Defending Christianity and the Bible

In an attempt to get involved in public discourse and represent a biblical Christian worldview, here's yet another installment from the Omaha World-Herald's Public Pulse:

Good and bad in Bible

In regard to Mike Goonan's Aug. 16 letter, "Evidence is in Bible," I question how he, like most Christians, chooses his faith and what to believe from the Bible. Most people admit that their faith is not of choice but stems from their upbringing.

Muslims are told in the Koran that any belief other than Islam will condemn them to a life in eternal hell (5:71-75). So either many Muslims or many Christians will be suffering for eternity due to where they had the fortune or misfortune of being born.

As for the Bible, which parts should we choose to believe? Do we kill our children for talking back to us (Exodus 21:5 and Leviticus 20:9)? Do we believe it is OK to sell daughters into slavery or own slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46)?

I don't believe there is anything wrong with wanting stronger evidence than the Bible. To me, parts of it are not that good.

Daryle LaFleur, Omaha
-----------------------------------------------------------

Read to understand

In response to Daryle LaFleur's Aug. 21 letter, "Good and Bad in Bible," it is unfortunate when a Christian leaves their faith unexamined and adheres simply because of upbringing. However, this is not an argument against Christianity itself, nor does it undermine the tried and tested convictions of many Christians.

As I noticed that you only quoted from the Old Testament when finding the "bad" in the Bible, let me offer a suggestion in hermeneutics (biblical interpretation). You should read the Bible with the precision you think the writer intended.

All of us read the newspaper in this fashion with no trouble; reading the front page, the sports page, and the comics page with varying degrees of literal interpretation and personal application. A headline like "Bears Devour Lions" may not be intended literally. A letter to the editor may not be intended for you.

Let me suggest you consider the life of Jesus before digging into obscure Old Testament passages intended for theocratic Israel. He claimed to be God and is the linchpin of Christianity. Muslims claim he was not God but merely a prophet and good teacher. Everyone should consider the historical and biblical accounts and decide for themselves.

Jared Totten, Omaha

Tolerance is a buzzword

"Politically incorrect" used to be the card to play in a losing discussion to color one's opponent as the bad guy. Today "intolerant" has become the catchall missile levelled at anyone dumb enough to disagree with a closely-held pet belief in most dialogues (especially those regarding religion and morality). Postmodernism has completely distorted what the word tolerance used to mean. What follows is, in my experience, how tolerance is defined today:

1. Everyone is free to believe what they want without fear of verbal or physical violence from the public or coercion from the government.

2. Every belief is equally valid and true (if not for you, then for someone else).

3. Every belief should be celebrated by everyone.

I certainly agree with the first assertion. I believe the first concept is one of the founding ideas that formed our country. However, tolerance has been amplified in our day to encompass the second and third tenets as well. Allow me to explain why I have a problem with these two.

Let's start with a proposition that everyone can objectively say is false: 2+2=5. Now, in the spirit of tolerance, I will permit someone to believe that 2+2=5 without directing any hatred, violence, or bigotry towards them. I may tell them they're wrong, I may try to convince them to change their minds, but I will not act harshly negative toward them. However, you will never hear me (or any teacher I want teaching my kids) say "I believe differently, but your belief that 2+2=5 is true for you and valid". And hopefully you will never hear "Furthermore, I think it's great that you believe that 2+2=5 and I support you in such thinking". In this illustration, I can be tolerant (by the old definition) of a view different from my own while still considering it wrong and in need of correction.

Now, if you plug any of the hot topics of today into the above equation (the existence of God, one's personal view of God, homosexual marriage, just war, abortion, divorce, etc.) you see how this quickly rubs against today's definition of tolerance.

Note the implication: we can think and talk objectively about certain ideas (math, science, etc. where one view is the correct one and all others are wrong), but when it comes to the bigger thoughts of religion and morality, we must stay neutral. Neutered. Non-committal. Passive. Spineless. And the only people we should not tolerate . . . are the intolerant. And we'll define that word how we like, thank you very much.

D.A. Carson wrote, "It used to be that tolerance was the virtue of the person who held strong views about something or other, but who insisted that those who disagreed had an equal right to defend their views – the sort of stance picked up in the slogan, 'I may detest your opinions, but I shall defend to the death your right to speak them.' Today, however, tolerance is the virtue of the person who holds no strong views, except for the strongly held view that it is wrong to hold strong views, or to indicate that someone else might be wrong." - Maintaining Scientific and Christian Truths in a Postmodern World

Please don't misunderstand me, this is not my endorsement to be bull-headed, unlearning, close-minded, and elitist about your beliefs. But neither can I endorse a silencing of the gospel just because it presents the solution to our malady as the only solution. If one believes that Jesus was who He said he was, we must be as exclusive in our message as Christ was in His. This broader definition of tolerance is impractical and unsustainable in the real world. I do not expect to hear any time soon a doctor tell his patient, "I know of a solution to your deadly sickness, but whatever you believe will heal you is a valid belief as well and I celebrate it". I do not expect to hear this from Christians either.

What's wrong with religion?

Recently I've noticed a pendulum swing in culture (Both Christian and secular) away from "religion". This is, to some extent, an outworking of the impact postmodern thinking has made on us all. Spirituality through the lens of postmodernism becomes very personalized, a kind of buffet of ideas. Just walk down the line and pick what you want.

In the Christian realm, this pendulum swing sometimes works itself out in the form of the Emergent Church. Distancing itself from what's perceived as the traditional "Christian religion", the Emergent Church is focusing on the things that many Christians have admittedly dropped the ball on. Granted, these churches still have more characteristics of religion than some people would like. I have a friend that, for that very reason, has not been to church for years.

Another effect of this pendulum swing in the Christian realm is that "religion" has almost become a taboo word. If you don't believe me, consider how many times you have heard something like this from a Christian: "My faith is a relationship, not a religion". Now, this is not a terrible thing to say. It is true, to a point, but it is misleading. I wholeheartedly agree that the crux of Christianity is an individual and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. However, in virtue of that relationship, Jesus expects us to do certain things that will inevitably be perceived as religion. Be baptized, take communion, don't give up meeting together. There are a whole host of things the Scripture calls us to that will undoubtedly color us as a religion.

I am not saying you cannot use that "relationship, not a religion" line. We must be thinking through how we present the Gospel to such a postmodern culture, changing the method without changing the message. What I have seen that worries me more are the serious Christians who take that next step and begin having a genuine distaste for religion. Though it has been mishandled at times, I stand with James that there exists (and we should strive for) a "religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father".

So how do we respond to this? I am sorry to say it's not as easy as just distancing ourselves from the word "religion". We can try to redefine, soft-pedal, or side-step the word but eventually an obedient Christ-follower will be called to do something "religious". Jesus instituted practices like baptism and communion in his followers, both which connote an ongoing gathering of the community of believers.

Rather, we must begin pin-pointing what drove the pendulum away from religion in the first place and begin the difficult work of correcting it piece by piece. Was it the bigotry toward the homosexual community? Was it the judgmentalism directed towards a world we are called not to judge? Was it the greed seen in our ranks? What ever it is you have seen, it begins with a grassroots effort where you are, redeeming the word and the idea of religion from where it is now. Perhaps we begin with James' characteristic of pure and undefiled religion, that we "visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and keep oneself unstained from the world".

Depravity Necessitates God's Choice

Every Christian must have a view of predestination. I know, this is not a catchy intro paragraph, and if you're not a Christian, you've already clicked away. However, I feel compelled to write on this, because Reformed theology is foundational to my worldview and a particular position on predestination is foundational to Reformed theology. I know most of you are confused or bored by now. But if you give this material some time and thought, it may just clear up some tensions you've felt and seen in the Bible and even mankind (as it did for me).

I did not start out in my Christian theology as a Reformed thinker. Most people don't because all of us live most of our lives thinking we make all our decisions with complete autonomy. But at some point in a Christian's life they must (or should) deal with ideas of predestination and God's sovereignty. As I opened, every Christian must have a view of predestination. This is, of course, because it's in the Bible.

Now the popular view of predestination goes something like this: God predestined some people for salvation because He looked down the corridors of time and saw who would chose Him and He elected them. So this view would say we chose God (salvation) because God chose us (election in predestination) because we chose God (our decision seen by foreknowledge). This does not sound like the predestination I read about in Romans 9 done "in order that God's purpose in election might stand, not by works but by him who calls".

Rather, I hold that we chose God (salvation) because God chose us (predestination). No third step dependent on the decisions of man. However, I hold this position not primarily because of the Bible's teaching on predestination, though it is certainly there. Instead, I hold this position because of the Bible's teaching on man's fallenness, sinfulness, and depravity. Our state of sinfulness and helplessness necessitates God making the choice. It was the doctrine of human depravity that drove me to a Reformed position.

Spiritual ignorance: Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires (Rom. 8:5), they are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts (Eph. 4:18), the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them (1 Cor. 2:14), there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God (Rom. 3:11)

Spiritual rebellion: We were God's enemies (Rom. 5:10), [The sinful nature] does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so (Rom. 8:7) All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one (Rom. 3:12), both their minds and consciences are corrupted (Titus 1:15), the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9)

Spiritual inability: Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God (Rom. 8:8), Jesus said "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4), everyone who sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34), When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness (Rom. 6:20)
Spiritual death: The mind of sinful man is death (Rom. 8:6), you were dead in your transgressions and sins (Eph. 2:1), you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature (Col. 2:13)

As RC Sproul said in Chosen by God, "The uniform teaching of Scripture is that fallen men are fleeing from God. There is no one who seeks after God. We see people searching desperately for peace of mind, relief from guilt, meaning and purpose to their lives, and loving acceptance. People do not seek God. They seek after the benefits that only God can give them."

So, if I believe man is spiritually ignorant, rebellious, and dead, how are we saved? God must regenerate us, He must make an effective call on the heart that breathes life into it. Much like Lazarus, we make no decision to walk out of the grave until God speaks and life is created in us.

For a more in depth treatment of this issue by Greg Koukl, click here.

Same-sex marriage in the Public Square

The following is a letter to the editor printed in the Omaha World Herald in response to two other letters printed in an earlier issue. I have not cited those here, but their central thoughts are represented in my response. While the defense is very brief (I was limited to 200 words), I think the central themes and arguments are there.

In response to Jamie's June 2 letter, a vote in support of legislation to legalize homosexual marriage reflects approval of the lifestyle. When a pastor marries a couple, it is understood as an endorsement of that relationship. This is why marrying a homosexual couple is not the same as marrying an alcoholic couple. A marriage is not an endorsement of the alcoholism.

To call someone a bigot who objects to homosexual marriage on moral convictions, as Kelly did in a June 2 letter, is just name-calling. A bigot is someone who holds an intolerant position in an irrational way, considering others and their views substandard.To morally object to something is not to consider that person substandard. We are all sinners. We're all on an even playing field.

Since those of us who object to such unions are not pushing to make homosexuality illegal, it seems that the morality of others is being forced on us, not vice versa.The issue should be put to a vote, and opponents should not be subjected to bullying tactics like name-calling.

Jared Totten, Omaha

Cancer and God's Sovereignty

Recently I had a rare opportunity to meet one "of whom the world was not worthy". I received a call out of the blue from the wife of a friend. He was out of town for the week and unavailable when asked to visit another military man in the hospital who was undergoing treatment for lymphoma. When asked if I would visit this person I've never met under such heavy circumstances, I accepted with more than a little anxiousness.

This young man named Zach had moved to Omaha with his newly-wed wife just so he could receive specialized treatment at the med center. They were alone in Omaha, having spent their entire time in the hospital, and he needed "a brother to talk to" as he later told me. He told me how God had just recently gotten his attention and at the same time brought his wife-to-be into his life. There was such an atmosphere of joy in that room that at times I forgot we were in a hospital.

I was brought to tears as we read the first chapter of Ephesians. It struck me how one so afflicted according to the world's standards could speak so easily and affectionately about the sovereignty and providence of God. But, as one strongly influenced by Reformed thinking, the sovereignty of God is truly a source of comfort when understood properly. Certainly, while God does not actively cause everything, even that which He allows is in His design. As John Piper said, "What God permits, He permits for a reason. And that reason is His design. " As Christians, we are not promised to be saved from all sickness and pain, only that there is purpose behind it all and heaven after it all. Indeed, as we loosen our clutches on the world and grasp tighter to Christ, we can say with Paul "To die is gain" and see sovereignty behind it.

I know that a sick man's confidence in the sovereignty of God is not an argument for His sovereignty. But, if the Bible can be proven the Word of God (which I believe it has been), and if the Bible teaches the sovereignty of God (which I believe it does), then Zach's peace and confidence is the perfect outworking of loving God's sovereignty.

Not two weeks after I met Zach for the first and only time, he passed away from complications resulting from the lymphoma. For those who may read this and have differing positions about the sovereignty of God, my words may sound calloused or ignorant. For those who don't believe in any sort of afterlife, they may sound like the mental crutch of a wishful thinker. But for Zach, God's sovereignty gave him joy in his circumstances, hope in the future, and peace even in the prospect of death. And I came away from the hospital not depressed or second-guessing my theology, but rather more confident and at peace in the sovereignty of God than before.

Don't Waste Your Cancer by John Piper

Are you good enough to get into heaven?

How good do you have to be to get into heaven? What is the scale on which we will all be graded? Many people answer that it is simply a balancing act between one's good deeds and bad deeds. They believe the verdict is decided by which side of the scale outweighs the other.

God, in fact, gives us the scale by which to judge ourselves in the Ten Commandments. Don't steal. Don't murder. Don't lie. Most people have broken at least a couple of these commandments, but they feel they have at least not broken the big ones like adultery and murder.

However, isn't it interesting that Jesus had something to say about the very two commandments that most people feel they are in the clear on? Jesus said if you have entertained hatred in your heart for a person, you are guilty of murder. If you have entertained lust in your heart for a person, you are guilty of adultery. And to make matters worse, we find that "if a person keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point, they are guilty of breaking all of it". If this is true, that puts us all squarely on the same side of the scale as the most infamous murderers in the world's history.

If this seems unfair, it is because we underestimate the position we were given when God created us in His image. We were made image bearers, and as such expected to bear His image not only personality traits, but also behavior and morality. The reason lying is a sin and listed in the Commandments is that it is contrary to God's image. The same can be said for every Commandment. Every sin is, at its root, a violation of God's image in our person. Thus, lying and stealing puts you on the same plane as murdering because all of them put you in the category of a defiler of God's image.

As we realize that we are guilty not only of commiting individual sins in action, but also of entertaining serious sins in thought and breaking the entire law in violating God's image, things are looking pretty grim. And the nail in the coffin comes when we find that good deeds do not count as positive weight on our imaginary scales because good deeds are expected as image bearers. The image of the "good" and "bad" scales actually doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It would be more accurate to say that we've been given something precious and invaluable, like a ming vase, and as image bearers are expected to keep it in its original condition and value. A sin is a crack and, if the aforementioned factors are true, we've all done much worse than just crack the image.

If this analogy bothers you, it bothers God too. This is the reason He sent Jesus. Only Jesus kept the law at every point, only He bore the image of God perfectly. And only through faith in Jesus are we identified with Him and His perfect image. So the choice is yours, you can be identified with Christ the perfect image bearer, or you can be identified on your own and how you've handled God's image.

(For anyone interested in the picture I used, it is a perfect illustration! Notice even the restorer said experts would be able to see the cracks.)