You're Already An Idiot!

Me too

The Apostle Paul taught that the “Word of the Cross” was (is) foolishness to those who are perishing (I Cor. 1:18; see also 2:12-14). This statement, as I understand it, draws the logical implication that all Christians believe something that is and will always be illogical in the eyes of non-Christians.
As a seminarian, I have often been perplexed by teachers who confidently assert both the historicity and regenerating implications of Christ’s death and resurrection, while at the same time questioning and sometimes rejecting the historicity of miraculous Old Testament stories like the “global flood,” or “parting of the Red Sea”. When approached and asked to explain their lack of confidence in the biblical record, often the reply involves some reference to the number of scholars who don’t think it really happened, followed by a declaration that it makes Christianity “look foolish to assert such stories as historical.” The idea is… that by making Christian history more believable or reasonable, more people will believe in Jesus without having to be viewed as an idiot.
Here’s my thought… If we minimize the biblical stories of God’s mighty and miraculous deeds, how can we expect someone to accept that God is real, has a divine Son, that this Son came to the earth, lived a sinless life, died an atoning death for all of humanity, and rose from the dead. Doesn’t that seem like nonsense? I mean, either God is in the business of working miracles, or we don’t have any hope in Christ. So why do we draw conclusions like this? (My personal opinion is that scholars have caved under pressure from secular scholastic institutions, academic journal editors, and liberal peer pressure in trade for professional legitimacy). Since there is no substantiated (historical, scientific, or otherwise) argument against the old Bible stories, other than probability, I see no reason to question them. The Apostle Paul had a similar debate with some Jewish academic types… I think he had the right idea…

“Now, if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.”(I Corinthians 15: 12-14 NASB)

What’s more important, a “legitimate” profession, or a legitimate faith? That is the question.

Need Help Getting Sleep At Night?

I just posted a paper I wrote last year titled, Bad Thinking: Modern Scholarship’s Neutralization of Conservative Minority Voices. Check it out if counting sheep isn't getting the job done (or if you have a bone-to-pick with the modern critical paradigm). Click the link listed under "pages".

Empty Churches with Open Arms

My family and I had the privilege of living in Amsterdam for about 5 months in 2004-05. While there, we were struck by both the post-Christian culture and the emptiness of the churches. A salient example was the Oudikirk (old church) which towers above the neon windows of the Red Light District. There it stood... a symbol of faith and holiness surrounded by prostitute windows, drug dealers, and thrill seeking tourists. A church that we learned was at one time overflowing with people and salvation...now filled only with art and spiritual emptiness.

For the last decade the debates have raged throughout American churches over issues of morality and lifestyle choice. There has been a push for the normalization of life decisions that the Bible identifies as sinful. These same decisions are no longer debated in European culture. The debate there is over and done, and the verdict is that any lifestyle chosen is okay. The result over time has been two fold; 1) churches in Europe have become more “accepting” and “supportive” of immoral lifestyle choices; and 2) the same churches, over time, have become more irrelevant and largely abandoned. Somewhere along the way people, having found the affirmation they were seeking, had no reason to remain in churches that taught that the Bible was sometimes authoritative and sometimes not. Simply put, if it wasn’t all true maybe none of it was true.

In the United States the battle rages on. Scholars and pastors behave more like teenage girls rummaging through the closet looking for what fits and gains peer approval than keepers of God’s Word. Many churches are coming to the conclusion that the more “accepting” they are of people, the more their churches will grow. They may be right in the short term. But eventually people will ask themselves why they are following a religion where many of the teachings have to be explained away, deemed as no longer culturally relevant, or obscured to a point beyond recognition in order to become acceptable to its followers. . Like the church in Europe, if the debate is won in favor of those who wish to minimize the Bible’s authority and influence, the church will be abandoned by the same.

I Just Can't Seem To Get Sex Off Of My Mind

I heard a commercial for a local church on a classic rock station in the city where I work. The confident voice, pumping through the speakers argued that in his opinion, Christians, by addressing issues of marital infidelity, homosexuality, and abstinence are overstating sexual concerns. The challenge posed by the radio personality was to somehow follow God's advice about sexuality, while not addressing specific contemporary concerns. Is this possible? Is it helpful?
On hearing this monologue, two thoughts immediately came to mind. The first is the (in my humble opinion) misguided contemporary Christian conviction that all sins are the same. Many Christians would be surprised to find that the Bible doesn't teach this conviction. The Bible does not teach that all sins are equal before God. What the Bible does teach is that God equally forgives all sins. No matter what the sin may be, once confessed, is forgiven on account of Christ's sacrificial death and victorious resurrection.
The second thought was that Christians have consistently focused on the issues that give impact and conscience within its own contemporary context. To say that Christians talk too much about homosexuality is like criticising Christians in the 1960's and 70's for focusing too much on issues of racial equality, or rebuking the early church reformers for overemphasising the priesthood of believers.

Christians, in order to be relevant and influential must address the concerns and issues of their times.