Apologetic Debates

Recently our church has been going through spiritual warfare of epic dimensions.  One of the issues that has come up has been a relative of one of our people who has come back from seminary in Texas, enthusiastic about planting a new church in our area.  Being a churchplanter at heart and in practice I applaud the effort to bring people to Christ.  The big issue for us is that he and his wife have been pressuring this couple from our church to be part of his new house church.  A churchplanting principle I learned long ago was that you never ask someone to be part of your work who is already going to another church without first passing it by their pastor.  Which brings up the second point...this newly minted pastor is associated with a denomination that regards pretty much any other denomination as being non-Christian.  If you do not do things the way they do, then you are not following Christ in the right way, and your faith is without effect.

Years ago I discovered that I liked the subject of apologetics, which is the art and science of defending your faith and theology.  I had many discussion with people which helped me learn about my own faith, helped me memorize scripture and gave me lots to think about.  It also gave me lots of heartburn!  After many years of ministry I have learned a few things which are not usually taught at seminary.  One of those is that apologetics is wonderful for helping you to define your faith, but it is generally not productive in changing people's minds.  It is not a "mind" thing anyway, it has to do more with your "heart", and God the Holy Spirit is the only one who can do that.  we take on the responsibility, but it is not ours to take on.  All we get is heartburn.

Does this mean that I think apologetics is fruitless?  No.  But I do think that we have to focus on things which really make us think about the important issues, not on the fine details and niceties of theology.  Over many years I have come to recognize that if you can repeat and believe the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed, then I should accept you as a Christian brother or sister.  There may be other things you believe along with those that I do not, but that is something between you and God.  Your church can be fancy or plain, you can incorporate some ritual or other, you can pray standing or sitting or prostrate, but to me you are a brother or sister.  If you negate something in the Creeds, or redefine them from what the early Christians understood...then no matter how orthodox you sound you are not a Christian, period.

Along with that comes another understanding.  I may look at a person whom I regard as a brother or sister in the faith, and they may add some detail to the Creeds which makes them regard me as an unbeliever.  This is not an easy truth, but one which I have come to accept.  The fact that I believe in free will, that I believe in entire sanctification, that I don't believe that baptism is a ritual that completes salvation (rather than being symbolic), use a different translation of the Bible than they do or that I don't do communion on some set schedule may cause someone to reject my claim to Christianity and to call me a "false teacher".    My claim is based on the historical Creeds of the faith, nothing more or less, but someone else may not have come to the same conclusion I have.

All that said, I stand with the Apostle Paul when he says, "It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill.  The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel.  The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.  But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice." (Phil 1:15-18 NIV)  If Christ is being preached, then I am satisfied.

.

The Boston Bombings

(Note: This was written as a devotional for our prayer night at the church the day after the bombings at the Boston Marathon)

 

After an incident like yesterday’s bombing in Boston we are forced to ask, “How could a good and loving God allow such things?” and “Why do bad things happen to good people?”  How could God allow a little eight year old boy to be blown to bits.  How could a beautiful 29-year old woman from Medford be killed.  How could God let over a hundred people suffer injury, some of them changed for life, like the two brothers who each lost a leg? 

I do not want to sugar coat this or offer platitudes.  Pat answers and theological niceties are not what we are looking for at a time like this.  If all we have is some lukewarm answer then Christianity is not worth the effort.  On Sunday I will address this further, but I want you to know now that God does have a plan and He is in control.  He says in Jeremiah 29:11, “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”  He has given us a beautiful gift, but one that has a sharp edge, and that is the gift of free will.  Some people use their free will to help others and to love people.  Some use it to strike out and hurt people.  God’s desire is that we would choose love, that we would choose light.  But simply having the ability to choose means that some will choose hate and darkness.  This is the human condition. 

God however, offers us two more gifts.  The first is that He promises to walk through the valleys of life with us.  “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me.”   (Ps 23:4)  He will never leave us or forsake us.  He will weep with us, as His son Jesus Christ wept with Mary and Martha.  But He has the power to change things, and this is where we hold our ultimate hope. 

His third gift is found in Romans 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God”.  God can change things.  He can use them, no matter how bad things seem to be, He can use them.  This is His ultimate gift to us. I am not going to lie to you, sometimes I look at events in life and I wonder how God could ever bring anything good out of those things.   Sometimes it might be a long time before we can see anything good.  Sometimes it comes in very unexpected ways.  But I have seen it with my own eyes…I know it happens.  So when life throws me a curve ball I can confidently expect that somehow, some way, God is going to bring good out of it.

It is not wrong to ask God “why”.  It is not wrong even to yell and scream at God.  He has big shoulders; He can take it.  And He WILL answer.  That is all part of prayer.  That is why we come here tonight, to tell God we don’t understand what has happened, to ask ‘why’, maybe even to be frustrated with it all.  But in doing so, we know He will answer.  And in the asking, and in the answering, it will all be changed and given significance.   

 

. 

Why do bad things happen to good people?

In 1981 a book was published which asked a hard question.  "When Bad Things Happen To Good People", by Harold Kushner, addressed the question implicit in the title and was on the New York Times Bestsellers list for quite some time.  Rabbi Kushner touched on an issue that everyone asks sometime during their life.  Events of the last few months caused people to ask this very question once again...the school shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, Hurricane Sandy  and several smaller shootings have once again shaken people.  In my personal and church ministry I have faced that same question from people who have been diagnosed with various diseases, people who have dealt with accidents resulting in death and serious injury and people grieving a loss.  Why do bad things happen to good people? 

 

There is a tendency for us, as Christians, to come up with a pat answer for this hard question.  Recently a song was published by Sanctus Real whose lyrics say, in part, "Sometimes it's hard to keep believing / In what you can't see / That everything happens for a reason / Even the worst life brings / If you're reaching for an answer / And you don't know what to pray / Just open up the pages /
Let His word be your strength". 

 

We say we believe in a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, so of course it seems the logical thing to tell someone who asks this question is "We may not know why this happened, but God is still in control and He must have had a reason."  The disconnect should be obvious here...when the parent of a small child who was killed in a school shooting says, "What possible reason could a good and loving God have for taking my child in a such a horrific way?  If that is what God is like, I don't want to have anything to do with Him!"  Then we wonder why the person blames God for the event.  Of course they would blame Him, after what we just told them!

 

The real answer lies in where we put ultimate responsibility.  First of all, God is the epitome of love.  He cares for us more than we will ever know.  He sent His own Son to die on a cross for us.  Second, God has by His sovereign choice given us free will.  Along with free will, though, comes responsibility and consequences for those choices we make.  That is how and why sin entered the world.  With choice came the ability to choose to NOT follow God's will. Sin entered the picture and we became morally corrupt, physically dying and spiritually dead.  

 

To make matters worse, sometimes we reap the consequences not of our own sin, but that of other people. This is where I believe the words of that song by Sanctus Real go wrong.   Everything does NOT happen to us for a reason.  God does not bring bad things down on our heads.  He does not cloak His goodness and love in events that are dark and terrible.   He did not send that shooter into the school and place our five year old in the line of fire to teach us something, at the cost of that young and innocent life.  That act was the overflow of sin and madness from a tortured person, not God.

 

Sometimes the bad things which happen are the results of accident, the nature of the fallen world or sometimes just negligence, rather than through either our sin or the sin of another person.  Regardless of the reason behind the scenes, we cannot put the blame at God's feet unless it is to say that we wish we did not have free will which is even worse than the former prospect. 

 

Let's take it one step further, though.  Our God is a God of redemption.  We know this through the sacrificial redemption of Jesus Christ for our lives.  But by the power of the Blood, He also redeems 'situations'.  Romans 8:28 says that "...in all things God works for the good of those who love him", and that we are referred to as "more than conquerors".  If we turn the bad things that happen to us over to Him, He can bring good out of something that seems as if it has no good.  He is the God of the impossible, after all. 

 

In practical terms, what that means is the worst possible situations we face, if we turn them over to God, He can and WILL bring good out of them.  We may not know what that good is, and it may take years to work it out, but he will take the broken shards of our tragedies and reshape them into something beautiful.

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."  Romans 8:28 (NIV)

.

Speak Plainly

Yesterday I delivered a sermon on a topic that is near and dear to my heart. Taken from Acts 2:1-13 and dealing with the topic of evangelism, it dealt with the issue of speaking in a fashion that people can understand.

Why is it that many Christians insist on speaking in some sort of church-based language and form that comes off as being snooty or downright gibberish to people who are not Christians? Is it because there is a level of Christian experience that simply cannot be stated any other way? Is it because speaking like this gives us some sort of 'elitist high'? Or is it because we simply don't realize how we appear to the unchurched?

My kids used to get a kick out of it when I would (purposefully) shift into my 'fundamentalist' voice. It was a caricature of those people we see on TV sometimes and who are so very annoying. The sad thing is that even my family, all of whom are churched, recognized the stereotype and laughed at it.

Paul said in 1 Cor 14:9 (NIV), "So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air." Here he is addressing the topic of 'speaking in tongues', but it applies anyway. What good does it do to talk about God and Jesus Christ in such a way that the unchurched simply don't know what we are saying? The only one getting anything out of it is ourselves.

The first step in correcting this is to be consciously aware of how you are speaking when you are talking to people. Ask yourself, are there words or concepts here that they will not understand? Does the tone come off as being 'churchy' or 'preachy'? Can I say the same thing in a way which will not sound so bad or carry stereotypes?

Speak the Truth plainly and see what the Lord might do!

"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!'" Romans 10:14-15 (NIV)

.

The Consequences of Atheism

A recent book by Stephen Hawking's, "The Grand Design", has caused more than a little stir in both scientific and theological circles. I'm sure I will get questions about this sooner or later, especially since Vermont has a fair contingent of atheists.

The most radical theological statements which Hawking makes in his book are, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist", and "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going." In other words Hawking has explicitly rejected the possibility of any Deity or the necessity of Deity in creation.

Rather than touching on the various arguments for or against these statements, I'd like simply to focus for a moment on the implications of what he said, and explore the meaning of atheism in everyday life. Here are a few things for thought.

You are composed of several pounds of chemicals and a fair bit of water. Everything you are is simply a result of chemical reactions within your body. Each perception you have, every thought you have, every emotion you feel is simply a chemical reaction. A complicated reaction, perhaps, but just a chemical reaction in the end. Love is not real, neither is pain, joy or grief.

The sensation of being 'alive', or having thoughts and feelings, is basically a chemical reaction which creates an illusion of self-awareness. 'Alive' is simply just a temporary state of chemical equilibrium.

All creatures, plant and animal, are the same and have the same level of significance. There is a matter of scale and influence which sets the more complicated organisms apart, but in the words of PETA co-founder and President Ingrid Newkirk, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" (Vogue, Sept 1, 1989).

There is no afterlife. There is no soul, no Nirvana, no Heaven, no Hell and no Happy Hunting Grounds. When your body ceases to function sufficiently well to support what we call 'life' or 'self-awareness', you will simply return to your constituent chemicals and what you were; the essential part that makes you who you are will be forever gone.

There is no reward for good behavior, there is no punishment for bad behavior except for the consequences of our own actions here. Other people may impose consequences upon you (fairly or not) but that is all that can happen.

When something bad happens to you, there is no underlying purpose. If you can get away with doing something to benefit yourself, even at the expense of others, go ahead and do it. There is no outside basis for morality, so don't worry about it. Ethics is a constructed fable.

There is no 'absolute truth' where behavior is concerned, it is simply a matter of your own desires being satisfied. Since you have only a small amount of time on earth and it all ends in oblivion, you might as well enjoy your time here. Party up! Get drunk, shoot up, sleep around. Just make sure you enjoy it all.

Since all life is simply a chemical phenomenon, there is nothing sacred about it. Want an abortion? Go ahead! Want to kill someone? No problem (just don't get caught)! Do what feels good and don't worry about others...they can look out for themselves.

Does this seem harsh? These are simply the logical consequences of following a belief in atheism. That is not to say that you cannot construct an ethos based on atheism (i.e. all human life is unique and can never be duplicated, so it is a crime against the universe to harm another person), but it is entirely optional and completely relative to the person.

The biggest issue I see with atheism and with the viewpoint of people like Hawking is that there is no hope anymore. This life is all there is. "Life sucks, then you die." As a Christian, I believe that there is indeed hope, and hope in the sense the ancient Greeks knew...not "pie in the sky thinking", but "confident expectation". It has been said that man can live without most things, but he cannot survive without hope. In what, or in whom, do you put YOUR hope?


"If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." 1 Cor 15:19-20 (NIV)


.

The Ravening Wolf

There are many times when I've been taken by surprise in Vermont. I've watched sunsets over Lake Champlain that took my breath away. I've seen wildlife in all it's natural splendor. Recently I was even surprised by nine inches of snow in my yard during a May snowstorm. But the one that took me by surprise on May 9 was not so welcome, the visit of a 'ravening wolf' to my church.

The Bible says in Matthew 7:15, "Watch out for false prophets. they come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." In this case, I had just started the sermon and a man walked into the church. He sat down and within 5 minutes raised his hand to ask a question. He claimed to be a person simply seeking answers, the son of a Jewish woman and a Greek father, born and raised in Palestine. An innocent sheep, seeking truth. Over the next three hours he showed his wolves teeth as he questioned everything about Christianity and asserted the authority of and supremacy of the Koran. A Muslim apologist in a Christian church in Northern Vermont? Yes, a surprise, but it should not have been. We, the church...and I, a pastor...have been complacent. Spiritual warfare is not something limited to Africa, the Middle East, the big cities of the United States...but is a reality even here in Vermont. We had that reality shoved in our face on May 9.

I found out more and more as the conversations continued. We finished the service, after requesting three times that "Abraham" hold his questions, and had communion. We offered communion to him and he refused. After the benediction I went to talk with him at the back of the sanctuary while others cleaned up. Several people had been in prayer. When my wife Debbie, who is also my co-pastor, returned we were still talking and continued on for a total of another two hours.

Someone asked me later why Abraham left his car running in the parking lot for the three hours he was in our church. I expect he was preparing for a quick getaway in case we called the police. I found out later after calling a fellow minister in St. Albans that "Abraham" was also known as 'Bruno", and he had been making it his business to go to the churches in the area. He had a restraining order filed against him at another church and had been removed from a few more. He had a temper, it seems.

I believe"Abraham" had three motives in coming to our church. First, he wanted to disrupt our worship. Second, he wanted to undermine the pastor in front of the congregation. And third, he wanted to convert or discourage as many people as possible. Quite frankly, he accomplished none of his goals. We have been praying for him since then, that the 'hound of Heaven' would chase him and give him no peace until he finds Christ as his saviour.

I believe the biggest surprise of that day was not mine, but his. You see, the wolf came and expected to find some tasty sheep, but instead found himself the guest of honor in a den of spiritual lions.


"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Matt 5:43-48

.

Ad Hominem

'Ad Hominem'. If you've ever taken a philosophy class or been in a debate club this term will be familiar to you. An "Ad Hominem" is a personal attack upon a person or group which bears no relation to the argument at hand and is therefore termed a 'fallacious argument'. Usually the technique is reserved to those who have exhausted all other means of winning the debate and are trying desperately to wrest some measure of satisfaction from the exchange.

In addition to being a 'fallacious' technique, it is mean-spirited and cruel. In it's most vicious form it results in a physical assault upon the other individual, or angers the other enough to provoke them likewise. Think of the little kid who loses an argument and throws dirt clods at the other child.

It seems to me that I am seeing more and more this kind of behavior. I read an article this week wherein a liberal commentator referred to his conservative opponent as a 'republi-tard', and another comment which referred to the conservative side as a 're-puke'. Showing their true colors the liberal commentator in the first case, who would likely advocate for minority groups, uses an insult which denigrates people who are mentally handicapped. In a sense, they shoot themselves in the foot with their own remarks.

I have had such attacks used against me. They are frustrating, annoying and vicious. They are also a sign that I probably have already won the debate, but that does not make them any more pleasant to experience.

My point is this: we should never resort to 'ad hominem' attacks. They do not work and we usually hurt ourselves when we use them. If you find yourself at the point where you are tempted to use one, re-think your position. Is there something you have missed, or do you need to consider changing your viewpoint? Insulting someone's mother or ancestry does not mean that you have won the argument, it means you have already lost.

"Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." 2 Tim 2:23 NIV

.

Taking his ball home

There are times when you have a discussion with someone of an opposing viewpoint and you wonder if it did any good whatsoever. I had one of those discussions yesterday. I was reading a post where the author, an avowed conservative, was saying that Wisconsin had a small victory for gay marriage advocates. I disagreed with an assertion it was not possible to oppose gay marriage without resorting to the Bible, and therefore any opposition is invalid.

To refute this argument I simply stated one of his premises and then broke it down logically, showing what the basis for current law is, and then what would happen if that basis was removed to allow gay marriage. He responded and we were off and running. However, despite the logic of the position, he refused to acknowledge the weak points in his arguments and even at one point 'put words in my mouth'. He never did address the primary issue. Final conclusion? He stated that I was wrong and said he was going to stop responding to me. In other words, he couldn't argue with my statements, so he took his ball and went home.

We in the church need to be aware of one of the points I was trying to drive home with him. Many issues we deal with, both individually and publicly are not driven by logic, but by emotion. "I'm right because I say so!". When faced with logical or even physical proof that they are wrong or mistaken, the evidence is ignored because emotion trumps everything else. I am a big believer in the usefulness of the 'apologetic' method. However, many people will not be swayed by logic. Even those who might be swayed will take a long time to come to their own conclusions.Bottom line, they must OWN the decision they make, not go on someone else's arguments. "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 It is the work of the Holy Spirit to change people's hearts and minds, not ours. We can present the truth, but only God can change a heart.