Yesterday’s candid post on the Song of Songs prompted some interesting comments.

My wife said: “Ummm, babe, I think someone just hijacked your blog.”

Yes, I take that as a compliment.

My buddy Scott said, “This is by far the toughest sentence I have ever read.” He was referring to this statement:

Contrast this with the ephemeral, capricious and shallow character of contemporary loveand you see God’s vision for marriage involves a volitional, muscular emotion that has a singular and solitary intent to honor the object of it’s affections.

That’s actually my most favorite-ist sentence. And yes, I take his comment as a compliment.

Richard DeVeau’s comment is a different story.

He said, “Perhaps it’s my age, but when I read about apples, raisins, figs, walnuts and spices, I only think about pie.”

That nearly brought my yogurt through my nose.

Then another good buddy said, “Very well done. I feel that this is one of the most beautiful books of The Bible.”

I have to agree.

Finally, there’s Rob’s comment…a comment which pointed out that our silence on the topic of love and sexuality has led the culture to dominate and define it.

This is not good.  Rob went on to say:

[Songs] clearly shows that sex, and even boyish giggle inducing when you talk about it sex, is a glorious & God-honoring blessing to man and woman and the only stipulation is within the hedge of protection provided by marriage.

In other words, sex within in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is not only part of God’s original plan for creation [and indeed, a pivotal ingredient if we are going to succeed in this thing called "our cultural mandate"]–but it can also be erotic, deeply emotional and ultimately satisfying.

Rob closes his comment with two penetrating questions. Questions I want you to respond to:

How many Christian couples do you know that struggle with this? How many unbelievers do you know that have gotten a flawed view of sexuality from the church and that’s lead to them dismissing Jesus altogether?

I have to confess that my own view of sex within a Christian marriage has been distorted in the past. It wasn’t until pastors like Piper and Driscoll and a book by Kostenberger that I began to have a healthy, balanced view of love, sexuality and family.

This brings to mind something Grudem expresses the “Introduction” to his Systematic Theology. In essence, Grudem said that part of growing as a Christian involves exposing our views to the light of the Bible–and allowing it to bend us away from ourselves and more towards Christ.

That’s not easy to do. But it’s part and parcel of developing a mature Christian mind.

And while the second question might sound shallow and baseless and somewhat offensive to an agnostic or atheist, it’s really not.

The reasons for dismissing Jesus and Christianity are often emotional and moral–not intellectual. Thus a flat, flawed view of sex within Christianity amounts to a dull, boring life…

“No thanks,” the non-believer might say.

That’s why I think it’s important to get this topic right–both for the believer AND the non-believer.

On the one hand a healthy, Christian view of love and sexuality avoids frustration and division within a marriage. Instead, it invites joy and unity.

On the other hand it allows us to control the cultural conversation and express a genuine benefit to unbelievers [not that we're trying to attempt to bribe them...merely taking an excuse away] about the passion and bliss found in Christian love and sexuality.

So what about you: Do you struggle with what love and sexuality look like within a Christian marriage? Besides reading and studying a book like Songs, how have you attempted to remedy that? And do  you know anybody who’s dismissed Jesus and Christianity because of a flawed view of love and Christian sexuality?

I look forward to your thoughts. Brutal and all.

Related posts:

1. What Is the “Post-Evangelical Wilderness”?
2. Death Lessons: What You Can Learn When Someone Dies
3. Happy Good Friday?

Want quick answers to objections the New Atheists, Bart Ehrman and Open Theists bring against Christianity?

Then Contending with Christianity’s Critics is your book.

Now, William Lane Craig [editor and contributor] says the book is both accessible and apologetically cutting-edge.

While I’ll concede cutting-edge, I have to resist “accessible.”

I’ll show you what I mean in a minute.

Here’s the deal: Contending is made up of 18 essays divided into three categories: The Existence of God, Jesus of History and Coherence of Christian Doctrine.

What follows is a SHORT review of each essay. Nano-reviews, if you will.

Dawkin’s Delusion
In under 3 pages Craig demonstrates that Richard Dawkin’s doesn’t have “a very serious argument against God’s existence.” Instead, he’s got an invalid syllogism.

At Home in the Multi-Verse
All I have to say is that James Daniel Sinclair lost me  at sentence one. Go figure.

Confronting Naturalism: The Argument from Reason
Victor Reppert’s argument in a nutshell: Meaning is ambiguous if naturalism is true. However, meaning is NOT ambiguous. Thus, naturalism is false.

Belief in God: A Trick of Our Brain?
Psychological experiments about a God-sense hardwired in our brain simply demonstrate what we already know: We’ve got an instinct for God.

The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism
Mark D. Linville starts his essay like this: “Darwin’s account of the origins of human morality is at once elegant, ingenious and woefully inadequate.” He then defends that thesis in 16 pages of playful, Rob Powellesque language.

Darwin’s Best Argument Against God’s Existence
Gregory Ganssle uses four counter-features to show that Dawkin’s best argument–that features of this life fit a naturalistic explanation better than a theistic one–simply doesn’t deliver.

Criteria for The Gospel’s Authenticity
When positive evidence accumulates…and one affirms a universe open to miracles…the Gospel’s authenticity is strongly attested. That’s Robert Stein’s argument.

Jesus the Seer
Ben Witherington makes an exquisite case for Jesus’ self-understanding as God by exploring his use of the phrase “Son of Man.” Must read.

The Resurrection of Jesus Time Line
Gary Habermas works back from the composition of the Gospels to Paul’s conversion to show that Jesus’ bodily record was taught as early as 30 AD. In other words: It’s always been a creed with the church.

How Scholars Fabricate Jesus
Craig Evans argues that the scholarly track record with respect to the use of extra-canonical gospels is embarrassing. Take note, Crossan.

How Badly Did the Early Scribes Corrupt the New Testament
Dan Wallace takes Misquoting Jesus to task, stating the author [Bart Ehrman] esteems provocative positions over honesty, excitement over boredom.

Who Did Jesus Think He Was?
Michael Wilkins makes a plain-Jane case that Jesus knew he was God. The only innovation appears to be Wilkin’s use of Peter’s messianic proclamation as a test case.

The Coherence of Theism
Taliaferro and Marty look at six specific attributes of God and their seamless interaction to prove God simply makes sense.

Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder?
Paul Copan makes a case for a simple understanding of the Trinity–yet with room for mystery and worship.

Did God Become a Jew?
Copan next argues that it’s NOT absurd to think about God becoming man. One way he does this is by warning us to start with the Scriptures–not Greek philosophy–when we talk about the Incarnation.

Dostoevsky, Woody Allen and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution
Christopher Hitchens complains that Jesus’ death as vicarious atonement makes zero sense. Steve Porter’s essay will fix that.

Hell: Getting What’s Good My Own Way
Very creative case for hell by Stuart Goetz based on libertarian free will, life plans and ultimate-good-seeking decisions. C. S. Lewis would be proud.

What Does God Know? The Problems with Open Theism
David Hunt tells us that open theism doesn’t have a scriptural advantage over classical theism because it fails four truth tests.

As you might’ve noticed, Richard Dawkin’s and Co. and their ideas get a lot of work. That’s intentional.

Thus, if you want answers to this new wave of objections to Christianity, Contending is a good buy. You’ll be happy to foot the $14. I was.

Related posts:

1. The Lost Art of Praying Together [A Review]
2. Dr. Banks Responds to My Review of “Praying Together”
3. David Platt v. the American Dream [Book Review]

I get the feeling that Anthony Horvath doesn’t sleep.

The guy’s got a lot going on.

For starters, he’s the director of Athanatos Christian Ministries, an organization “committed to applying the Christian world view in creative contexts that range from Christian apologetics to education to the edification of the church to literature and the arts.”

He’s also a public speaker on the pro-life circuit [for good reasons]. An author of two fiction books. The founder of a literary apologetics writing contest. And the brains behind this publishing group.

Throw in a wife and four children–and Anthony is busy. But very interesting. As you’re about to see.

1. Give me a little bio of you and your ministry.

I was raised in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and had every intention of becoming a pastor when, in my first year of college, abandoned my beliefs.

When faith returned, my new passion was Christian apologetics.

I graduated with a pastoral ministry degree with a minor in the Biblical languages and then proceeded to be a religion teacher and other church work positions.

In the midst of the professional church work I continued to do apologetics. I started with AOL and then moved to forum discussions.

About five years ago circumstances conspired so that I became a ’stay at home’ dad and apologetics my ‘full time’ activity. I am a father of four, and on account of the birth of my daughter who has spina bifida, my ministry has a distinctly pro-life bend in it, too.

2. What motivated you to start Athanatos Christian Ministries?

ACM made official what had been going on all along. There are any number of duties involved in running a ministry, much of them having nothing to do with ministry at all. People don’t appreciate this fact. I think small businessmen will understand, though.

Most of the ministry activities we’re doing now were started before ACM became an official non-profit. I chose the name ‘Athanatos,’ which is Greek for ‘immortal’ or ‘not dying’ rather than ‘Sntjohnny’ (my AOL presence my ministry began with) to cast a larger vision for an apologetics ministry.

“He has set eternity in the hearts of men…” Solomon said. As Lewis said, “We have never met a mere mortal.”

I take as my starting point that everyone is longing for truth and meaning and they pursue it as naturally as they breathe. ACM seeks to facilitate that pursuit by any means possible.

3. You state on Anthanatos website that you no longer believe “the best, exclusive use of my time is to reach out and contend with atheists.” I like how you qualified that statement, but I’ve found in my own experience that engaging atheists enhances my understanding of my faith and actually better prepares me to answer challenging questions from Christians. Would you agree with that statement or disagree.

Well, I can see how this might come across as not wanting to engage with atheists but perhaps the statement should be understood by contrast to what I was doing before. My discussion forum, slightly a ghost town now used to consume all of my time.

When I say ‘my time’ I mean something on the order of 40 to 60 hours a week.

This includes the loads of reading and research that one would have to do to write intelligently. I draw heavily on this experience as I seek to equip Christians.

I definitely think that that kind of engagement is useful, because it helps us bridge the gap between what we think people’s objections will be and what they actually are.

I still contend with atheists (and others!). It just isn’t as much of my time as before. Also, as alluded to before, much more of my time is needed to management and administration of the ministry, which is a reality I’m not particularly happy about.

4. In 2006, you said that the Church was actually creating atheists. What did you mean by that? You also said that if you made that statement today, it’d hardly get noticed. What’s changed in four years?

That 2006 pronouncement was born of my realization that many, if not most, if not even all, of the atheists I was conversing with had been raised in the Church.

This goes to the other reason why I’ve shifted my time to equipping Christians over against banging heads with atheists: I deemed it might be more practical to stop Christians from falling away in the first place rather than try to win them back after they were long gone.

The really controversial part of my 2006 pronouncement, though, was that the Church itself was instrumental in breeding atheists.

Now, a certain natural cycle of doubt and questioning and a certain amount of people deciding that Christianity doesn’t have the answers is to be expected and is not problematic on its face.

The problem is that the Church is doing a poor job making sure that people are asking the right questions and then exposing them to the best answers. It’s worse than that: much Christian education actually sets people up to be clobbered when they finally started thinking through their faith.

I think Ken Ham’s Already Gone documents this very well. That book represents a survey that he personally commissioned and to his surprise they discovered that those most likely to have hardened positions against Christianity were those who had been through Sunday School, VBS, Confirmation, and the like.

Nonbelievers who were ’softer’ on Christianity hadn’t actually been through any Christian programming! While I don’t agree with Ham’s total conclusions, I think his theory on why this particular phenomena is taking place is probably correct.

Since I made that pronouncement in 2006, there have been a variety of studies that have come out showing that a high percentage of unbelievers were raised in the Church. Ken Ham I mentioned. Barna has produced numerous reports indicating something is amiss. There are others, too.

It isn’t a controversial pronouncement any more because I think generally speaking it is agreed that there is something seriously, seriously wrong in the transmission of the faith.

The remaining dispute is over what is wrong and what to do about it.

Related posts:

1. Collision Movie Screening: Doug Wilson Explains His Hopes for the Film | DG 2009
2. Is the Gospel What the World Desperately Needs?
3. How to Deal with Religious Conflict

I asked myself the same question the other day when I read Chaplain Mike’s post My Post-Evangelical Wilderness.

Basically Mike is explaining what life is like as a Christian in an environment he feels is dysfunctional and theologically shallow.

This is how Mike put it:

“For years, I’d had a growing dissatisfaction with evangelicalism’s lack of tradition, historical perspective, reverence and order in worship. I resisted its programmed approach to spiritual growth, its bourgeois commitments that blatantly disregard the NT emphasis on sacrificial service and inclusion of the poor and disenfranchised, its “temple” mentality that has little sense of serving Christ in daily life and instead revolves around what happens in the institution and its programs.”

Can you relate? I can. But I didn’t at first.

Yes, his commentary splendidly sums up my feelings of the evangelical church. But I don’t really feel like I live in a “post-evangelical wilderness.” Let me explain.

A Problem with Independent, Local Churches

Mike’s angst isn’t rooted solely in his disappointment in the old evangelical order. He’s also a pastoral casualty of an independent church.

He mentions and I think rightly puts his finger on the ecclesiastical problem of independent, local, non-denominational churches: no overarching governing body to lend support when a church goes under or a pastor needs a job.

It’s a rough and lonely world, indeed. You are on your own.

Mike learned this lesson firsthand and found himself without a job–and a church home. No wonder Mike feels like a stranger in a strange land.

And at the end of his post Mike explains this is what living in the “post-evangelical wilderness” means to him. [By the way: He's since found a job he loves but not a church he loves.]

He then goes on to ask “What does it mean to you?” That’s when the hair on the back of my neck stood on end.

My Harsh and Compassionate Response

Even though I relate to Mike now, at first I couldn’t. I knew he got one thing right: There is a generation parting. Call it “evangelical” if you must and I certainly feel like I live a wilderness…

But I wouldn’t identify it as “post-evangelical wilderness.” There’s just way too much going on to tie up our Christian life in this neat package.

Also, by saying “post-evangelical wilderness” we are implying there once was an “evangelical paradise,” a notion I think will make us all snicker.

Mike’s post was a bold one. He opened up. Became vulnerable. But you know what? I kind of thought Mike was whining.

So I mentally hashed out my response–I isolated his problems and presented the solutions in my patented curt approach.

So very man of me. And unregenerate.

But fortunately my conscience wouldn’t allow me to leave it at that. I knew God was nudging me to go further…to step into Mike’s shoes.

So I did my best at proposing a second, compassionate response. I can’t say I succeeded. You be the judge. Here are my original thoughts:

Couple things come to mind when I hear “post evangelical wilderness.” First, cop out. Second, phase of life.

Cop out: I think we’re all pretty much frustrated with the dysfunction of the human race. Paul’s approach to dealing with dysfunction in the church? Laying down the truth. Believers in persecuted nations would love to have a dysfunctional church to worship in. As you can probably tell, this is my harsher side coming out.

Phase of life: This is my softer side coming out. I can only imagine Paul got very, very disillusioned with the persistent dysfunction of the church, too. Indeed, you can sense that in his second letter to Timothy. And I imagine all of us go through phases in which we feel lost and let down by the “church.” But let’s not forget the invisible church. Elijah was reminded when he experienced his lonely, dark winter of spiritual discontent that God had preserved 7,000 others just like him. Fortunately we live in an age that allows us to connect with vibrant, merciful believers around the world who can encourage us when our own local church isn’t.

Chin up, Mike. God loves you and wants you to fight.

Don’t get me wrong: I love neat phrases like “post-evangelical wilderness.” And as cognitive beings who love solving problems, we have a bent for them.

[See this Dug Down Deep review for another example.]

But anytime we align ourselves with a movement–whether post-evangelical or Emergent  or New Calvinism–we are in danger of becoming dogmatic, entrenched and ultimately dysfunctional in the eyes of the next generation…something I’d love to avoid…if possible.

Your Turn

So tell me…am I dead on? Or way off? Also, do you see yourself in a “post-evangelical wilderness”? And what does that mean to you? Also, got any solutions for the  independent, local churh? I’m curious. Leave your thoughts–brutal and all–in the comments.

Related posts:

1. The Trick to Finding Your Spiritual Gift
2. 50 Things Christian Workers Should Avoid
3. Subdue the Earth [Exploring the OTHER Great Commission]

Monergism is the name for the doctrine that the Holy Spirit acts independently of the human will in the work of new birth.

It’s also the name for one of the best online resources for all things reformed: Monergism.com.

In many ways, it’s the reformed communities best kept secret.

But it’s not likely to stay that way for long.

The Birth of Monergism

Around the year 2000, web developer John Hendryx started to get disturbed by the growth of heretical information on the web.

At the same time he also noticed that there wasn’t anywhere online you could go to find sound doctrine in a single place. Naturally, he felt like he should use his God-given creativity to spread the gospel.

So, in his spare time, he built Monergism.com to help recover the true biblical doctrines of the historic faith by collecting and centralizing reformed resources across the web on one site.

And what began ten years ago as a small website with a handful of links has grown into a mammoth directory of all things reformed.

Five Things You Can Do at Monergism.com

Monergism.com amounts to a vast archive of online articles, PDFs, books and mp3s. So if you’re new to monergism–whether the doctrine or the website–start here…

With over 80 links to topics on regeneration, the will of God, justification and biblical devotion you’re likely to be busy for awhile–especially if you settle into the 26-part audio lecture on Calvin’s Institutes.

The second great way to use Monergism.com involves the exposition of Scripture. Simply pop in any Bible verse into the search box, press submit and voila: a stout list of written and audio commentaries on that verse.

The third great feature at Monergism.com is it’s biography pages. Take Tim Keller, for example. On his bio page you get a professional summary then a long list of resources.

Then there’s the Monergism mp3 library–a  massive archive of sermons and lectures on just about any topic under the reformed sun. Name a living theologian or pastor–like Tim Keller or D. A. Carson–and you are likely to find all their available sermons.

Lastly, Monergism.com has developed into a bookstore where you can find classic Puritan works by Flavel, Edwards and Newton to current works by Francis Chan, Kevin DeYoung or Adrian Warnock–often at reduced prices.

Keep This in Mind

Monergism.com is a non-profit organization. That means Hendyx and Co. work off of donations and book sales…

Anyone who’s worked in non-profit knows that this often amounts to dirt, which should give you an indication when you consider the size and quality and longevity of Monergism.com that this venture has a lot to do with one man’s unrelenting vision to see the historic confession of Jesus Christ dominate the theological landscape…

Something I can wholeheartedly get behind. What about you?

Related posts:

1. Creeds + Catechisms: Why You Don’t Have to Be Afraid
2. TULIP: Where Did It Go Wrong?
3. Four Ways False Teaching Seduces Us

Hell doesn’t get much press.

Blame it on the Enlightenment and its fear of all things supernatural.

To be fair, Enlightenment writers were reacting to a gross abundance of commentary on hell.

In fact, this environment forced Erasmus to remark that some Paris theologians wrote so well about hell that they evidently had been there themselves!

However, contemporary Christians have lost their backbone on this important biblical doctrine. That’s troubling for many reasons. Let me show you what I mean.

Hell: A Ghastly Nightmare

The doctrine of hell is a repulsive doctrine. In fact, it’s hard to believe someone just made it up. But the Bible says a lot about hell. Mostly in the words of Jesus himself.

First off, what is hell? The orthodox meaning is eternal punishment for those who reject God and His grace.

What does that punishment look like? Outer darkness. Weeping. Gnashing of teeth. Fire.

Fire, no doubt, is symbolic. But this shouldn’t comfort the lost because fire is symbolic of something much worse.

How much worse? We just don’t know.

We do know that hell will last forever and in addition to physical agony, occupants will experience unrelenting guilt and regret due to their decision to reject God’s offer of mercy in Christ.

Objections to Hell

As noted above, some people simply dismiss hell as superstition. These are your skeptics and atheists.

Then there are your evangelicals…

Some evangelicals–Unitarians, for example–believe in universalism–the idea that everyone will eventually be saved. But Jesus’ words are unmistakable: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Matthew 25:46

Others believe in postmortem evangelism. These evangelicals insist the dead will be given another opportunity to repent after death. Again, the Bible doesn’t support this notion. Just the opposite: “Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” Hebrews 9:27

Finally, you have your annihilationists who believe that the wicked are exterminated at death. But annihilationists must hold this belief in the face of ample biblical reference to hell being eternal.

Now let me ask you: Why are so-called evangelicals busy reducing, revising and removing the biblical doctrine of hell when those who were evangelicals in the past would’ve ferociously resisted such ideas?

Here’s your answer: Hell is marked by so much awkwardness and embarrassment evangelicals are looking for anyway out of this doctrine.

The Logical Reason Behind Hell

Yes, hell is terrible. But NOT the least bit unfair. It is simply a gesture by God to honor those who reject him, his love and his offer of grace through Christ.

In essence, he gives them what they want: separation from God.

However, because of sin everyone deserves hell… including both those who accept God’s offer of rescue through Christ and those who reject it.

Yet hell is not a fate God wants people to experience:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

The Benefits of the Doctrine of Hell

Yes, even though hell is a horrifying doctrine, it does provide certain benefits.

One benefit is a sense of relief and gratitude for God’s mercy and forgiveness and promise of heaven. Mercy and forgiveness and heaven are meaningless if there is no depth…

We would certainly respond one way to a friend who kept us from stepping into a puddle. Quite another way to a friend who kept us from stepping off the edge of a cliff.

Another benefit involves our future and reminds us how important life decisions are here and now. The doctrine of hell motivates us to share the gospel when we know the outcome for those who reject Christ or remain in their sins is eternal physical agony.

Why We’ve Lost Our Backbone Over Hell

Yet, in spite of these benefits, contemporary Christians have lost their convictions about hell. There is at least one good reasons for this: Our view of the nature of God has changed.

In an attempt to shed any repulsive concepts attached to God, we redefine him to suit our preferences. Here are four ways we’ve done that.

1. We redefine God’s love so that it resembles sentimentalism and indulgence minus God’s hatred for sin. In turn, we love the sinner and ignore his sin.

2. Hell seems so excessive, so we limit God’s holiness. However, the traditional doctrine of hell argues that eternal punishment is a just penalty for an insult against the infinite holiness of God.

3. We limit God’s knowledge to suggest that he doesn’t stop decades of megadeath simply because he didn’t see it coming. This is the heresy of open theism.

4. We minimize God’s justice by arguing that it would be easier to persuade a skeptic to embrace a God without wrath and righteousness.

But what’s more important: That we properly market God to our culture? Or that we stand up for orthodoxy–no matter the cost?

What’s at Stake if We Neglect the Doctrine of Hell?

Here’s the deal: The Bible presents hell as a concrete reality. It’s existence is not up for Debate. Revision. Or vote. To do otherwise is to pervert the truth, reduce the sting of sin and minimize the threat of hell.

So WHAT if hell is scandalous or too out of step with the contemporary mind?

That won’t make it go away.

We must deal with it. As Christians, that means defending it’s classic treatment. If we don’t, what’s at stake? Our very concept of God and the gospel are diluted.

And where does this end? Our culture gets to define our model of God? To do so would be to feed on lies. And I don’t want that to happen. Do you?

Related posts:

1. Death: A Doctrine We Can’t Neglect
2. The Millennium: Can We Safely Neglect this Doctrine?
3. Annihilationism [A Near-Definitive Guide]

Ben Affleck never read the Bible as a child.

So, as an adult he expected it to be loaded with fire and brimstone…

Ripe with weeping and gnashing teeth.

Naturally this notion was only reinforced as he encountered one angry, hateful person after another who claimed to represent all Christians.

This stereotype held until he actually read the Bible.

In fact, this is what he said about reading the Gospel According to Matthew in an August 2008 Oprah magazine:

“Reading the Bible disabused me of any sense that a hateful person could represent this faith. The book is beautiful and exquisitely written–but it is characterized by one quality that colors every page: love.”

He went on to say that reading the Bible made it harder for him to accept the “damaging and small minded beliefs” that people promote in the name of Christian values.

I wonder if he had Fred Phelps in mind when he said that.

Where I’m Going with This

Often on this blog I here non-believers write the Bible off as a collection of hallucinogenic babbling from the mental fringe.

Indeed in my own experience as a non-believer I made outlandish claims about the perversity of the Bible…without ever reading it…so I’m inclined to believe neither have they.

At least not carefully.

Yet honest people like Richard Dawkins read the OT and shake their head in disbelief at what they deem a volatile, childish tyrant.

What gives? The New Testament gives.

Sinclair Ferguson writes, “You cannot open the pages of the New Testament without realizing that one of the things that makes it so ‘new’, in every way, is that here men and women call God ‘Father.’”

This conviction of intimacy with the creator of the universe lies at the heart of our faith. And it suggest we humbly read the Bible in it’s entirety…

And we understand the OT through the lens of Christ.

Reading Matthew obviously had an impact on Ben Affleck. But I don’t know if Ben Affleck is a true believer.

To be sure, he anticipates the question in the article when he says he considers his religious beliefs private matters.

But he nonetheless is moved by it. Perhaps no more than a deep interest in social justice as indicated by his involvement in genocide recovery.

Your Turn

But what about you: What was your first encounter with the Bible like? With the New Testament? With a particular Gospel?

Did you view it as a majestic piece of  literature that can stand on it’s own feet [as I once did during a "Bible as Literature" course]?

Or were you appalled by what you read?

Or did you tear your clothes in grief like Josiah who said, “For great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us”?

I look forward to your thoughts.

Related posts:

1. A Christ-Centered Approach to Bible Study-Part 2
2. A Christ-Centered Approach to Bible Study–Part 3
3. A Christ-Centered Approach to Bible Study-Part 1

Love.

In the face of doctrine, creeds and faith systems…isn’t the important thing that we just love?

Isn’t love the superior truth we should be after?

Depends.

Depends on what motivates that love. What content is behind that love.

Faith systems like legalism and philistinism, moralism and secularism, lead to arrogance and superiority. Fist fights. Military coups.

Not love.

Only salvation via the Christian gospel can lead to a deep, humble, enemy-embracing love…a love the world desperately needs.

Let me explain.

Why the World Needs a Better Method of Salvation

If your method of salvation is performance based, then you are saved by your performance.

This, not surprisingly, leads to self-righteous arrogant behavior towards others who don’t measure up to your standard.

Think of legalism. Which leads to oppression. Tyranny.

Secularism isn’t any better.

A view that you’re the enlightened intellectual leads to smug feelings toward the dimwitted religious zealot.

Each group snubs the other.

What Christianity does differently is grinds out self-righteous thinking in a believer as he discovers and admits that he is a helpless sinner in need of grace.

It makes him humble before the people who are different from him.

Why the World Needs a Better Purpose Behind Salvation

And if the ultimate purpose of salvation is the restoration of the earth–the elimination of poverty, disease and death–then that should also be our mandate.

Our mandate should be the renewal of our cities. Our neighborhoods. Our homes.

That means we seek to bring peace where we live. We seek to make it a prosperous place…

A region non-believers want to live.

See, this idea that salvation’s ultimate goal is the renewal of heaven and earth humbles us: If God’s goal is the resurrection of ALL creation, why should we prefer anything different?

We should seek to serve our government. Corporations. Schools. Museums. No matter who runs them…

…which brings me to my next point.

Why the World Needs a Better Origin of Salvation

The Bible teaches that Jesus is not just a prophet or a teacher. It teaches he is God. It teaches he is Lord over all–

“Now wait a minute,” you say. “Doesn’t that view lead to a sense of superiority? Arrogance?”

No.

What it does is lead to inclusion. [I know that sounds counterintuitive, but hear me out. ]

One of the most dramatic shifts in society occurred when Christianity introduced the idea that all people–under a just and holy God–were equal.

Jew and Gentile. Greek and non-Greek. Husband and wife. Child and adult. Master and slave. Rich and poor.

All were alike.

Unlike the Greco-Roman separation of classes and races, Christianity compressed all people into one class: sinner.

And when early Christians recognized their position in this new class, it led to patient, humble and compassionate behavior.

Why would this happen?

Think.

In Jesus, ultimate reality appeared as a man.

God entered a world hostile to him. He poured himself out for a people who rejected him. And he died on a cross for those who didn’t deserve their crimes to be forgiven.

All for their salvation in the shadow of a wrathful God.

With that in mind, how can Christians trample and double-cross and snub others? With the truths of the gospel embraced deep in the Christian’s heart, it’s near impossible.

Conclusion

In the last couple days we’ve learned that we all have exclusive beliefs. Christianity included.

The question remains: which one is right? I submit Christianity.

I submit Christianity because of the power embedded in the gospel truths that can radically transform human beings into passionate agents of reconciliation–something the world desperately needs.

That is true love.

And if you are a Christian, take this truth deeper into your being. If you’re not, embrace it now…

The world needs you.

Related posts:

1. How to Deal with Religious Conflict
2. The Blind Men and a Queer Animal
3. The Enemy [It's Not Who You Think]

There’s no getting around it: Everybody has an exclusive set of beliefs.

Moralists look down their noses at unbelievers as filthy, undisciplined misfits.

Secularists snub religious people as psychopathic nut jobs.

And pragmatists demand we shed our religious beliefs when we debate matters of life.

All privileged–but partial–views we hold over others.

What are we to do?

What we need to do [and what really matters in the long run] is to discover which set of beliefs create peaceful, inclusive and loving behavior…

…will radically change you into agents of reconciliation for the world…

…and deal with the discord of religion.

I know this sounds counter intuitive, but the set of beliefs that will do that are found in Christianity–and the uniqueness of the Christian gospel.

Here are three major ways Christianity is unique to other religious views.

1. Origin of Salvation The founder of Christianity is not a human–he is God. God who came in the flesh. All other religious founders are human.

2. Purpose of Salvation That God came in the flesh is important. Most Eastern religions tend to teach liberation from the flesh. And most Western religions tend to condemn the flesh.

However, through the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christianity teaches that the flesh will be redeemed and renewed.

3. Method of Salvation All other religions teach you to perform the truth to be saved. They put salvation in the hands of humans. Christianity, in contrast, puts salvation squarely in the hands of God:

“In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” 1 John 4:10

Jesus lived the life that we should have lived and died the death we deserved. He suffered for people who didn’t love him. And this is the highest act of love.

Is there one true religion? I believe so.

How can I say that in a flat, pluralistic world where every religious flower can bloom? And how does that deal with religious conflict?

In the next post I’ll explain how holding these unique truths of Christianity seals people off from religious superiority, transforms them into agents of peace and produces humble, patient and compassionate behavior…behavior that ultimately shuts down religious animosity.

Related posts:

1. Is the Gospel What the World Desperately Needs?
2. The Blind Men and a Queer Animal
3. Pragmatism: Where It Breaks Down [and Why You Should Care]

Richard Rorty, the leading American philosophical pragmatist–who I wrote about in The Problem with Your Personal Testimony post–argues that when you come to the public square to debate issues like divorce, abortion or civil marriage, you should leave your religion at home.

That’s pragmatism.

Unfortunately, there’s a problem with that approach.

The problem exists in the nature of religion. Religion, at its core, is a set of beliefs about the hard questions of life.

Hard questions like what is really real? What is a human being? Why is it possible to know anything at all? How do we know what is right and what is wrong?

What Pragmatism Looks Like in the Public Square

Let’s pretend for a moment that the issue on the table is population control via contraception, abortion and infanticide.

Someone who believes [based upon their religious view] that a person becomes a human at inception would see abortion and infanticide as legislated manslaughter–no matter its practical impact on society or economics.

Yet, a person who doesn’t hold that belief–say, like utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer–might argue that abortion and limited infanticide is a reasonable mechanism to control population and decrease economic strain on the health system.

As you can see, the question becomes, “Who throws out their belief?” Both arguments emerge from their answers to hard questions of life.

Where I’m Going with This

But my point here is not to argue the merits of one case over the other.

My point is simply that it’s impractical to remove one’s religious view from the public square–even if they are controversial and faith based.

In fact, to say “Please, leave your religious views at home” is in itself controversial and faith based.

It smacks of anti-religion. And exclusivity.

It’s equivalent to saying “My views are privileged above yours.” In other words, my beliefs hold sway over yours…

And my beliefs are exclusive to truth.

What Comes Next

So, in the end, it’s not a matter of practicality or exclusivity when we debate issues in the public because we’ve seen that the pragmatic argument is equally indicted as making an exclusive claim to truth…

And we’ve also seen that you can’t determine what’s practical until you determine which world view you hold.

So, in the end, it’s not a matter of who’s views are religious or not. It’s a matter of who’s right and who’s wrong.

And it’s best to decide that with evidence.

With that in mind, tomorrow we’ll explore why it makes sense to embrace Christianity’s exclusive claim to truth.

Related posts:

1. How to Deal with Religious Conflict
2. The Blind Men and a Queer Animal
3. Is the Gospel What the World Desperately Needs?