1. What author do you own the most books by? Lee Strobel.

2. What book do you own the most copies of? “The Artful Dodger” by Alan Scholes (old used copy & new copy self-published by the author)

3. What book have you read the most times in your life? “Finding Faith” by Brian McLaren.

4. Favorite book as a ten year old? I liked “Sideways Stories from Wayside School” (I bought a copy of it recently )

5. What is the best book you’ve read in the past year? “Crazy Love” by Francis Chan.

6. If you could force everyone you know to read one book, what would it be? Besides my own “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig.

7. What is the most difficult book you’ve ever read? The two that come to mind are “Fear and Trembling” by Søren Kierkegaard and “God, Freedom, and Evil” by Alvin Plantinga (for very different reasons!)

8. What is your favorite book? I have a tough time choosing favorites. I’ll say “Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, because it was the first Christian book I read, before I was a Christian.

9. What is your favorite play? I don’t really watch plays …

10. Who is the most overrated writer alive today? Dan Brown?

11. What is your desert island book? The Bible … the only book deep enough to read for a lifetime

12. And … what are you reading right now? “The Pilgrim’s Progress” by John Bunyan and “The Gospel for Muslims” by Thabiti Anyabwile … next on my list/shelf is “The Normal Christian Life” by Watchman Nee and “The Trellis and the Vine” by Colin Marshall and Tony Payne.

I’m not posting this to poke fun at Dan Brown, or take pleasure in pointing out his mistakes. Nor am I confused about the status of Brown’s books as being fiction. So responses of “IT’S ONLY A FICTION BOOK GET OVER IT” are not welcome or helpful. Although well aware that Brown’s books are fictional, many people DO believe at least parts of them are accurate. An example is my former co-worker who, upon learning I am a Christian, said something to the effect of “Oh I guess you haven’t read The Da Vinci Code, it destroys Christianity!”

Of course after he saw The Real Da Vinci Code program on TV and got the facts he changed his mind. But it illustrates the need for proper information.

Who is this “Son”, “Savior”, “Jesus” anyways?

While it is indeed lamentable that such things occur, what does this prove about whether the Christian faith is true or not?

I was thinking about this yesterday while spending some time with a friend who is very distrustful of “organized religion”. I don’t know the exact reasons for this distrust, but perhaps it’s because my friend has been exposed to many stories of religious abuse, scandal, and charlatanry. But while this may prove something about humankind, it proves nothing about God.

While I was walking to the mall today (in the brisk -16C Toronto weather) I thought … “Just because people cause problems, does that mean that God is not great?” The latter doesn’t follow from the former.

The latter (“God is not great”) also happens to be the title of a book by Christopher Hitchens, who in my humble opinion is a skilled orator and rhetorician but not necessarily a precise thinker or researcher of facts, which will make his upcoming debate with William Lane Craig very interesting. I hope that Craig realizes this debate will be much different than his usual debates against his philosopher peers.

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!

So why does it seem like Christians so often do dumb things?

One reason is that when a Christian does something dumb, they’re often identified (in the media or colloquially) as being a Christian, but when an atheist does something dumb, they’re usually not identified as an atheist. Now certainly some Christians do dumb things in an attempt to follow their faith, but whether what the person has done is consistent with the Christian faith is often ignored.

A second reason is the fact that there’s a lot of Christians around. Millions in Canada alone, plus many millions more in the USA, and approximately 2.1billion in total according to Adherents.com. So you’d figure, out of all those people, if even 1% do dumb things, that it will seem like quite a lot of people. Of course, the actions of a few don’t necessarily reflect those of the whole. (See: Fallacy of composition.)

A final reason, extrapolated from the previous one, is that some Christians are dumb. (You’re free to make your own evaluation of me if you’d like.) In fact before I was a Christian I thought all Christians were dumb, or ugly, or both. (I thank Greg Koukl for putting into words so eloquently how I felt at the time.) Dumb because they were roped into a false waste of time, and/or ugly because they had to go to church to be accepted, since it’s the only place that people have to accept them.

And yes, many Christians are dumb (and/or ugly). But so what? So are many atheists, agnostics, and adherents of other faiths.

There are also many smart Christians … not myself, necessarily, but guys like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Alister McGrath, John Warwick Montgomery, Timothy Keller, John Lennox, and Dallas Willard to name a few. So whether any one of them is smart or dumb proves nothing about the truth or falsity of the faith.

If you currently have the opinion that Christians are dumb, or ugly, or both, like I used to, I invite you to investigate some of the sites linked above or in the sidebar to the right. I think Christianity is worth thinking about, even if its adherents sometimes do and exceedingly poor job of reflecting it.

And if you are a Christian, let’s try to reflect our Lord, Jesus, who as Dallas Willard describes, was and is the smartest man who ever lived (and lives).

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!)

Today’s article is “Courageous Morgentaler is worthy” by Jennifer Charles which apparently appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, or at least it’s currently on their website.

Awarding the Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler has re-ignited the flames of the national abortion debate. The issue is whether a woman should have the right to a safe abortion. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to deny a woman that choice.

This is not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is moral to have elective abortions. If it is moral, then we could ask the question “should a woman have the right to a safe abortion,” for which the answer is clearly yes. But this author assumes the answer to the first question and asks an obvious and frivolous question in an attempt to poison the well.

What gives anyone the right to force a woman to bear a child? Whether she has the baby or not is a traumatic and life-altering decision that only she can make.

Like the previous article the idea of “forc[ing] a woman to bear a child” comes into play. This again clouds the issue. No one is forcing a woman to get pregnant (as previously noted even if we exclude rape and incest from this discussion that is less than 1.5% of all cases).

The concern here is for the rights of the child (as the article author calls it) which do not supersede the rights of the mother, but neither should the rights of the mother supersede those of the child. Why should the rights of the mother come first? Is it because the child is not as in a late stage of development as the mother? Well, a toddler is in an earlier stage of development than a teenager … is it okay then to kill a toddler?

To me, it is far more responsible to decide not to bring another human being into the world …

I totally agree! Not getting pregnant in the first place is the best way …

… than to do so when the pregnancy is not planned and the circumstances are wrong. If a person feels that abortion is morally wrong, that does not give him or her the right to impose that opinion on women who are the ones affected.

Here’s the problem: There is no neutral position with regards to abortion. A pro-choice position is a pro-abortion position. Take a look at any other moral issue. Take slavery for example. Could we say “Slavery is a matter that should be left up to each individual; who are you to impose your views about slavery on others?” No, we wouldn’t accept that. Why would abortion be any different?

All laws are based on moral principles. We are right to impose our “opinions” on others if they are committing immoral acts. (And if a person takes a moral relativist view, which I certainly do not, then we shouldn’t have any laws at all.)

And that brings us back to the central question: Is abortion immoral or not? And when answering that, we need to keep in mind a simple dichotomy:
- If the unborn is not a human person, then no justification of abortion is necessary.
- But if the unborn is a human person, no justification is sufficient.

It’s not enough to state whether the unborn is or isn’t; you have to give reasons why. And it’s no good to say “We don’t know when life begins” because if we’re not sure if an unborn child (embyro, whatever) is a human person or not, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution and not kill it?

I would ask these people to empathize with any woman who finds herself in this position.

I do emphasize with a women who finds themselves in this position. At least, I try to. I can’t say that I could ever fully understand the emotional anguish a woman might feel in such a situation. That’s why we need to have more support services for pregnant women, especially given the medical risks and emotional risks involved with abortions. Of course, it’s also important to emphasize with the unborn child (again, the article author’s term) as well.

Resources:

• William Lane Craig on Abortion – An excellent summary of the non-religion based pro-life position.
• Can I Destroy This? – Greg Koukl gives a second excellent presentation.
• Abortion Debate: A Short Defense of the Pro-Life Position – Scott Klusendorf’s Life Training Institute provides many resources including this excellent article summarizing the pro-life position.

There are some clearly religious overtones in the movie, which I’ll comment on later in a second post, but for now I wanted to focus on one of Horton’s slogans in the movie: “A person’s a person, no matter how small.”

As some movie reviewers also noticed, “It’s already been adopted by some pro-lifers in the abortion debate.” It’s an important message: Just because a person is very small, they are no less of a person.

This in fact is the first part of SLED, an acronym serving as a helpful reminder of four supposed differences between the unborn and a “real” human being. There is a short description of what SLED stands for after the break, but I wanted to point out that the current Q&A question on William Lane Craig’s site is an excellent summary of the rational pro-life position: William Lane Craig on Abortion. Note that nowhere in his argument does he make an appeal to faith or the Bible. He could have, but it’s not necessary; the argument is powerful enough (I’d say conclusive) without such an appeal.

Click below for a summary of SLED.

Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more valuable than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-valuable tissue mass to valuable human being? If the unborn are not already human and valuable, merely changing their location can’t make them so.

Degree of Dependency: If viability bestows human value, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal (and valuable) because they share a common human nature. Humans have value simply because of the kind of thing they are, not because of some acquired property they may gain or lose during their lifetimes.

The above is from Scott Klusendorf’s new site/organization, Life Training Institute, in his article How to Defend your Pro-life Views in 5 Minutes or Less. As I’ve mentioned before, Scott’s book, Pro-life 101 is an excellent resource on these sort of issues.