Protecting Children From Evil Info: Russia's ban on gay publicity

Is all discrimination bad? We discriminate against theft. Are we being bigots for not letting someone break into our home and steal our property? Even if perhaps it was for survival? No. Is someone a bigot then for not permitting a certain type of information to be given to our children? Maybe? What if this information was harmful? No; in fact not exposing vulnerable children to harmful information might be considered an act of maturity and responsibility.

This mature and responsible act was made federally legal on June 29, 2013 in Russia. Russia amended "...Article 5 of the Federal Law "On Protection of children from information harmful to their health and development" and some legislative acts of the Russian Federation in order to protect children from information that promotes the denial of traditional family values."[i] What does this mean? When Canada was rearing up for the olympics journalist Ian Munroe said on July 26, 2013 in a CBC article that Canada was made aware of a federal law prohibiting "...public actions that are described as promoting homosexuality and non-traditional sexual relationships,"[ii]. So public actions that promote homosexuality and "non-traditional sexual relationships" is illegal in Russia. Why? As a means of protecting children from information that could be "...harmful to their health and development..." and because it is a front on "...traditional family values." Does this mean that it is illegal to be gay in Russia? Or how about holding to a personal conviction that is in favour of 'gay rights'? Or how about actively engaging in homosexual sex? No. Journalist, Shaun Walker records Russian President Vladimir Putin in saying that this year at the 2014 Olympics "...gay people will be not be subjected to harassment ... as long as they stay away from children." What did Putin mean by that? Is he insinuating that gay people are inherently bad for children to be around? Again no, Walker clarifies Putin's position:

"We do not have a ban on non-traditional sexual relationships, ... [we] have a ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and paedophilia. I want to underline this. Propaganda among children. These are absolutely different things – a ban on something or a ban on the propaganda of that thing."[iii]

So Russia's alleged 'anti-gay laws' are really 'anti-promotion of homosexuality to children' laws; as Putin states there is a difference: one is a position on a subject matter, while another is an action. And as he clarifies the ban regards the propagation of homosexuality to minors. This is Putin's response to an inquiry by people asking, given the ban on publication of homosexual literature, why were "...their uniforms ... rainbow coloured."[iv] Moreover Putin clarifies that Russia is "...not forbidding anything and nobody is being grabbed off the street, and there is no punishment for such kinds of relations[; you] can feel relaxed and calm [in Russia], but leave children alone please."[v] In sum keep homosexual affairs and discussion at the grownup table.

As a result Walker reports that since "...the law on "homosexual propaganda" came into force ... Russia's gay community has reported an upturn in homophobic violence and threats. Gay rights rallies are also banned in Russia, and there has been much discussion over whether athletes or spectators displaying rainbow flags or gay rights placards could be arrested during the Olympics."[vi]

Violence towards anyone - gay or straight - is a no-brainer a no good situation; and one could debate the morality of banning political rallies and the arresting people for presenting pro-gay colours on their person. However on the other hand, today, wearing a rainbow or rainbow colours on your person says to someone that you are a supporter of 'gay rights', even if your are not; in sum a bright colourful rainbow is no longer just a rainbow its a symbol of a position on gay rights. If someone gets arrested for waring rainbow colours, it may be unfair as they may simply just like rainbows; but they had it coming because Russia's position on propagating same-sex unions is known, just as much as the rainbow is a known symbol of homosexuality.

So now, the Olympics is going well; have there been people being arrested for carrying billboards and or being human billboards for gay rights? Well the title of a February 17, 2014 article on Mail Online website suggests so: Italy's first transgender MP arrested in Sochi for carrying 'Gay is OK' rainbow flag. However just as looks can be deceiving so can titles of articles. Journalist Hanna Roberts writes:

A transgender former MP from Italy has been arrested at the Winter Olympics in Sochi for carrying a banner that said ‘It’s OK to be gay.’Vladimir Luxuria, the first transgender MP of any European country, was taken into police custody shortly after posing for a photograph at the Olympic site holding a rainbow umbrella and fan.[vii]

However the real truth becomes much clearer when Vladimir Luxuria speaks for himself.

I had this rainbow with Russian writing, saying in Russian 'It is okay to be gay', that's it. And they wanted to keep it and I said "no, I want it back." And when I tried to get it back, they put me to the police station.[viii]

So why was Luxuria arrested? Was it because he was transgendered? No. Its because he publicly promoted homosexuality; and even that wasn't the case - when his rainbow was confiscated he advanced the police officers to retrieve it and that is when he said that he was brought to the police station. In sum he was given the chance to walk away, but he insisted on propagating homosexuality. So if Luxuria's case is typical it seems safe to say that nobody should have been arrested for having on their person a rainbow or waring rainbow-coloured clothing, just being overly political about what the colours represent.

Why protest against gay propaganda being exposed to children? 

My first question is: "Why do we want to promote homosexuality to children?" An ABC article by Tim Leslie entitled 8 things to understand about gay rights in Russia and the Sochi Winter Olympics  reports that this law "...has worried many gay couples with children, who could be breaking the law by telling their children[ix] that their relationships are equal to those of their straight friends and neighbours."[x] There is the clear assumption that homosexual relations are equal? Russia seems to believe, hence the ban, that promotion of same-sex unions to children will harm them; so how exactly are gay unions equal to heterosexual unions? Either Russia is right and homosexual unions are corrupt and thus will corrupt all who participate in it and our precious children or the gays are right and such unions are merely different. If Russia is right the ban is moral, if Russia is wrong the ban is immoral. So again how are homosexual relations equal to heterosexual unions? Are they equal in health safety? No. How about natural compatibility? No. How about diverse parenting needs for children? No. So why is the LGBT community offended at the prospect that their union is unhealthy and not good for children to be taught that it is good? ANSWER: Because they like it and want it to be praised as normal; being allowed to behave in such ill-advised fashion is not enough - they want the action to be praised and promoted, not merely permitted. So how can an LGBT person remain safe for the rest of the Sochi Olympics and every day in Russia? With a collaboration of cooperation: Allow Russian police to be on guard for truly anti-gay extremists - persons who take harassment and even violence as an option to deal homosexuality, while the gay person leaves their homosexuality in the privacy of their home.

_________________

[i] http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&vkart=card&nd=102337335&rdk=&intelsearch=135-%D4%C7 - accessed February 20, 2014 (NOTE: This text is translated from Russian into English using http://translate.google.com - accessed February 20, 2014
[ii]  http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/should-olympians-fear-russia-s-anti-gay-laws-1.1359358 - accessed February 20, 2014
[iii]  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/vladimir-putin-gay-winter-olympics-children - accessed February 20, 2014
[iv] Ibid., - accessed February 21, 2014
[v] Ibid., - accessed February 21, 2014
[vi] Ibid., - accessed February 21, 2014
[vii] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561229/Italian-transgender-former-MP-arrested-Sochi-carrying-Gay-OK-rainbow-flag.html accessed February 21, 2014
[viii] Ibid., - accessed February 21, 2014
[ix] ("Single persons living within Russia, regardless of their sexual orientation, can adopt children.")  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia - accessed February 23, 2014
[x] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-06/russia-gay-rights-sochi-explained/5237926 - accessed February 21, 2014

The Answer Is (C): Who created God?

School is one of those realities, those blessings, those opportunities that many people have a love-hate relationship with. For many children experiences of school can range from being pleasant to fun to scary to boring and to encouraging. For many adults post secondary school a.k.a university or college can have many of the same experiences; and more such as the feeling of being overwhelmed  due to juggling a part time job with studying, and meeting all of life's financial obligations including tuition. However out of all the aspects of school, (homework, projects, assignments, etc.) there is one aspect that weaves its way through all types of education: grade school, post-secondary school, driver's education and even life in general; the answer is tests.

I was one of those students who dreaded tests; partly due to bad studying habits of waiting till midnight before the day of the test to begin studying, but that was only one reason. However if I had to do a test I'd prefer multiple-choice over essay or true or false; my reasoning is because the answer is given to you amongst four other false ones and all you had to do was pick the right one. However as a child a strange and illogical thing ran through my head when I was presented with multiple-choice tests: if unsure of the right answer pick (c); in sum you can't go wrong with answer (c). 

One of the many questions of life that is best asked in multiple-choice format is the question of God's existence. Atheist, evolutionary biology professor Dr. Richard Dawkins rejects the creationist's response of random chance to describe the machine that Darwinian evolution uses to produce biological diversity and its's improbability and inserts 'natural selection' in its place. He then responds to the creationist's intelligent design argument and it's solution to improbability with: 

Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes. Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself ... immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin.[i]

In sum if the universe's origin is a designer what is the designer's origin? In a video entitled I Can Prove God Does Not Exist, Atheist Youtuber, Styxhexenhammer666 offers the same question. So to bring home his point he gives the benefit of doubt that the universe is in-toto a creation and not just a mere existence - the position that he holds. He states: 

Here is the logical next step that no Christian can argue their way around; it is not possible. If the universe had to have been created because it is an existent thing; it had to have had some force or being creative; they label it God other people label it some cosmic force or other deity; so God created it. What created God?[ii] [sic]

And for a third example one of my sixth graders that I minister to as their youth-pastor interrupted my Bible lesson with a retort to something that I said:

"Okay that's all good and all..." he commented. "...but if God created us, who created him?" 

The inquiry of God's origin as Dawkins puts it is not just a question that professional thinkers come up with. It seems to be a very real gap in our knowledge of God; and apparently an obvious one as even my 11 year old student instinctively sees this as a problem. 

One argument that many theists present when responding to anti-creationist arguments is known in philosophical circles as the kalam cosmological argument[iii]. It is this argument that gives birth to the argument presented above. The kalam cosmological argument makes the assertion that the universe logically had to have a beginning. In sum due to exhilo nihilo fit (without a beginning nothing can exist) there had to be something in a pre-universe existence so to bring the universe into existence. Christians refer to this 'something' as someone namely Yahweh and other theists say that this something is their god. However the theologian who presents this argument argues in unison that God is the exception to the rule; so without a beginning nothing can exist except for God. 

Can someone consistently hold to these two assertions within the same worldview? Yes as these two assertions are not in conflict with one another. Moreover, not only are these two assertions not inconsistent the assertion of God's eternality is necessary for the kalam cosmological argument to work. If God is going to be the creator of the universe he cannot be a created entity. The theist is presented with five options to the multiple-choice question: What is the origin of God?  

a) God was created. 

b) Option (a) is wrong therefore no G/god/s exist and thus the universe either has a currently unknown or perhaps unknowable natural beginning or it is eternal. 

c) There is only one God who is eternal.
d) There are several gods which spin from one initial God.
e) There is one God who is manifested in many forms as is suggested in Hinduism.

Option (a) presents the same problems for every theistic worldview within exception for those who don't care about the origin of their G/god/s. And it is objectively inconsistent with logic. For one to suggest that that God is created like his creation makes his ontology parallel to the ontology of his creation. This universe is quantifiable and discoverable. Scientists throughout the eons have been taking creation apart and putting it back together so to discover how its works. We can know how various parts of this universe are put together, such as oxygen; we know the numerical value of earth's gravity in comparison to the moon's gravity; we know how stars are formed and so on. God's nature however is not natural in the same sense as this universe is natural. God's nature is natural, but his ontology is on a different plane of natural. His nature cannot be taken a part and reassembled - its supernatural. To put it in one sentence: God's nature is not complicated, its incomprehensible; and God's nature is only knowable from what he has revealed to us (cf. Deuteronomy 29:29). It is prideful ignorance and nonsensical to suggest that God's nature has to be created; outside of Scripture what do we know about the nature of God? ANSWER: Nothing. Moreover, what does Scripture say about God's origin? He is eternal (cf. Revelation 1:8, Colossians 1:17). And two, as suggested above an eternal God puts into perspective the kalam cosmological argument; since there is an eternal God then he is the proverbial stage by which creation can come to fruition.

Option (b) is scientifically discovered to be false and it has the same problem that the Christian is presented with about God's origins: if this universe had a natural cause then what natural cause caused that natural cause? Options (d) and (e) are polytheistic systems; polytheism deserves its own discussion so it will not be discussed here; however both these options have an initial God, even if there is many gods, there is one initial god that started everything. Therefore option (c) simply argues that God is eternal and monotheistic. 

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. - Colossians 1:17

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be naturally created or destroyed; it only changes form. God preexisted the universe and he holds all things together; and there will come a time when he will revamp this creation so it is an existence without "...death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." - Revelation 21:4. So in today's test please allow me to encourage you to put your trust in option (c) as that is not only the right answer but because option (c) is the God according to Scripture - not everyone else's god - doing so will save you from the reality of eternity without Christ: (c = Christ). This assertion is bold, but it is likewise fact and shown to be true; but let's leave that discussion for another day.

__________________

[i] - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. (Great Britain: Bantam Press, a division of Transworld Publishers,2006), 145-146.

[ii] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn8kehZH24E - accessed February 19, 2014

[iii] - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defense-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument - accessed February 19, 2014

Welcome to: A Crazy Christian

One thing you'll notice about the blog posts below is, if you ever visited www.gospelaxiom.blogspot.com they should look familiar? Gospel Axiom has been closed so to give rise to a new ministry that I have been embarking on where the veracity of Christianity will be shown to be valid. Welcome to: A Crazy Christian! In this ministry via this blog and the associated Youtube channel located here, I aim to teach about the facts of reality from the framework that best fits them, namely Christianity.

The name A Crazy Christian is offensive; it validates unbeliever's views of Christianity, Jesus and his followers:   

If you are a Christian and you had taken offence to the name, A Crazy Christian, please forgive me; however please allow me to explain. Many unbelievers believe that Christianity is in part silly, while others assert that it is completely downright 'nuts'. I don't aim to validate the views held by many skeptics of Christianity; however neither will I run away or respond with "Is Not!" as neither response allows for any headway to a resolution regarding the accusation of Christianity's 'craziness'. Moreover, running away or simply being passive with one's faith insults Christ as he is the one to whom the Christian is supposed to be representing; and it also insults the skeptic who has expressed their views of silliness. In both cases the action of running away or simply being passive says to both parties that they are not worthy of a response. As a result this ministry aims to take this claim of craziness head on to show its own internal craziness.

Please subscribe to this blog for future blogs and subscribe to my youtube channel for likeminded videos. And of course please respond in any capacity with your thoughts, questions and concerns. I look forward to hearing from you!

Ian Murray

Dealing With Evil With Love: A study in 1 Peter 3:15

Look its a bird! No its a plane! No, it’s _________ - what? Superman! This line is a famous line in the famous Superman comic; a story of an alien from Krypton who was sent to the earth as a savior of sorts. Is this the sort of admiration Christians get from secular society; the anticipation of a superhero? No. Why is this; they are the messengers of the supernatural savior? There are several answers but the one for our purposes today is: There are too many Christians who, willingly or unintentionally, via their behavior, seem to forget that they are from this planet and along with everyone else they are also in need of saving; and it is God who is the one who entered into his creation (cf. Phil 2:6-8) to save it (cf. Matthew 1:21) - not them. (cf. John 3:16)

One big issue that the world (and even many Christians) have with many Christians, not Christianity as that is another matter, is what I have called the Cavalier Christian; the Christian who will run in relentlessly preach, citing scripture hear and there and swoop out! This is especially problematic in some Christian apologetic circles; many people, youth and adults alike seem to get it in their heads that they are out to save the day! They want to save their friends and classmates or colleagues from the fires of Hell and damnation. One possible cause of this phenomena could be the well intentioned youth or children’s pastor, or parent who fervently encourages their children or youth to always be ready to give an answer and stand up firmly for the faith, etc. (cf. 1 Peter 3:15), but fails to teach them how; and there are many Christians firing off half-cocked preaching their faith without establishing the first basics. 

In two previous articles, here and here, I have gone through an analysis of 1 Peter 3:15. We have shown that what we are to be prepared for, is not just the knowledge of the facts of this natural world and their relationship with the Christian worldview, but also to show the work of Christ in your life as an individual. I also went through the foundation for representing Christ: prepare your heart with Christ before you prepare your mind with knowledge. However another fact of preparation is the method of delivery of your answer: meekness, kindness, gentleness, etc. In sum with love. The Apostle Paul makes it very clear that someone can be very talented in many ways but without love all of their talents and skills will be useless. (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3) Of course every Christian parent teaches their children about love and how we are to love thy neighbors and so forth. However this word love is a big issue today as it has come to mean different things to different people. In different contexts love is manifested in different ways, but its foundation, if it is truly love, will always be the same. 

It is a common belief that in order to love our gay-neighbor we have to embrace them, as a homosexual and praise their homosexuality - in sum let them act out, who, what they believe their identity determines them as - gay. A&E’s ex-Duck Dynasty cast member Phil Robertson was fired[i] for asserting that homosexuality was sinful; and the notorious homosexual advocacy group GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) asserted that Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,...[ii] Phil said that homosexuality is sinful and that is a lie that flies in the face of the beliefs of true Christians! What do true Christians believe pray-tell? One common theme among all Christians is to love one another, and speaking against homosexuality flies in the face of that view? GLAAD argues that speaking against homosexuality is not an act of love, but hate; conversely advocating for it is loving. What does the Bible say about this assertion, besides homosexuality being sinful that is? (cf. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:10, Matthew 19:4, Lev. 18:22, 20:13). How does the Bible describe ‘love’? 

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. - 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

Paul states that love is: patient, kind, meek, respectful, selfless, calm,  forgiving, a promoter of truth, a hater of evil, protective, trusting, an offerer of hope and it perseveres. Scripture clearly speaks against homosexuality; according to Scripture homosexual practice is evil; to love your neighbor, gay or otherwise would be to ‘hate their evil’. For many Christians to promote homosexuality or at least to be aloof about it is to love evil. One burning question that one could ask is” “Why is God against homosexuality?” The answer is very detailed, but in a few words the answer is: Homosexual behavior is harmful to a person physically and spiritually; it is harmful to society as a whole and it is a violation of God’s original design.

So loving the evil of homosexuality, among a large myriad of other equally vile sins is not an act of love; conversely however speaking out against it, just as one speaks out against a whole host of other sins is an act of love - it says that you care for the person to beg them to stop the crazy train of self destruction. Moreover, it also shows that you love God as you are doing what you can to preserve his original design and you hate to see his moral laws violated. Another way supporting homosexual behavior within the church is evil and an act of hate if you will is it encourages people to jump into sin causing them to build up wrath upon them (cf. Romans 2:5).

How else is love manifested? Via patience, kindness, respectfulness and meekness. Love is calming and diligent and trusting. Love doesn’t obtain moral IOUs nor does it use someone’s frailty against them. Love is protective. Love is perpetual. 

It is good for a Christian to be passionate about the Gospel message and representing Jesus to there neighbours; however one has to do this the right way and a Christian can do so correctly if they do so lovingly. This means they will with perseverance and patience stay calm and be kind with their friends, family, classmates and colleagues as they offer the hope of Christ. They are humble - as they are introducing the savior, as they are not the savior. They are respectful to the people who they are ministering to but they are intolerant of evil ways - in sum they don’t promote or permit evil. They are trusting in God’s good will. They will carefully instruct their friends in guidance (cf. 2 Timothy 4:3, 1 Corinthians 13:1-3).  

So how can a Christian properly represent Jesus in their life? They will not be the cavalier Christian; rather they will be the Christ-like and Christ-centered Christian. This year allow me to encourage you to represent Jesus lovingly, not just passionately and thoroughly. Let Jesus be the saviour of the world; you just represent him.

__________________

[i]  A&E has invited Phil back on Duck Dynasty. The Hollywood Reporter records A&E stating: 

We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article and reiterate that they are not views we hold.But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family … a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about. - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/a-e-welcomes-phil-robertson-667647 - accessed January 11, 2014

[ii] So although they stand behind their views on Homosexuality they equally stand behind other views that are held by the entire Robertson family such as unity, tolerance and forgiveness; ergo they'll stand behind the family on those values and ignore Phil's outspoken views on homosexuality. 

Your Personal Story: A study in 1 Peter 3:15

19 year old William Swinimer was suspended from school for being a religious zealot of sorts regarding his Christian faith. He was overt about his faith to his classmates, but the straw the broke the camel's back if you will was a shirt he wore to school one day: A bright yellow t-shirt that said: "Life is wasted without Jesus."

In an interview with Cheryl Weber from 100 Huntley St. he alluded to his experience as a Christian at his high school. He explained that for his entire high-school career at Forest Heights Community School, Christianity was demonized. According to Swinimer one teacher openly proclaimed that it is Christianity that is “...the problem of the world”[i]. However despite the defacing of Swinimer's theological beliefs there were students who were were curious and asked him questions about them; however, apparently when he attempted to answer their inquires he was hauled into the principle’s office.

Swinimer, of course, claims that he was never in people’s faces about his Christianity and that he spoke with love. Not having been there I cannot validate or invalidate his claim; however there were some students who seem to disagree with Swinimer's perception of his behaviour. A CTV Atlantic article reported one student in saying: 

He's been preaching to students about his religion, whether they want to hear it or not…like, exchange students from all over the world,[ii]

In a separate but related CTV video another student chimed in regarding Swinimer views:

Its your religion, leave it at home and come to school; be friends with us, talk with us but don’t, like, shove it down our throats basically.[iii], [iv],

The audience that the Apostle Peter is writing to was the William Swinimers of his world; people who spoke out about their faith, were disliked or hated for them and then got mistreated because of them. He acknowledges this fact, (cf. 1 Peter 1:6) however the tone of this letter seems to suggest that not only is his audience suffering for Christ, they were getting discouraged and were in need of a bit of coaching and encouraging. Peter encourages his readers to prepare their minds (cf. 1 Peter 1:13 [NIV 1984]) for questions and objections that came their way; and thus he instructed them to always be ready to give answers to anyone who came along making inquiries (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). As discussed in a previous article, (here) 1 Peter 3:15 is a common Biblical reference in Christian apologetic circles; and it is the second part of that passage that all too often gets singled out:

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. - 1 Peter 3:15b

This passage all too often associated with academic disciplines such as history, the sciences, logic and philosophy in attempt to show how they relate to Christianity. Of course being prepared to show how Christianity fits with reality is important however merely preparing one’s mind with science or history or philosophy is only part of the job. For an example, even before one gets to preparing one’s mind, one has to prepare one’s heart with Christ as LORD (cf. 1 Peter 3:15a). So let us brake down this second aspect into its sections to see, besides academic disciplines, what else we are to prepare our minds for. 

“Always be prepared to give an answer...”: This is simple enough to understand however what answer is Peter referring to? For many people the idea of apologetics is scary as it is often deemed the scholar’s playground as it often deals with subjects like philosophy, theology, the sciences, history, etc. And it does seem that all those who are at the front lines of this issue all have one thing in common: a long list of letters after their name: Ph.D, Th.D, D.D, M.D and so forth. In sum it can be quite intimating. And this high education domain of apologetics is a significant part. However the irony is, even though 1 Peter 3:15 has been designated the apologetic Bible verse it is not the verse where we go to, to learn what apologetics means. Paul states in Acts 22:1: “[brothers] and fathers, listen now to my defense.” The Greek word ἀπολογίας : apologia, where we get our word ‘apologetic’ literally means defense. So how did Paul give his defense? Did he give some abstract philosophical explanation for God's existence? Did he go into the sciences of his day? No, he gave his testimony (cf. Acts 22:1-21). 

There is an apologetic approach that is used for this sort of defence called Reformed Epistemology; this asserts that proof is neither A) necessary as God’s word is self attesting nor B) useful as the sinful heart will not accept the truth of God irregardless of proof.’ This of course does not mean that one shouldn’t get into the academic side of things as God has given to us objective and knowable facts to learn about him (cf. Romans 1:20, 1 Corinthians 15:12-14). However sometimes objective facts is not what someone needs to hear - what they need to hear is about the work of God, not the evidence of his existence or his resurrection.

Peter continues: “...give an answer to everyone who asks you...” (my emphasis). Even though it is good to adhere to professionals for help, especially when dealing with academic side of things (cf. Proverbs 11:14); however the questioner wants to know why ‘you’ have the faith in Christ. If the wonders of creation have played a role in your journey to Christ, then indicate so, but don’t feel scared to overlook those kind of paradigms and hone in on your first hand experience of the love and power of God in our life. It is true that testimonial answers are open for reinterpretation as someone might try to put your experiences in a different light; so to suggest that what you experienced was not the work of an omniscient God, but say rather it is due to some biological reaction - a biological fact that you interpreted as a religious experience or an experience with the almighty creator[v]. Or another reinterpretation is that your experience can be scientifically explained therefore there is no need for a theological explanation[vi]. However, putting reinterpretation aside the one thing about your experience is that it exists - you have one and nobody can take that away from you. Only you can attest to the interactive work of Christ in your life[vii].

So did William Swinimer ever just tell his personal testimony? Perhaps. The super-intendant at Swinimer's school, Nancy Pynch-Worthylake offered her advice that students should “...express their views in a way that would not be interpreted as a criticism of..." of other people's beliefs. There is a lot to be desired about the immaturity that was displayed at this school including by Pynch-Worthylake, however would the outcome be different if Swinimer's shirt said:

"Here is how my life is wasted without Jesus."?

Perhaps. To conclude as Christians we are all called to represent Jesus, as our LORD, not just how reality exists in the way it does because of him. 

_________________

[i] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFhNMNuO50 - accessed February 10, 2014

[ii] http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/n-s-student-suspended-for-wearing-pro-jesus-shirt-1.805062 - accessed February 10, 2104

[iii] NOTE: The original video has been taken down; however it has been informal home-made video of this video was taken.

[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICvdIofp0m0 - accessed January 6, 2014

[v] A materialistic interpretation of a 'religious experience' begs the question: "What stimuli caused the reaction?" Eventually, no matter how long the scenic tour is, it always ends back with God. 

[vi] A common belief is that if something can be explained 'scientifically' it does not need a divine explanation? This is flawed thinking as even though something can have a mechanical explanation it doesn't mean that it has no, or does not need a non metaphysical explanation.  

[vii] It is true that someone else could attest for God's work in your life; however that would technically be their experience - they are experiencing the work of God, through you.  

Proselytization & Defending: Loving or Harmful?

Cinderella is the famous fairy tale of a poor slave girl who went from living with her evil step-mother and equally evil and ugly step-sisters to being the princess of an entire kingdom. However the end of this epic fairytale is what is notable. It is needless to tell the story of Cinderella as it is well known; so allow me to jump to the end presupposing your knowledge of the tale. 

With the feeling of abandonment and intrigue for having Cinderella run out on him from the Royal Ball, Prince Charming became obsessed with finding who this young mysterious woman was. However to his advantage in Cinderella’s frazzled state one of her shoes fell off at the Royal Ball. The prince found the shoe and went to every door in the kingdom trying to find the owner of this shoe. He opted that the owner of the foot that fits this shoe is the one who he will marry. When he found Cinderella he put the shoe on her foot and it was a perfect fit; and everyone lived happily ever after. 

With stories like Cinderella one has to suspend their sense of reality as chances are there was at least one other woman in the kingdom who had the same dimension of foot as Cinderella; however this fairytale is a good story to make an important point. One big issue that the secular world (and even many Christians) has with many Christians is what I will call the Cavalier Christian. To a degree there are many Christians who are like the prince in the story of Cinderella. Just as he was relentless in his pursuit to find the woman who fits this shoe there are many Christians, especially in some Christian apologetic circles who are equal in their pursuit to see their friends, family and co-workers be saved from the consequences of their sins. They swoop in, go around relentlessly preaching, citing scripture here and there and swoop out like some superhero. This often discourages many unbelievers from listening and considering that there is truth to be told regarding the Gospel. Another negative effect this has had is on Christians who just want to ‘show the love of God’; many Christians seem to divorce the act of proselytization and offering explanations for one’s faith in Christ, from the nature of love.

So what should we as Christians do? Is persistence in spreading the Gospel discouraging the work of the Gospel? Is associating various academic fields such as science, history and philosophy replacing love? The answer is simply, no on both accounts. As for the first point, Paul states:

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? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? - Romans 10:14-15

The ‘they’ in Paul’s passage refers to unbelievers. How can ‘the world’ call on the name of the Lord and thus be saved, if they are not told about Him? How then can they be told if no one steps out and tells them? It is important to note that this is arguing for an action that goes beyond the common belief that loving one’s neighbor is merely meeting their physical needs such as food and shelter. Helping someone in need and being a friend is definitely an act of love; but food only temporarily nourishes the body; a shoulder to cry on is only so broad; clothes become tattered; but eternity is forever. If the Gospel message is true, then the act of warning people about Hell and telling them of its remedy: Christ’s sacrifice, is at the very least parallel to the other acts of love. This does not mean that we don’t feed the stomach or cover bare backs with warm clothes; we continue to do these things, but not at the expense of the Gospel (cf. Acts 6). 

Conversely however these things should not replace the Gospel. Another complaint flung at many Christians is the highlighting of one need for another; many Christians are accused of handing out a Bible but not a sandwich; but sadly regarding some Christians there is merit to this accusation. On the other hand however it is this accusation that has encouraged many Christians to go to the opposite extreme and meet people’s temporary needs and forget about the Gospel message; the idea is that they are called to love their neighbors, not pester them. So food and clothes are dished out but the knowledge of the nature of Christ and his message and mission remains in the dark; but as pointed out above this is not healthy. 

It is true that a warm jacket in a Canadian winter won’t save someone from the hot fires of Hell, but meeting this need saves them from hypothermia and it shows the person that there are realists in this world. Christians need to be realists and come to grips with the fact that to love thy neighbor is to realize that a person needs saving in body, mind and soul. Christ is the only one who is qualified to save the soul and reform the mind, but talking, making a sandwich and handing out warm clothes is within our human abilities. Preaching Christ’s love is important but so is showing it. 

In talking about ‘the mind’, Paul tells us to “...be transformed by the renewing of your [mind]” - Romans 12:2. Is merely telling someone that Jesus loves them and died for them sufficient? In many cases it has been; however there are many other people who are plagued with confusion resulting in pestering questions. Such questions are: How can the existence of the good God of the Bible be consistent with the reality of the evil that they experience in their life? And aren’t all religions merely different flavors of the same truth like how chocolate, vanilla and mint are all different flavors of ice-cream, but are all equally ice-cream? The nature of questions like these go beyond theology and venture into fields of science, philosophy, ethics, other religions, etc. Is offering answers to questions like these wasting time, time that could be spent telling the person that Jesus loves them? No. On the contrary preparing one’s self with answers to these sort of questions (cf. 1 Peter 1:13, 3:15) so to be able to teach others, (cf. 2nd Timothy 3:16) is an act of love as it tells the person that their inquiries are important and they are right in asking such questions. 

Lastly, answers to these sort of questions set a foundation for the Gospel to be understood; so merely telling someone that Jesus loves them is, to a degree a waste of time; it would be like building a house to live in before establishing a foundation. Without a foundation the house will not stand. In the same way without answers to certain questions the Gospel message may be rendered incoherent for the inquirer. However this being said, it is only through the Holy Spirit that someone can be saved (cf. John 6:44) and understand its teachings; no amount of academic foundation will bring someone to a knowledge of Christ on its own merits. However this academic foundation is what God uses to accomplish his task of bringing people to him.

So what is the relationship between love and the acts of preaching and offering explanations? The latter are icons of the former. Therefore we should be in mind and body like the Prince in the Cinderella tale - persistent day in and day out (cf. 2 Timothy 4:2) presenters of the Gospel in word, action and thought.  

Let Jesus Be God: A study in 1 Peter 3:15

During coffee with a friend one day I alluded to the idea of where I would like to take the youth-group that I lead at my church in terms of training. I informed him that I aim to train these youth up to be strong and established Christians; this is so that they can be prepared for what the world has for them (cf. Ephesians 6:12) and so they can know how to properly respond (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). However just then an obvious sprit of disapproval came over my friend. I inquired for the reason for his obvious disapproval and he explained that when he was in high-school, there were students at his school who were Christians who represented their Christianity in very wrong ways; they were bent on ‘defending the faith!’. As a Christian himself this irritated him because their negative representation of the Gospel hurt its effectiveness in the lives of unbelieving students. He expressed to me that he sees no reason to defend his faith - he believes that he ought to take Peter’s words literally in 1 Peter 3:15 and just ‘give an answer to anyone who asks him for the reason for the hope that he holds.’ In his understanding there is nothing in that passage that requires getting into academic fights with people over scientific issues such as Darwinian Evolutionism or the age of the earth, etc. or philosophical debates like proofs for the existence of God etc. In his view all he was and is required to do is to answer why he believes and whatever personal answer he gives is sufficient.  

A common theme in popular Christian apologetic circles is the encouragement of 1 Peter 3:15. However the second part always seems to get special attention: 

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. - 1 Peter 3:15b

As an apologist I have often heard from many apologists, who I admire and listen to stress the idea of ‘being ready to give an answer’ or ‘being ready to defend the faith’, etc. This nuance is all to often accompanied, and seemingly to an exclusion of other aspects with having the knowledge of academic facts: history, science, logic, philosophy, etc.; and the knowledge of how they relate to Christianity. Now contrary to my friend’s view showing how Christianity best explains the facts of reality being true is a must; but it is equally true that knowing the fine-tuning of the universe, logic, how to explain seeming paradoxes like the The Problem of Evil, the human condition, history and all the rest is only one aspect by which all Christians ought to be ready or be prepared for. In context of this verse what is Peter saying: 

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. 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 3:15b (NIV 1984)

There is a lot to work through regarding this verse so for today’s study I am only going to concentrate on the first part: “[but] in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.” The first and foremost important step in standing up for one’s faith is being prepared to let Jesus be God. Apologetics is not a competition of wits and nor is it an academic showdown. It can be very tempting for both parties - the Christian and the unbeliever - to duke it out, by showing how much they know of subject X, and how they can explain their position. In this context Paul would discourage this as he would refer to it as a stupid argument. He instructs us not to “...have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce [quarrels]” - 2 Timothy 2:23. This is not to say explaining how Christianity best explains reality and letting the unbeliever attempt to refute the claim is engaging in stupidity or foolishness. However the discussion is not a human vs. human argument, but it is God representing himself in the face of evil. (cf. Ephesians 6:12) We humans are ambassadors, who are charged with being the physical face of Christ (cf. 2nd Corinthians 5:20). We are to represent ourselves as followers of Jesus, so to represent Jesus. Where the ‘stupidity’ comes in is in the futility of an argument. Engaging into a battle of academics is futile if God is not running the show (cf. Psalm 127:1a). In sum setting up Christ as Lord in one’s heart is not merely good advice, it’s the first step - don’t do this, don’t bother following onto the second step. 

As sinful human beings we cannot represent Jesus; we need the transforming power of God to do this. Ergo treating apologetics like a study in smarts is useless, as no amount of proof can convince the sinful heart. The nature of the sinful heart is disabled from understanding truth (cf. John 8:42-47). So why are we to jump through academic hoops if our efforts are going to fall on deaf ears? 1) We are commanded to (cf. Deuteronomy 29:29b). 2) God uses his creation to save it; God uses the truth taught in academic disciplines as tools to bring his chosen to him. So the foundation for a proper representation of Jesus is to let Jesus be God.

So what does this mean? There is a civil war of sorts going on within Christian apologetic circles over which apologetic approach is best. There are 5 apologetic approaches that can be and should be used and they are: Presupositionalism[i], Evidentialism[ii], Accumulative[iii], Classic[iv] and Reformed Epistemological[v].However which one of these approaches should be the Christian’s launching pad? Well, Peter would argue that it would be to presuppose Christianity is true, by setting up Christ as Lord. 

One may might argue however that setting Christ as Lord in one’s heart in Peter’s letter refers to motivation, not presentation. The Christian is motivated by Christ to do the good work, but how the good works is played out is subjective to them as a person. Moreover, it has also been argued that the best way to launch a defence of Christianity is not to presuppose its true, but offer evidence that backs up the claim. In sum give other ideas and contrary positions the benefit of the doubt, present the evidence and let  the proverbial chips fall where they may. The problem with spring boarding off of the evidential apologetic approach is data is filtered through a worldview and as such the correct filter will reveal truthful results whereas the wrong filter will show flawed results. Contrary to desired belief data does not ‘speak for itself’; the data has to be put through a filter to determine what it is ‘evidence of’, and the filter in this case would be someone’s preconceived worldview. 

Lastly it has been suggested to me that drawing dividing lines between Christianity and other worldviews can be offensive and thus doing the Gospel injustice. It is true that people may get offended with the proposition that they are wrong, but ‘who cares’? It is true that we ought to represent Christ with love and respect, however it is important to note that although a Christian can represent Christ in an offensive way and shouldn’t, quite often it is Jesus's nature that is offensive to the unbeliever (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:23). 

There is a lot more to be said in our analysis of 1 Peter 3:15; and it will be done so in upcoming discussions; but for now let Christ’s nature offend the sinful person, but as Christians we ought to stand on the word of God proudly and let its words and its author guide us; let us represent God and let God cater to hurt hearts!

______________

[i] Presupositionalism: Presupositionalism argues that the apologist should presuppose a position as truth in order to accurately give an account for reality; in sum Presupositionalism argues that a rational explanation of reality is found in none other than Christianity.  

[ii] Evidentialism: Evidentialism argues that the apologist needs to step outside of their preconcieved ideas of reality and assess the data - the evidence - on its own merits. The Evidentialist believes that if the facts of reality are looked at objectively then the truth of reality will come to light and thus show which theological position is true - God: Islam, God: Christianity, God: Hinduism, God: No-God (atheism), etc.  

[iii] Accumulative: The accumulative apologetic approach attempts to make an iron-clad case for the position i.e Christianity, by alluding to all aspects of academia. The accumulative apologist will give scientific evidence for God’s existence, historical evidence God’s existence, philosophical evidence for God’s existence and logical evidence for God’s existence. The idea is to make a case that covers all of the basis, thus leaving no place for argument. 

[iv] Classical: Classical apologetics concentrates on rational argumentation for God’s existence to make its case; the Classical apologist backs up their logical assertions with evidence. 

[v] Reformed Epistemology : Reformed Epistemology argues from personal testimony; the rational is, there is no need for evidence and the evidence is only truly recognized when filtered through clear lenses. As such nobody however thinks clearly due to sin and so even if evidence is offered doesn’t mean that it will be computed. So the Reformed Epistemologist would just resort to offering personal reasons for their beliefs and letting God take it from there.

Breaking News! Macro Evolution Is A Fact!

Every so often, the media goes into a frenzy with headlines like “Miller creates life”[i]; this line is in reference to the fascinating experiment Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did  in in 1953, which resulted in the creation of amino acids - the building blocks of life. At the time this was herald as evidence for life coming from non-life. And of course let’s not forget Robert Lenski’s discovery that, with even human intelligence patiently and methodically playing with it, e-coli can turn into different kinds of e-coli![ii] (For a separate and earlier documentation of Lenski’s findings over a much more exhaustive array biological samples refer to Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25.) 

It is at these times when both Creationists and Darwinists fall over each other trying to prove themselves right and the other wrong. There is one thing however that both creationists and Darwinists can agree on: Micro-Evolution, the observable fact that within a gene pool one could get a wide variety of the same species, such as in dogs. e.g. the Chihuahua to the Wolf. However when one thinks of the term ‘evolutionism’ it isn’t Micro-Evolution that often comes to mind; rather what comes to mind is Charles Darwin’s theory of Macro-Evolution. In 1859 Charles Darwin proposed that all known biological life forms can find their origin in an initial species of biological life. Darwinists give this original pool of organisms the nickname primordial soup. 

Modern Darwinian Evolutionists assert that the process of tiny changes (mutations) in the DNA of the species of these single-celled organisms gave rise to species’ of multi-celled organisms. Then more mutations occurred giving rise to more complicated species of organism, namely fish. Many millions of years goes by, causing many more millions of mutations to take place. Eventually some of these mutations started to develop legs in some of these species of fish. Eventually there were animals who had the ability to walk onto land, and walk onto land they did. The mutations continued in these land dwelling creatures. Eventually wings started to develop in many of these species of land-walkers; and many millions of years down the road the skies began to be filled up with birds. And so on and so forth. Macro-Evolutionism asserts that via mutations in the DNA of organisms, including plants, and who also had the ability to survive long enough to pass their mutated DNA on to their young, “life” mastered its multiplication tables. 

The Macro-Evolutionism controversy is a hot topic and I’d say as a result a lot of plainly false conclusions have developed on both sides of the debate. For an example, many ardent atheists believe that Macro-Evolutionism is fact and thus proves that we no longer need the divine explanation for our existence. Moreover, there are many creationists who would assert that the doctrine of Darwinian Evolutionism is inconsistent with the doctrine of God. In response however to both the atheistic Darwinists and anti-darwinian creationists, the theistic evolutionist might argue that under the premise of ex’nihilo fit (from nothing, nothing comes); in order to have biological changes there needs to be objects in reality to change, first. So having a physical answer doesn’t get rid of a theological answer. In sum you need God to explain the origin of at least the inorganic matter if it is going to give rise to organic matter, so to give rise to the first life. Conversely however it is also logical to assert that if God is *God*, he can do anything logically possible. So if God wants to guide inorganic matter so it gives rise to organic matter, and if he wants to oversee biological changes in ‘simple’ organic life so that more complex organisms come to be then so be-it. 

So, Darwinian Evolutionism is not logically inconsistent with the basic doctrine of a divine creator; in fact it is dependant on it. However the doctrine of the Biblical God is inconsistent with the doctrine of Darwinian (Macro) Evolution. It is not logically inconsistent as He could have used a Darwinian process if he chose to; instead it is inconsistent with God’s documented chosen vehicle of creation.[iii] The question then should not be: “Can God use a Darwinian Evolution as a vehicle for creation” but rather “Did God create a Darwinian Evolutionary vehicle and then use it to created everything?” In answer to the second question: No, God did not create nor use the vehicle of Darwinian Evolution to create the universe and all life within. However even though there is no vehicle to allow the Macro-Evolutionary process to take place in biology,[iv] Macro-Evolution is a part of reality. This phenomena is done via micro-evolutionary steps; the Macro-Evolution aspect is invisible, but the micro-evolution is just as documentable as it is in biology. 

Lets look again at the basic premise of Macro-Evolution: small changes in a species of creature that eventually gives rise to a distinctly new species of creature. In Matthew 13:24-30 Jesus compares the visible church to a wheat field. In His analogy those who are genuine followers of Christ, are represented by the wheat; however in the same batch of wheat lies weeds called Tares (or Darnel) which represents people who only look and act like Christians but who are genuine fakes. The reason for the comparison is Tares are indistinguishable from wheat while they are young; but when they are mature they are identifiably different. Christ illustrates that just as a wheat farmer has to wait until the crop matures to harvest, so to differentiate between the wheat and Tares God is going to wait until the end of days to harvest his followers and condemn the unbelievers (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) in Hell (cf. Matthew 25:41).

This fact sets the stage as it shows two very different types of people: regenerated[v] and unregenerated[vi]. However the big question is: How do these two people types come to pass in the end of days? Are there naturally born regenerate persons? No, as Paul states: 

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— - Romans 5:12

So all people are born enemies of God (cf. Romans 1:21). However through many tiny and daily changes in the lives of each regenerated person, by the power of God, they are a new creation (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17). Through daily work of God, He changes each person that he has chosen (cf. Romans 8:28-30) so they are getting that much closer to the end result, namely being the image of Christ (cf. Romans 8:29). Eventually in the day Christ returns to judge the living and the dead (cf. 2 Timothy 4:1) there will be two distinct person groups or species if you'd like: enemies of God - peoples who will suffer God’s wrath and new creatures in Christ - peoples who have inherited the stamp of righteousness (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17, Matthew 25:31-46). This evolution started off with one person type: the ungodly (cf. Romans 3:10-11); but from this group, a new species of person has been emerging and is getting larger day by day.

Unlike biological Macro-Evolutionism, where there is no vehicle to accomplish the task, there is a vehicle for spiritual Macro-Evolutionism: The sovereignty and power of God; and it is only through Him that this can be done (cf. John 6:44). So there is only one question for you to answer: Which species of person are you? Are you evolving into the man or woman, boy or girl that God wants you to be; or are you like so many of the fossils that scientists find: dead (cf. Ephesians 2:1) and unchanged from your ancestors? 

____________________

[i] http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html - accessed February 10, 2014 

[ii]  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html - accessed February, 2014 

[iii]  (NOTE: This assertion is to complicated to offer respond to here; so for the purposes of this article, this assertion will be merely assumed to be true.)  

[iv] Many Darwinists will argue that 'Natural Selection' is the vehicle that drives the Darwinian Evolution. This is simply not true; as Natural Selection is only able to select from what information that is available in the gene pool; it cannot create more information. To use an analogy, a card player is able to shuffle the finite amount of combinations that a deck of 52 cards offers. The card player cannot shuffle the 52 cards and end up with 53. In the same way Natural Selection can only work with what information the gene pool offers.

[v] Regenerate: The regenerate is the one who has been legally justified in God’s sight and as such is being transformed into the image of Christ.

[vi] Unregenerate: The unregenerate is the one who is still legally an enemy of God and is deserving of his wrath.

Killing Religion: Should the world be rid of religion?

...religion has been an enormous multiplier of tribal suspicion and hatred, with members of each group talking of the other in precisely the tones of the bigot.[i]

The above citation is from the prolific author and atheist, the late Christopher Hitchens. This line came after 20 pages of examples of how religious convictions have been used to harm and kill people throughout the years, all around the world. I recently wrote an article, located here, where I discussed a fictitious conversation between two men on their way to Toronto for a guy’s-only weekend. The thesis of their conversation concentrated on the question: Should someone leave their religion at home when dealing with a secular society? The answer showed to be moot as it is impossible to leave one’s religious convictions at home and live contrary to them for the sake of those who do not subscribe to them but subscribe to different beliefs. 

Now let’s take this one step further and ask another question: Should people be coached away from religious beliefs? Just read the news paper and you’ll agree with Hitchens’ assessment on religious convictions; many people, every day, both on the global and local scales attempt to justify a wide variety of evil behaviors by saying that they believe it to be God’s will; and this is the problem, who do you appeal to if you don’t agree with God? In sum, can you go above God’s head to his superior? No. So obey God, or feel his wrath will all the sinners; or love God via obedience or you’ll suffer the results of his hatred for your disobedience. This is merely one color that religion has been painted in; and religious people are painted as mindless and fearful worker drones for a god who is:  “...jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent [bully]”[ii] - but who is under the delusion that this God is all omnibenevolent. 

Another colour that religion is painted in, is the belief that it is developed on superstitions that were held by ancient people and run in accordance with views of reality that we know today are simply not true. So many people feel justified to question the intelligence of those modern people who adhere to the words of ancient texts like the Bible. It is true that many religious texts are thousands of years old and are born out of societies with customs, beliefs and dead languages; but is religion a system of ancient beliefs and practices; and so to adhere to it is to submit to ancient practices and replace modern knowledge with outdated views of reality? To put it simply, no. 

These perspectives play into the hands of the fad: Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. This has resulted in many Christians leaving the church under the guise of 'organized religion' and adopting a new  term: spiritual. In a sociological study regarding many theistic backgrounds, including Christianity researchers found that the term religiousness "...was associated with higher levels of interest in church attendance and commitment to orthodox beliefs. Spirituality, in contrast, was associated with higher levels of interest in mysticism, experimentation with unorthodox beliefs and practices, and negative feelings toward both clergy and churches."[iii] So for many theists the term religious has been associated with active commitment and beliefs that have been static throughout the ages; whereas spiritual is more personal and is antagonistic towards religious establishments and authorities. 

So how can we combat this? For a long time I participated in pro-life outreach, where I advocated for the basic right of life that pro-abortion philosophy fights against. One question that I was taught to ask while in a conversation with a pro-choice advocate is: “What is it?” In sum if we are going to attempt to kill the unborn, we first have to figure out what the unborn is; if the unborn is a person, then we cannot kill it; if it is merely a fleshy extension of the mother’s body then stoping its growth is justified. In the same way we have to ask then, if we are going to attempt to rid this world of religion, we first have to ask: what is religion? Only then can we decide if we should kill it; and since it is not something biological and as old as human society it stands to reason to ask: can religion even be wiped out? Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines religion as: 

1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3. an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group[iv]

Webster defines religion to be a belief in a specific view of God: monotheistic or polytheistic,  or for another example, unitarian monotheistic or trinitarian monotheistic, etc.; and the obedience to the system of beliefs and practices propagated by that God. However what if you don’t believe in God, that is the typical bodiless, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient God, are you religious? Yes. Merriam-Webster defines religious as being: 

“[Very] careful to do something whenever it can or should be [done.]”[v]

Everybody, is diligent in doing whatever they believe should be done. A case in point Christopher Hitchens’ felt it was necessary to advocate for his view that God does not exist and a belief in one is harmful. Hitchens’ didn’t write God Is Not Great, because he had too much time on his hands; he felt that he had a moral duty to attempt to persuade people from the belief in God and the behaving as if he exists. Hitchens is a very religious atheist; his important interests and beliefs lie in his view that people should be dissuaded from the belief and devotion to a supernatural deity. 

So what would the world be like if there was no religion or religiosity? People would have no sense of commitment or honor. People would be unreliable as nobody would have invested interests in anything nor beliefs to drive themselves to do what is right? Now can religion be killed? Simply put, no; just as one cannot leave their religion at home, the endeavor to kill religiosity is a self refuting activity as such a person would be very religiously devoted to kill religion. However why don’t we just kill the ‘god’ part of religion and keep devotion to he duty part? 

1. The theist who converts to another theistic religion e.g. Islam to Christianity just trades gods: Allah for Yahweh.
2. The theist who converts to atheism, e.g. Christianity to atheism just trades gods: Yahweh for themselves. 

In sum atheism is just as much of a fairytale as Cinderella and her Fairy Godmother. The embodiment of God, that is the standard of everything cannot be destroyed, but merely change - its the 1 Law of Thermodynamics of theology. 

So what can we do then? Religion is a part of reality. We should embrace it. However what are we to do with all those people who hurt and harm because of their religious beliefs? Encourage them to find the right religion, the right God to follow and do so full heartedly. Which religion is that? The religious system that fits with reality. 

_________________

[i] Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great. (Warner Books,USA, 2007-2008), 36.

[ii] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. (Great Britain: Bantam Press, a division of Transworld Publishers,2006), 51.

[iii] http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Books/2002/07/Spiritual-But-Not-Religious.aspx?p=1%20accessed%20September%2016,%202013. - accessed February 10, 2014

[iv] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion - accessed February 10, 2014

[v] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious?show=0&t=1392063278 - accessed February 10, 2014

You Are A Proof of God!

The gym was loud with the sounds of screaming children, youth and their parents. The sounds of bouncing balls ricocheted off of the cylinder brick walls and the metal light fixtures that hung on the ceiling as eight coloured nerf balls were whipped around the room during a fast paced game of dodgeball; and the heavy beat of Manic Drive protruded from the hanging speakers giving family night at youth-group an even spread of noise. After an hour and a quarter and three running games and one relay race later, my Keynote presentation shining on the wall and my audience of 30 sat in front of me. I was ready to give the lesson. 

Over the course of the last couple of months or so I have been bringing my youth through a course called Christian Crazy Claims. We learned about what Christians believe, what the world has to say about those beliefs and how to show the unbelieving world that the claims of Christianity is not so crazy after all. However that night I took a segue, from our course to teach something different. So what did I do instead? Hold your horses! 

I explained to my audience that when one often thinks of the word apologetics, it is the relationship between subjects like logic, history, philosophy, the sciences and Christian theology that get touched on and rightfully so. However one thing that seems to get ignored a lot is the importance of subjective experience. There are times when people don’t need to hear *again* the proofs for the existence of God, and *more* evidences of creation; although these are important! Instead sometimes people need proofs of the workings of God; sometimes people need to know *how* God is working, now, in the present, not just *that* he works in the abstract. How can one do that? Here is a platform that is grounded in objectivity so to offer the proofs for the working of God - you! Your testimony! It is true that your testimony is not objective but subjective as it is dealing with the subject, you; but your experiences are fact, objectively true. It is true that many skeptical people will try to reinterpret your experiences, but they cannot deny that those experiences happened. And this is what I did on family night; I offered my life as a proof for the working of God - I gave my testimony. 

My Testimony:   

I was at a Christian based summer resort when I came to a saving faith in Jesus; I was 5 years old. I knew the differences between sin and being an imperfect person and I knew that my sinful nature had consequences and those consequences was keeping me separate from God. As such after heard the Gospel message, I walked up to the front of the chapel during children’s church and asked Jesus to come into my life. However there was one thing that I didn’t understand and that was the nature of God. God is rich in mercy (cf. Ephesians 1:4) and I didn’t understand what it means that God finishes what he starts (cf. Phil 1:6). That night I was mean to my sister and as such I thought Jesus moved out of my heart; so for the next 8 days of chapel I asked Jesus to come into my life, because for those 7 days I continued to be a mean brother.   

Throughout my grade school and junior high school years I was a loner; my only friends that I had in grade eight for example, were my sisters sixth grade friends and they were really only friendly acquaintances. My only friend was Jesus. However things changed in high school where I became more tenacious about my faith, even to the point of annoying. I earned the nicknames Jesus freak and God Boy; and I wore them like they were badges of honour.   

However one thing to remember is salvation doesn’t mean sinless. In the latter years of high school I fell into a bad crowd. I picked up smoking and everything took a very quick spiral downward. One thing that I had going against me, however was, me; all throughout my life I had a rebellious streak that ultimately led to me being on the streets, panhandling for money to buy drugs and booze.  

However throughout all of this God was with me. God was with me during night of drunken stupors and he waited for me while I did other stupid things. However there is a time when God says “enough!”. One day I was panhandling and I asked this old man for change for coffee (of course it was for drugs). He said that he would buy me a coffee instead of giving me the money; so he took me to a nearby coffee shop and within an hour my life had taken a 180 degree change - that morning I woke up in my bed aiming to panhandle for money for drugs; that night I went to a different bed where with a job; what job? I was the youth leader for the drop-in centre that he ran. A few months goes by; there were successes of sobriety and drunken failures; and then it came time for me to go get more help - I went to a longterm live-in treatment centre where I stayed there for 3 years. Then after this place I went to college. Now, about 14 years later, with 10 years of sobriety under my belt I am writing this down for you.  

The end. 

One of the things I told my youth, when it comes to testimonies is that everyone has one! I instructed them to never to believe the lie that even though they don’t have a story like mine that they don’t have one. This applies to everyone. Another thing I taught was a three step format for telling one’s testimony: 

1. Have a *therefore*. When telling your testimony always try to leave your audience with something that can be applied to their life - your “therefore, this is what i have to offer you today by my life” message. 
2. Keep your plots relevant to your therefore. Everyone has various mini-plots in their life. However all of them are a part of a bigger story which has an unique ‘therefore’ conclusion. 
3. Keep it Christ centred. When giving your testimony it can be very tempting to keep it self-centered, as it is your life story; but if keep in mind why are you telling your story? Why am I telling you my story, my testimony; what am I testifying to? ANSWER: How God has worked and is working in my life. 

In sum, you may not be an expert in the sciences, or philosophy, or history or in academia at all, but you are an expert in you and your experiences. Moreover, there is a common ground between academic studies and your experiences: they all testify to the glory of God. When someone asks you to give them a reason for your hope in Jesus resurrection for example (cf. 1 Peter 3:15), you can allude to what you know about any of these academic disciplines. In sum a Christian should always be testifying for Christ and this can be done via academics and you; both facets are needed as they perform different functions.