into the greater society. Adolescents have been abandoned. They have, therefore, created their own world, a world that is designed to protect them from the destructive forces and wiles of the adult community.”

“The young have not arrogantly turned their backs on the adult world. Rather, they have been forced by a personal sense of abandonment to band together and create their own world—separate, semisecret, and vastly different from the world around them” (Chapter 2).

“When I was able to get close enough, to be trusted, to get a glimpse of life in this world, I did not hear a few voices crying out. I heard an overwhelming chorus of longing to be cared for and taken seriously…Even the most solid students confessed that life is far darker, far more violent, far more difficult, and far more tiring than adults, including their parents, realize” (Chapter 2).

“The most common reaction I saw in teens was a sense that their parents do not make much of a difference in their lives” (Chapter 6).

“Gaming is not always driven by the desire to win but to be part of a gaming community. Similarly, drinking is not about drinking but about community. We have abandoned this generation of young people and they long more than ever for communal celebration” (Chapter 11).

These quotes tell a powerful narrative about teens today. If Clark is right, defining words for this generation are lonely, abandoned, and hurt. How do we address this? One quote by Clark stood out as particularly powerful to me. He said, “The biggest need every student has is satisfied in an adult who is there for him or her” (Chapter 13). My experience tells me that this is right. Kids have not turned their backs on adults. They are eager for a caring adult to pour into their lives and tell them they matter. Which kids to you reach out to?

Darwinism and the Next Generation

Sean McDowell — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:15:27 -0800

Recently I was interviewed by Jonathan Morrow for his excellent new book Thinking Christianly (Zondervan, 2011). He asked me about Darwinism as well as reaching the next generation. Here is my brief excerpt. Enjoy!

Jonathan Morrow: It is commonplace to hear about the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. Have you found this to be the case? Can you talk a little about the role that Darwinism plays in our culture?

Sean McDowell: There’s a well-known joke for lawyers that says when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. However, when you don’t have the facts, use emotion and state your case with absolute certainty. This is precisely what is going on with claims about the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. We live in an information age, and materialist theories such as Darwinism are slowly going the way of the Dodo. Intelligent design (ID) is on the move. Many Darwinists know this, which is why they focus their primary attacks on ID being religiously motivated or based on ignorance and avoid engaging the actual arguments. But they can ignore the substance for only so long.

People often ask, “Couldn’t God have used evolution?” Certainly. God can create however he wants to. Yet it’s important to remember that Darwin intentionally devised a materialist explanation that excluded God from the process. Nature is the selecting mechanism, not God. If God somehow guided the process of evolution, we are no longer talking about Darwin’s theory but about some form of intelligent design. And if God is not part of the process, then it’s a short step to removing him altogether.

While I have significant reservations about evolution (see my Understanding Intelligent Design with William A. Dembski), my bigger concern is the role Darwinism now plays in society. Evolution has become an ideology. It is the creation myth that justifies the dominant worldview in Western culture — naturalism.

Since evolution is viewed as the “creative” force, then all aspects of nature must be “Darwinized.” Thus, we have books such as Literary Darwinism, Financial Dar- winism, and Evolution and Ethics. Everything, including morality, religious belief, psychology, sexuality, marriage, and more, must be seen from this perspective. These ideas are disseminated to young people through our universities. This is why atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett called Darwinism a “universal acid.” He’s right. If evolution were true, then everything demands a Darwinian explanation. But if evolution were false, then this would be a colossal mistake.

There is a temptation to avoid this controversial topic in the church. Why not just talk about Jesus? Remember, the Christian story makes sense only if we were created by God and then rebelled. Otherwise, what’s the need for a Savior?

Belief in God as the Creator is not simply blind “religious” faith but something we can know to be true (Psalm 19:1–2). I’ve seen young people come alive when they discover the evidence for intelligent design. It gives us confidence in our faith as well as in the God of the Scriptures. This is not a truth we simply store away in our minds, but one that transforms how we think about ourselves and other people. We really are made in the image of God, who loves us and has a plan for our lives. We can see the divine fingerprint from the tiniest cell to the depths of the universe.

Jonathan: From your perspective as a Christian high school teacher who also speaks to thousands of students each year, how well prepared do you think students are to leave our churches and live out their faith in college and beyond?

Sean: This question is the driving force of my ministry. We’ve all heard the statistics of young people leaving their faith in college, and it rightly concerns us. There may not be a silver bullet to fix this problem, but there are some areas which we must address.

Part of the problem is that the worldviews of this churched generation are largely unbiblical. According to the National Study of Youth and Religion, 18 percent of conservative Protestant youth have either a deistic or pantheistic view of God, 48 percent believe many religions may be true, and 42 percent are not assured of the existence of evil spirits. We need to teach substance. But we must connect this truth to their lives and relationships.

Young people are also relationally hurting. Many are lonely, depressed, and searching for real meaning. It’s difficult for young people who struggle with broken relationships and have emotional baggage to develop a biblical worldview. Many kids leave the church because they never built healthy relationships with their parents or other Christian adults. If we want to teach the biblical worldview effectively, we must first help kids get emotionally healthy.

This is why I deeply believe in mentoring. Jesus was a mentor. My hope is that mentoring will become as normal in the church in the future as small groups are today. Young people simply cannot survive temptations and intellectual challenges without caring, involved adults coming alongside to guide them.

Building a Sticky Faith

Sean McDowell — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:43:55 -0800

For those who care about the faith of the next generation, the book Sticky Faith is a must read. Youth experts Kara Powell and Chap Clark record the findings of the "College Transition Project,” which is a six-year research study of over 500 graduating seniors. Here is their stated goal: “To better understand the dynamics of youth group graduates’ transition to college, and to pinpoint the steps that leaders, churches, parents, and seniors themselves can take to help students stay on the Sticky Faith path” (18).

According to their research, between 40 and 50 percent of kids who graduate from a church or youth group will fail to stick with their faith in college. Only 20 percent of those who left the faith planned to. That means 80 percent of those who abandoned the faith were planning to stick with it. On the positive side, they estimate that between 30 and 60 percent return in their late twenties. But this still means between 40 and 70 percent of students who leave their faith never return.

Powell and Clark make a few initial points I found particularly helpful. First, parents influence the faith of students more than anyone (or anything) else: “More than even your support, its who you are that shapes your kid” (21). My research and experience as a teacher confirms that this is true. Second, there is no sticky faith bullet. There is no single reason why kids leave and no single reason that will make them stay. Young people are complex and their faith is influenced by a host of factors.

The core of building a sticky faith, say Powell and Clark, is helping kids develop a clear and honest understanding of the gospel and biblical faith. Sadly, most Christian kids understand the gospel in terms of what we do. We do go to church, read our Bibles, and pray, and we do not watch the wrong movies, cuss, be sexually active, drink, or talk back. Yet this misses the core of biblical faith, which involves trusting God (John 6:28-29). Whether they are doing homework assignments, serving the poor, choosing a college, or responding to a bully, our role with the next generation is to help them genuinely trust God in all they do. Instead of giving simple answers when problems arise, we ought to ask the simple question, “How can we trust God in this situation?”

One of the most powerful parts of Sticky Faith was the emphasis on having conversations with students about faith (not lectures!) Sadly, only 12 percent of mothers and five percent of fathers have regular conversations with their kids about faith. Creating space for genuine conversations about God and faith is one of the most helpful steps we can take to help students build a lasting faith. As a teacher, I give my students assignments that require they engage with their parents about important theological issues. The more we talk with our students about faith, and the more we foster conversation with other significant adults, the better chance they will have of sticking with it.

Here are a few of the practical things Powell and Clark found in their research about Sticky Faith:

§ Kids who left the faith report having questions about faith in early adolescence that were ignored by significant adults (parents, pastor, teacher).

§ A factor causing kids to shelve their faith is the segregation of kids and adults in church. Kids who attend church-wide services are more likely to keep their faith.

§ The more kids serve and build relationships with younger children the more likely they are to hang on to their faith.

§ Short-term mission trips seem to have little impact on the lasting faith of young people (they are not more likely to give to the poor or become long-term missionaries).

§ The more students feel prepared for college the more likely their faith is to grow.

Sticky Faith is a powerful book. That’s why I recommend picking up a copy, studying it, and applying it to your own kids or the kids you work with. There is just one key point I wish they had included—the importance of apologetics in preparing this generation. By apologetics I don’t mean arguing about faith. Apologetics is also not about providing pat answers for complex issues. It involves the biblical command to respectfully give reasons for what we believe (e.g., 1 Peter 3:15). As David Kinnaman points out in UnChristian, one of the reasons we are losing a generation is that we are not teaching them how to think. I have seen apologetics help many students develop a sticky faith beyond youth group. And I have seen many kids without apologetics training lose their faith.

As I was writing this blog on a plane to Denver, a young man next to me sparked up a conversation. He proceeded to share how he grew up going to a Baptist church in Ireland. He left his faith when his college anthropology professor tore into Christianity. He felt stupid believing in the biblical God and so walked away. What brought him back five years later? Someone gave him a DVD of a Christian apologist who laid out the scientific evidence for God. I hear this type of story over and over again. Apologetics is critical for helping students build a sticky faith.

According to Powell and Clark, the doubts young people have generally involve four questions. Two of these key questions are: “Does God exist? “ and “Is Christianity true or the only way to God?” These are apologetic-oriented questions that we must help students work through. I agree wholeheartedly with Powell and Clark that we need to create safety zones for kids to doubt. And let’s make sure we view their doubts as an opportunity to lovingly and patiently guide them to the truth.