Linus is quoting the Gospel of Luke chapter 2 … but what reason do we have for believing it? If this message is true, it’s certainly the greatest and most important message we’ll ever hear. If we have good reasons to trust what the biblical authors wrote, then it would seem reasonable (given the incredible, life-changing meaning of the message) to accept it, nay, embrace it. My short free e-book gives some reasons to believe it’s actually true: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament.

But perhaps the more common hindrances to faith are not the intellectual concerns, they are instead the “heart” objections. Before I became a Christian, I wrestled with many of these. “I’ll have to admit I’ve been wrong for the first 20-something years of my life!” I thought. (It’s never easy for me to admit when I’m wrong.) I also wondered how my family and friends would react, since most of them are not Christian. And then there was the life changes issue … would I have to give up some of the “sin” I enjoyed?

Well, let me tell you. It does take a mature person to admit they were wrong. It’s not always easy talking to friends and family about faith issues. And giving up sin, even when it seems distasteful and wrong … well, frankly it’s not always easy. But the all-surpassing joy of knowing Jesus, of knowing God’s love and the paradoxical freedom of growing deeper in that love, makes it all worthwhile.

If you’re contemplating these issues, or are perhaps considering such things seriously for the first time, you may want to consider reading True or False: Doubters Welcome … or checking out the short flash video about Jesus. Hope you have a wonderful Christmas holiday! Remember, there is reason for the season!

“All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others”

There is a weasel word used here: “forced”. The original article title mentions “forcing” beliefs on others, while the article itself is really talking about when people “take their theology out in public”. Of course we would never want anyone to try to “force” their religious beliefs; but what’s wrong with sharing our faith (in love) with others?

If Christians truly believe we have found the greatest love, greatest hope, and greatest truth in the world, why would it be wrong to winsomely share that faith? I might argue it would in fact be wrong to keep such a wonderful thing secretly to ourselves!

Recently in an online discussion regarding the reliability of the New Testament, I asked a person engaged in the discussion the following question: “Let’s say, after a few more months on this forum, that your questions regarding the Christian faith and God were answered beyond a reasonable doubt. Not utterly completely proven 100%, but at least plausibly answered. Would you then put your faith and trust in God?”

His reply surprised me: “No, probably not.” He went on to list some of his objections (and straw-man characterizations of Christian beliefs) before concluding that “even if you did manage all that and managed to drive me insane enough to believe in an invisible man in the sky, my common sense would just tell me that that is impossible.” [Thread on SCAE]

I thought back to Russell’s response quoted above. Ignoring for a moment the question of “How much evidence is needed?” that is discussed at length in the linked article, I have to wonder about the honesty of Russell’s response. Let’s paint the scenario: Russell has spent his life arguing that God does not exist, and especially not the Christian God. Now he stands before this God and has been proven utterly and totally wrong. This just, holy, righteous, omnipotent, omniscient, and awe-inspiring God stands before Russell and asks him the question. Instead of being humbled, Hume says he’d flippantly respond by saying “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!”

Given that (in the scenario) God is omniscient, it seems silly to assert that God hadn’t provided enough evidence. Wouldn’t God know better than Russell how much evidence was needed? Wouldn’t it be slightly insane to tell the almighty God of the universe to His face that you know better than Him?

Christians are often branded as being “closedminded” (sometimes for good reason) but often atheists or members of other non-Christian faiths are just as closedminded.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. During my conversation with an Internet friend mentioned above, I decided to break off the conversation at that point. When a person states that they will continue to refuse to believe something even if they become convinced that it is true (!) there’s not much point in talking anymore.

Of course, to be fair, this situtation somewhat paraellels my own story, when I first became convinced that Christianity was true, but still wasn’t quite able to take that final step of faith (trust) right away. This is why I think that often issues of faith are, primarily, heart issues rather than head issues; intellectual objections are often legitimate and worthy of discussion, but in reality those sorts of questions merely scratch the surface while a person’s actual underlying concerns go much deeper.

1. I’m Not OK, You’re OK
2. I’m Not OK, You’re Not OK
3. I’m OK, You’re Not OK
4. I’m OK, You’re OK

Which of these life positions best describes the various world religions?

One of the most prevalent today, IMHO, especially in secular society, is #4: I’m OK, You’re OK. This is the pluralist approach … all roads lead to Rome, all paths lead to the top of the mountain, etc. “You believe in and worship Jesus?” someone might say, “That’s great … for you.” Or “You believe in Muhammad, Krishna, or Adi Da? Wonderful … for you.” This life position often takes the colloquialism “Whatever makes you happy …” Of course, even here there are limits … ex, “You believe and worship Satan? … Um. That’s … um, great … *cough* … <changes subject>”

#1 is less prevalent but still abounds: I’m Not OK, You’re OK. This is a self-depreciating position. It imagines that everyone else is good, and I am markedly inferior to them. I must admit sometimes I fall into this sort of thinking myself, and this sort of unhealthy guilt is sometimes unfortunately common in Christian circles. After all, doesn’t the Bible even say “consider others better than yourselves”? (Philippians 2:3) More on that in a moment.

#3 is also prevalent: I’m OK, You’re Not OK. In fact, this is the view of most religions in the world. There is a specific set of requirements that you must pass in order to qualify. If you do those things, you pass the test and are “in”. If you, for example, pray the confession, pray five times a day, tithe 2.5%, fast, and go on the pilgrimage, you’re in! At least, pretty sure you’re in. Kinda sure. Well you don’t really know but you hope you are. And this view is seen as being pretty “intolerant” and not at all politically correct, not to mention it’s not exactly very humble.

#2 is probably the least prevalent: I’m Not OK, You’re Not OK. This, in fact, is the view of biblical Christianity, where we read that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8) … moreover, “everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). Wow! Isn’t that just excessively negative?

Actually, I’d say #2 is accurate. Real Christianity does not encourage people to wallow in self-pity or negativity, nor is it encouraged to gloss over our sins and failings, nor is it taught to think we’re “all that” (OK) and point the finger at others (not OK). Instead it recognizes that we’re all in the same boat. At least, initially.

The full text of the verse which contains the previous quotation (“consider others better than yourselves”) actually reads “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” When we are honest with ourselves, we know that we don’t even meet our own self-imposed standards of morality. (See “Good People?” for more about that.) How much more do we not live up to God’s standards?

But that is only stating the problem. God also provides the solution: Jesus. Christianity is utterly unique in that we are not saved because we are “OK”. We are saved by our acceptance of the fact that we are NOT, and our acceptance of the One who is strong enough, and merciful enough, to carry the weight for us that we cannot bear on our own, as Paul explains: “God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.” (Romans 5:8)

Are we all OK? No. We’re all NOT. As John Piper might say, “John Piper … is … bad!” And that includes me. But I hope I never become complacent in remembering the price that Christ paid for my freedom from sin, not by my own works that I might become conceited and prideful, but instead entirely by the grace of God. And that makes the Christian message unique, and uniquely true, among all world religions and “life positions”.

Resources:

• Good People? – Are we really OK?
• Jesus Christ: Who is he? – And why does it matter?

(Image credit: striatic, who of course does not necessarily endorse any of the content of this post!)

A distinguished lady was walking down the road when she spied a decrepit looking house ahead. Having plenty of experience with restoring dilapidated dwellings, she knocked on the front door. At length, and with the chain still clinging tighty, the door opened a crack. A young man squinted his eyes and peered out suspiciously from inside. “What do you want?” he coughed.

“Good evening sir,” began the lady. “I was passing by your house, and, seeing that it is in a state of disrepair, thought that I might offer my services to renovate it.”

The man unhooked the chain, and swung the door open. “I am quite insulted by your accusation!” he said, crossing his arms. “My house may not be perfect, but I assure you that it is in excellent condition!”

“I meant no offense,” assured the lady. “But I beg to differ. You see, I have plenty of experience in this area, and can readily identify foundational problems.”

Nonplussed, the man turned slightly, uncrossed his arms, and gestured inside his home. “I’ve lived here for my entire life,” he said, “and the walls seem to be holding up just fine. I’ve never had any trouble.”

The lady nodded understandingly. “That may be, but what you can’t see can still kill you. As an outsider, I can identify certain surface and structural problems that you may not have noticed yourself. Why don’t you let me make some suggestions? My services are free after all so you have nothing to lose.”

“Would you also perform all of the repairs for free?”

“No,” the lady said with a hint of remorse. “I’m afraid I don’t have the resources to perform the necessary repairs.”

“Well then, our conversation is futile, because even if my house were in need of grandiose repairs as you claim, I certainly don’t have the skills to fix it myself, and I could not pay to have someone else to do it.”

The lady’s face brightened as she began to point towards the man’s backyard. “What if I were to tell you that the resources to repair your house are already within your grasp?” she asked.

Mildly intrigued, the man asked “What do you mean?”

Encouraged, the lady continued. “Right now, the means to repair your house are already within your grasp. I happen to know that, right now, there is treasure buried in your backyard. All you have to do is dig it up, and it will pay to repair your entire home.”

“Ridiculous!” the man scoffed. “If such a thing were true, it would already be abundantly clear to me. I wouldn’t need some stranger to come and tell me.”

“If what I say is true, there would be little to lose by checking. With me as your guide, it would take hardly any time at all. In fact, I would even dig it up for you and present it to you.”

The man laughed. “I wouldn’t bother wasting any time at all on such an idea, mine or yours. Where would this supposed treasure even come from anyways?”

The lady sighed. “I could explain it, and would be quite willing to do so, but would any explanation make your current situation any less dire? If a person is dying, what they need is the cure, not a complex scientific explanation of the chemical reactions by which the cure works. Similarly, if your house is falling down, what you need is the solution. Could you honestly say that if I explained it to you that you would then be willing to dig up the treasure with me to repair your house?”

Quickly becoming exasperated, the man protested “But I still don’t believe there’s anything wrong with my house!”

Remaining calm, the lady paused for a moment, seemingly collecting her thoughts. “Sir,” she began, “A mouse who has spent his entire life in the city would of course be incredulous were a meadow described to him, but his confined worldview would be the problem, not the postulation of the meadow. I can’t force you to accept my help. All I can ask is that you keep what I’ve said in mind, just in case your seemingly well-built house comes crashing down upon you, perhaps collapsing when you least expect it.”

The man opened his mouth to speak, but reconsidered and quickly shut the door, leaving the lady standing on the porch outside.

He locked the door. Slid the chain into place.

Rattled the door knob a couple of times. Just to make sure.

Turning away from the door, his eyes began to dance from place to place around his home. Although he was loath to admit it, he could see the cracks in the walls. Hear the creaking foundations. And feel an ever-present -intangible and shadowy, yes, but nevertheless real- creeping sense of foreboding. In truth, he had always suspected that his house may be built upon a faulty foundation. But surely that couldn’t be. After all, all his friends’ homes were built the same way. And they couldn’t all be wrong.

Could they?

He momentarily thought to call the lady back, but instead sternly resolved to put the matter out of his mind and continue on with his life as he always had.

Meanwhile, the lady had already began to walk on, but not before affixing a card to the man’s door, urging him to call her, anytime, should he reconsider.

Filled with deep concern and sorrow, she walked on, glancing back over her shoulder at the decrepit house.

She hoped he would choose to call before it was too late.

Next we have a person’s review of the book The Illustrated Guide to World Religions by Dean C Halverson. I have not read the book, but I noticed this particular review as I was browsing Amazon today (as I do FAR too often …) Anyways, here’s their review in its entirety:

The goal of this book is to teach about other religions so people can use that knowledge to convert others to Christianity. If that’s not your goal, don’t bother. I find it very offensive and am throwing it away.

And my reply (posted in reply on Amazon):

Why would you find this offensive? Are you saying all Christians should abandon their own beliefs and believe like you do? If not, what exactly are you suggesting here? As far as I know this book makes no suggestion or approval of coercive techniques of evangelism, so I don’t see the problem with attempting to more effectively share the Christian message with others who belong to different faiths.

If the book contains factual inaccuracies, then that is a different matter. But no viewpoint (whether it be Christian, Muslim, pluralist, secularist, whatever) is neutral, so please don’t disparage this book merely because it is written from a Christian point of view, because there is no worldview-free book about religion.

Further reading:

• Christianity is true. (Are you offended?) – Tackles similar themes to this post re offense at claiming something is true.
• Tolerance – What is the real meaning of tolerance? Greg Koukl’s thoughts on the matter with my comments.
• Tolerance Part 2: Stating Facts = Hatin? – Does profoundly disagreeing with someone mean you are intolerant of them? No, in fact, it gives you a wonderful opportunity to be tolerant!

If you’ve read it before, check out the new version! If not, no better time than the present to read it now! (It’s got a swanky new cover and everything! )

You can also use this shorter URL to link to the eBook: http://www.whyfaith.com/nt/

One never has a “moral obligation” to impose beliefs that are not solidly backed up with proof. In fact, doing so is an insult and an offense to the person whose beliefs you attack with the well-intended suggestion that yours are better.

I agree, although I would substitute the word “evidence” for where he/she has written “proof”, thus Paul says “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15,16)

Think about it. Where did your beliefs come from? Someone told you to believe, and probably told you you would go to hell for not believing. Am I right?

Actually, no. I grew up in an atheist/agnostic home and came to my own conclusions based on my personal investigation (and, I believe, God’s grace). Many people are Christians because they were brought up Christians; but that proves nothing about whether the Christianity is true. (See: Genetic fallacy.)

Don’t arrogantly foist your belief system on people who have their own. Be a little meek and humble, the way the Bible tells you to be. Leave people to believe the way they choose to.

I certainly don’t support “arrogantly foisting” things on anyone. Evangelism is about sharing the good news, not forcing anyone to do anything. But note that the implication here is quite stunning. Here’s what is basically seems to be suggested: “If you believe all of those people are headed for eternal torment/destruction, just leave them alone. Don’t try to help them. Don’t even mention this to them, even though they may not be aware of it.” If you believed someone was putting his life in danger, wouldn’t you want to help them? Christians don’t share their faith because it’s always a fun time for them. It’s often a frustrating and thankless endeavor. Christians share their faith (at least, in theory) because of their concern for others.

And respect that maybe – just maybe – what you think and believe doesn’t matter one whit. Maybe it’s just how we behave, and how well we follow the Golden Rule that counts.

Here we come to the crux of the issue. If “how we behave, and how well we follow the Golden Rule” are really what counts, then this author is right, we should stop all of this religious talk and just get on with being as “good” as possible. This is indeed what most religions believe, albeit they have different ideas about what being “good” means. But, unlike all other faiths, this is NOT what Christians believe. Christians do not believe what saves us is being good. What separates Christianity from other faiths is grace.

The question is: How good is good enough? Are you “good enough”? I mean, you’re probably a pretty swell guy/girl. Compared to the jerk down the street who runs his lawnmower early Sunday mornings, or that “bad” uncle no one talks about, or … well what about, Adolf Hitler? Compared to them, you’re a saint. But where, exactly, is the ‘line’ that determines goodness? 50% goodness? That seems a little low. What about 90% goodness? Remember now, if God exists, He is 100% holy, righteous, and “good” in every sense of the word.

It’s something to think about. How good is good enough? This is not a rhetorical question … it has eternal consequences! The fact is that the common assumption (often not thought about and hardly ever challenged) that “good people to to heaven” is wrong.

Go deeper:

• Jesus: Fact or Fiction? – God’s grace: A nice idea, but is it true? Only if Jesus is real …
• How Good is Good Enough? – Short, easy to read book, highly recommended

Maybe if Artur Pawlowski had been holding a flag of the outlawed terrorist organization Hezbollah, Calgary Police would have left him alone … Pawlowski, 33, who has been helping the homeless for years, gave up his lucrative home-building business last year to start up The Street Church full-time … Because Pawlowski has been threatened so often by drug dealers angry their clients often turn away from drugs as a result of his message of hope and help, he started videotaping every outing. Wednesday’s was no different … On Monday, Pawlowski and his brother went to the park, talked with tarot card readers and other practisers of “sorcery” to tell them the Bible condemns such practices. Video shows they remained calm but the vendors became agitated. Event organizers called police and Pawlowski and his brother David were asked not to talk to the vendors again. They agreed and left. On Wednesday, when they returned to pray, they stayed far away from the vendors. Organizers called police anyway. The video shows Pawlowski standing on the public sidewalk with his hands in his pockets. He asks a burly police officer in a calm voice, “Why are you harassing me? What did I do wrong?” The police officer responds with: “I’m going to arrest you for obstruction.” At that, Pawlowski is handcuffed and made to walk backwards to the police cruiser where he was frisked … He was also charged with trespassing and disturbing the peace. He spent one night in jail and is to appear in court on Sept. 7 … The video clearly shows six police officers attending to the calm Pawlowski. (Licia Corbella, Calgary Sun)

Seems excessive, don’t you think? Had they not been videotaping that day, things might’ve gone even worse for him.

Notice that one can’t tolerate someone unless he disagrees with him. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.

This essential element of tolerance–disagreement–has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant.

This presents us with a very curious problem. Judging someone wrong makes one intolerant, yet one must first think another is wrong in order to be tolerant. It’s a “Catch-22.” According to this approach, true tolerance is impossible. (Greg Koukl, Tolerance Requires Judgment, Stand to Reason)

Greg Koukl is one of my favorite authors. He has a way of talking about issues in a way that gets right to the heart of the matter.

I thought of this little article (reprinted in its entirety above) when I read these comments (on another blog that I will not link to due to the blog’s disrespectful nature, although these comments themselves are a bit more amicable):

I firmly believe that a person of one religion should never attempt to dissuade a person of another religion from practicing thier faith. I don�t see a problem with encouraging someone to do research or open thier [sic] mind, but when it�s a �You�re wrong and I�m right� message, it sickens me. (Some guy)

For the record, I do encourage people to do research and approach faith with an open mind. However, I think that the above is an example of tolerance gone too far. Don’t get me wrong, I am entirely for tolerance. No one should try to force their beliefs on anyone else. Of course, I would say that the person quoted above is violating his own principle, when he talks about what people “should” do. If I go along with his reasoning, he should not be trying to dissuade me from practicing my faith if my faith involves spreading the Good News about Jesus Christ.

But there’s the rub! Why wouldn’t a person be able to claim “I’m right, you’re wrong” if that’s what they believe and if they can present reasons to back themselves up? Sometimes people are wrong, even on matters regarding faith and religion. Why wouldn’t someone be able to challenge others regarding their beliefs?