apologetics

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.)

Christians Need Apologetics

Brett Kunkle — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:49:26 -0800

“Just some ordinary conversation over dinner.” At least, that’s how my host described this event. In January, I was invited to have dinner with a couple of dads and their sons to facilitate a discussion on the problem of evil. It was a spur-of-the-moment request and details were a bit fuzzy, so I met my host Jon 30 minutes prior to talk specifics. He informed me that not only would Christian dads and sons participate, but his 60-year old parents, both skeptics of Christianity, would join us as well. That night’s conversation turned out to be exceptional. Why? Because of apologetics.

For too long, apologetics has been given a bad rap. Too many Christian voices point to a few poor apologetic examples, extrapolate them to every apologist and apologetic encounter, and then dismiss the entire enterprise. But in doing so, Christians abandon one of our greatest tools to engage the world for Christ. My recent conversation demonstrates why.

(1) It was intelligent. Any robust discussion of the problem of evil will include a host of issues. We covered almost all of them, exploring objective and subjective views of morality, the definition of evil, human freedom, moral intuitions, the soul, and more. It was a rational, well-informed dialogue between Christians and Jon’s skeptical parents. And it was my apologetic training that enabled me to lead an intelligent discussion.

(2) It was gracious. The apologists I know take I Peter 3:15 seriously. All of it. We are not to be defensive with our defense, but gracious. Apologetics can give you confidence that what you believe is actually true and reasonable. That kind confidence can keep you from getting defensive. And when you’re not defensive, you can relax, give others space to question and doubt, and even enjoy the challenge of a tough question. My apologetic training has done just that for me.

That night there were no raised voices. No frustration or irritation. Not a hint of defensiveness. Rather, the entire group was cool, calm, and collected. Yes, this occurred in the context of a religious discussion, where participants held diametrically opposed viewpoints. Jon’s parents raised serious intellectual challenges to God from evil, but heard a defense that was gentle and respectful.

(3) It was patient. Beforehand, Jon was clear with his instructions to me. He wanted a methodical discussion, walking carefully through the arguments and objections. No jumping to unjustified conclusions. And there was no pressure to “close the deal.” Rather, his stated goal was to leave a stone in his parent’s shoes, an approach he picked up from Stand to Reason. He was patient with their skepticism, knowing there were many barriers to be removed before Jesus ever came into view. Apologist Ravi Zacharias puts it this way:

“The longer I am in this work, the more I realize that intellectual struggles are merely the hazardous waste of life, blocking the heart from truth. The task of apologetics is to carefully remove that hazardous material and keep it from igniting into a destructive fire. Once that is done, the way to the heart is always through the way of the Cross, God’s love for each and every one of us.”

I wanted to use apologetics to move some of that hazardous material away from Jon’s parents’ hearts, but my apologetic training helped me to understand this approach takes time and requires patience. That night, his parents were able to air a few of their intellectual grievances, which were met with listening ears and patient answers.

When you pay careful attention to what most Christian apologists are saying today and you avoid the temptation to demonize the entire apologetic endeavor because of one or two bad examples, you’ll be open to one of the great tools the Church has employed for 2,000 years. When I teach apologetics, this is the approach I commend. It’s the Stand to Reason way, the Ambassador’s way. Of course, it’s always nice to be reminded it’s also an effective way.

What was the result of that night’s intelligent, gracious, and patient conversation? As we said our goodbyes after dinner, Jon’s skeptical dad shook my hand, looked me in the eye, and with a smile said, “Let’s do this again.”

The Vision of Literary Apologetics

Holly Ordway — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:00:03 -0800

Why is apologetics, the defense of the Christian faith, important?

In one sense, Christianity needs no defense. God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, does not depend for His existence on our belief. However, many people who do not know the living God are separated from Him in part by intellectual obstacles. Removing those obstacles by showing that Christianity indeed makes sense on a rational level is an act of love and care for our neighbor. Defending the faith also builds up a strong foundation for believers. A securely built house has a solid, well-built foundation, so that the vagaries of wind and weather don’t damage it or cause distress to the inhabitants. It’s natural to have questions and doubts - think of the disciples, asking Jesus “increase our faith!” or the man who cries out “Lord, I believe: help my unbelief!” Apologetics helps strengthen the foundations by providing answers to questions and doubts, so that the Christian can grow stronger in his or her faith.

What about “literary apologetics”?

Literary apologetics is that mode of apologetics that functions through the use of the Imagination in stories, poetry, drama, and song. Imagination is a mode of knowing; it is the twin sister of Reason. Imagination that is not grounded in Reason can become what JRR Tolkien called “morbid fantasy,” unhealthy and unhelpful; conversely, Reason that is not supported by Imagination can become sterile, rigid, and unfruitful. Literature is particularly well suited to bring these two often-separated sisters together, so that Reason and Imagination can illuminate the path to truth.

Stories, poetry, and drama can help us to both comprehend the truth (with our intellect) and apprehend it (imaginatively and emotionally). As with rational argument, literature cannot in itself bring a person to know Christ, but it can open doors, challenge assumptions, and most importantly provide a glimpse of experienced truth. Stories invite readers to indeed “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8).

Literature can best fulfill this role when the author is committed both to expressing the truth and to creating a good story. The best literary apologists - CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, GK Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, and others, just to name those of the past century - did not set out to wrap a moral in a story, or explicitly to promote Christianity through their fiction writing. Rather, they believed fully and deeply, and sought to glorify God in all that they did - and so their stories show the truth, in deep and satisfying ways.

Today, we need a new generation of Christian writers who will do what those great writers did. We need well-informed, thinking Christians, who know their Scripture and theology, are committed to living out the Christian life in word and deed, and show forth that living truth in their work.

We need writers who will immerse themselves in the best writing of centuries past and learn from it, and be able to draw on that rich treasury of imagery to do new things.

We need writers who are willing and eager to view writing as a God-given calling, and to joyfully pursue the craft and art of it with dedication and hard work.

Fortunately, we do not have to start from scratch! We have the works of Lewis, Tolkien, Chesterton, MacDonald, and others to study and learn from. Going further back, we have an absolute treasure chest of writers: Coleridge, Donne, Herbert, Hopkins, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Spenser, Dante, to name just a few.

We are not limited to the great writers of the past, however. We have people who even now are taking up the challenge of writing to draw people through the imagination to know Christ. In England, the poet and scholar Malcolm Guite (www.malcolmguite.com) is doing marvelous work with poetry. In my own blog, Hieropraxis (www.hieropraxis.com), I am attempting to cultivate an appreciation for literature and literary apologetics, as well as writing my own poetry.

To be an effective literary apologist means a commitment to the craft of writing, so that the great and glorious truth of our faith is presented to the world in the most beautiful, powerful, gripping, and transformative ways possible. It also means a commitment to community. Just as Lewis and Tolkien were part of the Inklings, commenting and critiquing each others’ work, so too the writers of today need the kind of community where “iron sharpens iron.”

One of the challenges of Christian writers is to find that kind of community - so part of the project of literary apologetics is to help provide the kind of context where new writers can grow. That’s why I’m delighted to be part of a new project as the Program Director of the Literary Apologetics Certificate Program from Athanatos Christian Ministry. I’ve been involved with ACM for several years as a conference speaker and sponsor of their writing contests: they are on the front lines of training writers and encouraging the reading of great works of Christian literature. This online program combines classes in theology and Scripture with specifically writing-related courses to help Christian writers share the good news of God in Christ in ways that are artistically powerful and effective, engaging readers through the work of the Imagination. (Classes start in February, and I will be teaching a class in “Wordsmithing” as well as co-teaching “Principles of Literary Apologetics.”)

I think we’re at the beginning of great things for literature in the service of God. My friends, let’s go further up and further in!

Notes From the Tilt-a-Whirl

Brett McCracken — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:10:09 -0800

N.D. Wilson’s new “bookumentary” DVD, Notes From the Tilt-a-Whirl, is sort of like the Waking Life of Christian apologetics films. And by that I mean, it’s full of awe, curiosity, philosophizing, and a lot of talking about ideas. Like the contemplative films of Richard Linklater (Waking Life, Before Sunrise, Before Sunset), Wilson’s film–inspired by his 2009 book of the same title–is heavy on heady, talky vignettes. It’s essentially a philosophy/apologetics education condensed into a series of 3-4 minute soliloquies and poetic riffs on huge ideas, packaged amidst images of beauty and a liturgical ambience.

I was somewhat skeptical going in to Tilt-a-Whirl; mostly because “Christian films” of any sort are almost always a let down. But this was a pleasant surprise–a genuinely compelling, well-made film that never feels false or inauthentic and actually leaves us with insights to ponder and stirs our hearts and minds toward God.

Tilt-a-Whirl advertises itself as “A cinematic treatment of a worldview. A poet live in concert. A motion picture sermon. VH1 Storytellers meets Planet Earth. 60 Minutes meets Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

All of those are accurate. It’s a refreshingly orignal thing–a documentary of sorts, a visual essay, an apologetics companion piece to The Tree of Life (though Malick would dislike Wilson’s dismissal of Heidegger). It’s the Kanye West Twitter feed of hyper-literate Reformed philosophy.

I also like the way Books and Culture described the film:

Imagine 51 minutes of an earthier Nooma video infused with an ethos of postmillennial confidence and injected with the steroids of Christian orthodoxy and Chestertonian Orthodoxy. Ponder all possible manifestations of “A Portrait of the Kuyperian Artist as a Young Apologist.”

Rob Bell’s Nooma videos are probably its closest cousin in terms of genre; yet it must be acknowledged that there are more original insights in any given 90 seconds of Tilt-a-Whirl than in the entire Nooma series.

Wilson tackles a wide array of topics, mostly having to do with God–as creator, as artist, as gardener, as judge. He’s at his best when talking about the “problem” of evil and putting man in his place while exalting God. I especially resonated and agreed with Wilson on his suggestion that evil has a purpose if creation is seen as God’s ultimate artistic masterpiece: “If we look at the world as art, suddenly tension makes sense,” says Wilson. “God is after a great story, and great stories require tension; great stories require trial and hardship; great stories require characters to grow. … Why does God allow evil and things which displease him in his story? So that they can be defeated.”

If you’re someone who likes to think about and discuss big ideas about God and existence, this film is for you. Watch it in groups, Bible studies, or on your own; I guarantee it will provoke something–whether discussion, debate, disgust, or worship.

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.

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.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Brett Kunkle — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:00:00 -0700

Is the Bible intolerant? That was the question Nathan Hansen asked me to answer for hundreds of students and adults recently. Three years ago, Nathan, Snohomish Community Church’s innovative youth pastor, created Jesus University, a five-day youth conference in the Seattle area. During the day, students serve their community. At night, the community is invited to come hear top Christian bands.

But before the bands play, Nathan has a Christian apologist address a tough question for an hour, followed by 30 minutes of Q & A. The big-name bands draw thousands of people throughout the week, but Nathan ensures they’re given more than music. They get an intelligent yet gracious defense of Christianity. And our culture desperately needs some clear thinking when it comes to the topic of tolerance.

Homophobic. Racist. Chauvinistic. Bigoted. Intolerant. Christians are bullied with this kind of name-calling all the time. Rather than cower in a corner, we can counter with clear thinking. First, before we move the conversation forward we need to define terms. When charged with intolerance, we need to ask a simple clarifying question, “What do you mean by that?” and then listen carefully to the answer. Most challengers will offer some version of the contemporary view of tolerance. “You think you’re right and everyone else is wrong and that’s intolerant.” Or, “All religious views are equally valid and none should be considered better.” Only then are we ready to respond in a helpful way.

Contemporary tolerance is self-contradictory. The “you think you’re right and others are wrong” version is offered as a corrective to our views. However, a corrective is only given when one thinks their view is right and another view is wrong. In the very act of correcting Christians, they do what they say we shouldn’t do. So according to their own definition, they turn out to be the very thing they charge Christians with being: intolerant.

The “all views are equally valid” version of tolerance is no better. I put up some statements for students at Jesus U and asked if they were okay with them. For example, “Parents who abuse their children in the privacy of their own homes should be allowed to do so.” Of course, students objected. But I pointed out if the contemporary version of tolerance is correct, then we’re obligated to tolerate this view regarding child abuse. All views are equally valid and this is a view, isn’t it? Students frowned, knowing something was wrong.

I confirmed their suspicions by asking them if the contemporary belief about tolerance is itself a view. Yes it is and therefore, the criterion of the view applies to itself. It is a view that should not be considered better than other views. However, it’s being offered as the correct version of tolerance. But that’s contradictory because there’s no such thing as a correct version if all views are equally valid. The contemporary view of tolerance turns out to be intolerant.

Students got it. A few minutes of clear thinking unraveled years of cultural confusion on tolerance. Afterward, I was able to restore the classical meaning of tolerance: all people are equal, all views are not. We are to treat everyone with dignity and respect regardless of their disagreements because all people are made in the image of God. However, we must put truth at the forefront, always asking what views are true because falsehood in our own lives should never be tolerated.

The church needs a new generation of Christians who will stand courageously for the truth, even as they are called names like intolerant or bigot. Clear thinking is an important first step.

GodQuest

Stan Jantz — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:18:30 -0700

Going on a quest is one of the most adventurous, important, and significant things any of us could ever do--if not the most important. Some of the greatest and most enduring stories told in books and film are about epic quests: The Odyssey, The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Chronicles of Narnia, even the Wizard of Oz--all are stories of a hero in search of the one true thing that brings meaning to life.

Even ordinary people go on quests. They may not call it that, but they are on a search for meaning and something that offers true hope in a world that seems to be running out. Some people look for meaning in material things, while others search in various philosophies and religions. Still others seek after meaning by giving themselves to a cause or a political system they hope will make the world a better place. The problem is that at the end of these searches, no matter good or how worthwhile, is a host of unmet expectations.

Maybe you've seen these patterns in some of your friends and family members. I certainly have. It's a natural part of growing up and maturing, so it never bothers me when someone I care about is spending time exploring different philosophies and belief systems. In fact, I encourage it, as long as somewhere along the way they give God a shot.

Over the past year, I have been privileged to research and write a book with Sean McDowell about the greatest quest of all--the quest for God. At the end of the day, this is the only quest that really matters, because it's the only quest that offers meaning hope for this life as well as the next. Of course, just because i believe that doesn't mean someone else has to.That's not what this book, called GodQuest: Discover the God Your Heart Is Searching For, is about.

I'm excited to tell you that GodQuest is a book about discovery, not dogma. It's about a relationship with the one true God, not rhetoric about Him. As the user embarks on this GodQuest, he or she wil be encouraged to navigate their spiritual journey by following six "signposts" that provide direction and invite the traveler to make choices along the way:

Signpost 1: THE QUEST: What you believe determines where you go in life.
Signpost 2: THE BEGINNING: What you believe about creation determins how you view your life.
Signpost 3: THE WORD: What you believe about the Bible determins how you live your life.
Signpost 4: THE QUESTION: What you believe about God's goodness defines your relationship with Him.
Signpost 5: THE KING: What you believe about Jesus' identity determines your path in life.
Signpost 6: THE PATH: The path you follow in your spiritual journey determines your destination.

Check out the book, published by Outreach, for use by your church (there's a complete DVD curriculum) or someone you care about who is searching for meaning in their life. Even for those who have already decided that God is the object of their search, GodQuest will give a stronger foundation for faith and help draw them closer to the one who loves them more deeply and knows them more fully than they could ever imagine.

Why I Do Apologetics

Sean McDowell — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:43:41 -0700

I recently did this video interview on the role of Apologetics in our world, and how I approach this important discipline. Enjoy!

Why Story Matters

Holly Ordway — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:09:53 -0700

Why do stories matter?

Ultimately, because of who we are - made in the image of God. Human beings possess the twin faculties of Reason and Imagination, both God-given, both essential for a right relationship with the world (and for a right understanding of one’s place in the world).

However, something has gone badly wrong in our culture. In a slow process that began with the Enlightenment and has continued to the present day, these faculties of Reason and Imagination have been separated, to the detriment of both.

On the one hand, Reason has been given free rein, and the pursuit of knowledge using our God-given intellect has become scientism and materialism, the idea that only those things that can be empirically measured and logically figured out can be considered “true” or “real.” In the world of science, truth is held to be only that which is measurable and testable. Intangible things like emotions and spiritual truths are decidedly second-class citizens. After all, souls can’t be detected with an MRI, and love can’t be weighed and measured!

This adulation of Reason without the counterbalance of Imagination leads to an inevitable diminishment of the vision of what it means to be human. Our culture is showing many signs of this part of the Reason / Imagination divide. For instance, in a culture that embraces “scientific” ways of thinking, it becomes difficult to justify spending any extra time or money in promoting the arts, or making buildings beautiful.

In older cities like Boston or Philadelphia, the public buildings from the 18th or 19th centuries – the town hall, the courthouse, the banks – have elegant, inspiring architecture. Contrast that to your local 20th century Department of Motor Vehicles.

More seriously, the fact that the human soul cannot be weighed, measured, or detected with scientific instruments has led to a creeping tendency to define human beings by what they can do, not by their innate dignity as men and women made in the image of God. The elderly and disabled, who cannot define themselves in terms of what they can accomplish, can very easily be considered a burden on society.

Narrowing the definition of truth to what Reason alone can determine makes it possible for people to design functional buildings that depress the soul, and for people to talk about the suitability of ending one’s life simply because one is old and tired.

With the use of Reason alone, it is too easy to make categorical distinctions; a person can be a statistic, not recognized as one of the human beings that the scientist or bureaucrat interacts with on a daily basis. It is Imagination that would reveal the truth: the true connection between the imago Dei, the image of God in human beings, and each individual, unique human being.

Yet in the broader culture, unchecked Imagination goes its own route to error. Ungrounded and undisciplined, a de-Christianized Imagination has not led to more beauty, but to less. When less is left to the imagination, storytelling becomes shallow and limited. In order to get some sort of response, art, literature, music, and film move toward the breaking of standards for the sake of destruction, and the rejection of limits of any kind.

Sexuality and violence, ever more of it, and ever more corrosive, become the norm for entertainment. In movies, we have gone from Alfred Hitchcock’s classic Psycho to the gore-fest of Saw III, with the same trend appearing in books. The popular young-adult series The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins, is full of graphic depictions of violent injuries and gruesome death. The high level of sexuality in books and film, including books for younger readers, has become so much the norm that one of the things that makes the Harry Potter series distinctive is its refreshing lack of explicit sexuality and its depiction of chaste dating behavior – in other words, J.K. Rowling is notable for holding to standards that were normal up to a few decades ago.

Criticism of these trends is muzzled, however, because all of these excesses are claimed to be for the sake of art or fun, with no “meaning” behind them whatsoever. “It’s just a book” or “It’s just a movie” are the most common retorts to any expressed concern about the ideas and behavior being presented (and implicitly promoted) in the media.

We need to recover the connection between Imagination and Truth. Without the recognition that our values are objectively grounded in the living God, and that our flourishing as whole human beings depends on a right relationship with Him, the imaginative impulse will lead us to destruction as surely as unchecked Reason.

But we are all storytellers, and the human need for story pops up wherever we look, even where we would not expect to find Story at all.

In the realm of unchecked Reason, skeptics tell just-so stories to explain every aspect of our lives in terms of biology and evolution.

In the realm of unchecked Imagination, celebrity culture allows people to participate in drama, and to have heroes and villains (if only for a fleeting moment).

Even when we’re completely wrong about the way the world works, with our lives completely out of touch with the living God, we are drawn to narrative, imagery, characters – story. Such is the power of storytelling. Rightly used, Story can help re-connect Reason and Imagination – and in so doing, help re-orient us toward Truth.