Historic Christianity faces challenges from those of different worldviews and faiths all the time. These challenges are usually obvious and are not as easily accepted without further investigation by those in the Church. If they are accepted, those in the Church know that they are leaving Christianity for a completely different worldview. However, in recent decades a new challenge has come against the historic Christian worldview, and that challenge comes from within the Church and purports to be "Christian." Recently it has taken on the title of "Progressive Christianity." It uses Christ's name and presents challenges in the names of love and justice. This deception initially shook CCM artist and worship leader Alisa Childers, but her investigation revealed the hollowness of this movement.
My review will consist of the usual chapter-by-chapter summary and conclude with my recommendation. I will attempt to capture the heart and mind behind this book without giving away the best parts.
Be sure to check out Alisa's blog, podcast, YouTube channel for a continual stream of content related to Progressive Christianity and the many different ways it is sneaking into our churches.
Many may be surprised to find that knowledge is actually the foundation for faith in God.
A Blind Faith And God's Hiddenness
Two common challenges to the truth of the Christian worldview are the seeming hiddenness of God and the accusation that Christianity requires a blind faith. Many people see the great amount of suffering in the world and in their own lives and wonder where God is and why He doesn't seem to care to alleviate the suffering. Many skeptics also see Christians making claims about reality that are demonstrably false, and those people conclude that Christians' faith is a belief despite evidence to the contrary- a blind faith.
The skeptic knows that there must be continuity between the present and the past (and the future) for us to reasonably believe that what happens in the present can be used to infer what has happened in the past (or make predictions about what will happen in the future). Armed with knowledge of the past, there is a solid, logical foundation to conclude something about the future. This also means that without knowledge of the past, there is no solid foundation to trust something with the present or the future.
This is how the skeptic believes they are being logical as they conclude that the Christian God is hidden (if not non-existent) and unfaithful, and how they also conclude that Christians' faith is blind. Today, I want to take some time to show an understanding of the physical world will demonstrate that the skeptic has made a mistake in their reasoning to both conclusions about God's supposed hiddenness and the supposed blind faith of Christianity.
Is Faith In God Really Blind?
Let us start with the very book that claims to accurately describe the Christian God: the Bible, and with the actions of this God: creation. If the Bible accurately describes the Christian God, then we have this series of arguments regarding faith in God for present and future experiences:
If the laws of physics are constant, then God's character is constant (Jeremiah 33:25-26).
The laws of physics are constant.
If God's character is constant, then His character can be trusted to be the same across all time.
God's character is constant.
If God's character has been faithful in the past, then His character will be faithful in the present and the future
God's character has been faithful in the past.
Therefore, God's character will be faithful in the present and the future.
This faith is a reasonable faith that is grounded in what we already know and have experienced. For the skeptic who wishes to claim that Christianity is an illogical and unreasonable faith, they must face in inconvenient reality: If they believe that Bible describes the Christian God, then it necessarily follows from Jeremiah 33:25-26 that the Christian God is faithful to His promises, and our trust in Him (faith) for present and future difficulties and sufferings is logically grounded in God's past faithfulness through difficulties and sufferings. This means that our faith in God is a most logical faith.
What If The Laws of Physics Are Not Constant?
However, the soundness of the argument and our trust in the constancy of God's character is dependent upon the reality of the constancy of the laws that govern the heavens and the earth (this universe). If these laws are not constant and have changed and if God is just as constant (the first premise in the argument), then God's character can change. This means that if the laws of physics change, then God's character changes, which necessarily implies that God's promises can be rescinded, His faithfulness is laughable, and He is certainly not to be trusted.
If the skeptic were to deny constant laws of physics to avoid the conclusion that the Christian faith is a reasonable and logical faith, then they would suffer the logical consequence of the collapse of the entire scientific enterprise. While some (non-scientific) skeptics may be willing to live with this logical implication, many would be unwilling to do so. But they would be unwilling to do so at the cost of logical consistency. Because consistency is a necessary feature of logic and because reality is consistent, both logic and reality are abandoned with such a philosophical move.
"While we all want to believe that we are committed to truth rather than a narrative, our actions in conversation—how we mistreat evidence, mischaracterize opposing views and arguments, and attack the challenger rather than the challenge—often tell a different story."- Luke Nix
The Importance of Recognizing Common Ground
In these times of stark division, it is important that we not allow our disagreements to ultimately result in the destruction of our unity as a society, culture, and Church. There is nothing wrong with a society having a diversity of ideas, as long as those ideas are discussed and debated respectfully. When the wrong ideas are identified, such a respectful dialog can result in the dismissal of false ideas and the acceptance of true ideas. This is progress. Progress towards the objective goal of a society that has and lives according to the view of reality as it actually is and not some delusion.
However, many times discussion is stifled because we do not recognize common ground with those in which we disagree. When we possess and recognize common ground, we have a connection to maintain a healthy relationship when we have stark disagreements and rigorously debate which view (if either) accurately reflect reality. Today I want to point out six different things that we all hold in common that, if recognized by even one side, can help keep relationships healthy despite disagreements.
Why should Christians spend so much time and energy debating true theology when people are dying every day?
The Current Suffering In America
In the last year America has experienced a crazy amount of unrest and carnage (or at least that is what is put in front of our eyes every single day). And the opportunities for Christians to minister to those who are suffering due to the evil continue grow by the day. While these existential issues are piling up and many Christians are on the front lines of tending to physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual wounds, many other Christians continue to have, what seem to be, abstract and less important discussions and arguments over theology. A friend of mine expressed his concern on social media when we were discussing a particular theological issue (but his concern can be aimed at any of the numerous theological debates). He states:
"I’m confused, why is it so important to show that your understanding of how old the Earth is, is the correct one? When people are destroying businesses while the police are told it’s okay because we need to let them vent, I’m thinking there are more important things Christians could be doing right now, than trying to prove to each other that their version of how and when God created our world, is the correct one. But I could be wrong...For the record, I do think it’s important to understand scriptures correctly, but some things like how and when God did certain things, are not as important to be understood correctly. In fact, I can imagine God being displeased with people on both sides of the age issue, because they lose sight of what the entire Bible is really all about. That doesn’t mean God didn’t stick some cool science answers in there, but OECists are correct when they object to how many YECists make it so important and I believe I’m correct when I complain about OECists seemingly making it so important too."
He is not the only one who I have heard express similar concerns.
Many Christians believe that the reason that we see so much evil in America today is because, as a culture, we have forgotten God. As a culture, we have intentionally removed Him from our education and legal systems, and as a result we have removed any objective standard by which to judge what is morally good and logically valid. This has led to several generations of Americans who are never taught of objective morality or even proper logical reasoning. As a result they feel free to do whatever they want, to whom ever they want, to get whatever they want. There is no consideration for what actions and what goals are objectively, morally good and objectively, logically justified. Our culture has devolved into a struggle for and demonstration of physical, legal, and rhetorical power over those who have different understandings of reality than our own. And as long as Americans feels that they are justified in continuing to reject God, there is no hope in sight for this sad state of affairs to ever change.
Is Christianity arrogant to claim that Jesus Christ is the only way to God?
An Arrogant Claim or An Arrogant Christian?
One of the most common concerns about Christianity is its claim of exclusivity. In today's world it is considered evil to not be inclusive of everyone and everything. To show such intolerance is the epitome of arrogance. Many people use the presence of such intolerance and arrogance as a defeater for Christianity, meaning that they reject its truth claims because along with those truth claims comes the claim to be the exclusive way to God. There are a few things to consider when examining this challenge, though.
"The technique of examining all of the evidence before conclusions are drawn is required by the proper use of inductive research methodology. Accordingly, such an approach is utilized not only in physics, but in such varied disciplines as law, medical science, criminal justice, and journalism. Historians also investigate the known facts to find whether an event actually happened or not."
"It solves nothing to state one's views to be correct, regardless how vociferously the claim is made. However helpful it may be to report the conclusions of other scholars, neither does this solve the issue unless one also provides reasons why their views are correct. Additionally, to reject rival positions in an a priori manner is likewise illegitimate. Both believers and unbelievers could respond in this way, revealing why these detrimental attempts need to be avoided. Such approaches are inadequate precisely because they fail to address the data. There is no substitute for a careful investigation of the possibilities."
"Conclusions that are drawn before and against the facts are both non-historical and non-scientific. To rule out the possibility of miracles a priori is not a valid procedure. We must investigate the evidence and then draw our conclusions."
"History, like all inductive disciplines, is based on weighing the evidence derived from the sources before a decision is made. Historians must examine their data to ask whether an event actually occurred, in spite of the doubts that might be raised."
"Since it is claimed that miracles have happened in space-time history, they can be investigated as such."
"Scholars ought not reject the possibility of an event before an investigation. Such a priori dismissals constitute improper historical methodology, even if we dislike the conclusion indicated by the data."
The very origin and existence of gratitude provide evidence of the truth of Christianity.
Introduction
Is it possible that gratitude points to the true worldview? I believe so; in fact, I believe that gratitude's origin, practice, and acceptance as true all help to eliminate certain worldviews and is strongly supported by another one. Everything from the origin of gratitude to its practice in everyday life points to the truth of the Christian worldview. Allow me to explain.
Origins and Survival of Gratitude
It is quite a challenge for gratitude to take hold in a culture of organisms that are fighting for the existential survival of the fittest among the individuals. Gratitude may be shown to another party in multiple ways, usually involving the giving of some resource, to the disadvantage of the grateful party. If the other party does not see value in the gratitude, they may respond by further reducing the grateful party's resources to the point of elimination of that party. Given simple survival-of-the-fittest naturalism, gratitude did not stand a chance to survive as a characteristic of the "fittest" of organisms.
Gratitude, from a naturalistic evolutionary psychological point of view, does not have a chance to originate, must less survive. The fact that gratitude has survived and is commonly extended and accepted by parties today indicates that there were more than just naturalistic mechanisms involved in its origin and survival. If more than naturalism is required for gratitude, then naturalism (atheism) has been eliminated as a viable explanation for the world that we see and experience every day. I go into more detail on this in my post "Thanksgiving, Evolution, and Design."
Gratitude Requires Agency
In that post, I explain that gratitude requires two subjects: the one communicating gratitude and the one the gratitude is communicated to. Both of these subjects must be free agents capable of choosing to (or not to) extend and accept the gratitude. Naturalism does not have the resources for agents to truly exist- all "agents" in naturalism are ultimately just different configurations of deterministically controlled (no free choice at all) matter, thus all gratitude (extended or accepted) is robotic and not true or authentic. Ultimately, if naturalism is true, not only is the environment antagonistic for gratitude's origin (and survival), gratitude is not truly extended or accepted anyway.
The fact that we all know that we have a free choice to authentically extend gratitude and a free choice to authentically accept gratitude tells us that agents exist and that naturalism is, therefore, false. In his book "Agents Under Fire," philosopher of mind Dr. Angus Menuge goes into great detail about the current state of the debate over the existence of actual agents in reality and naturalists' attempts to explain their existence. See my review of the book here: Book Review: Agents Under Fire. Ultimately, naturalism only has room for imitations (no matter how sophisticated) of free will and thus it only has room for imitations (no matter how sophisticated) of gratitude.
The Morality of Gratitude
Most people would grant that it is better to be grateful than to not be grateful. This "better" judgement is not merely understood to be a judgement of practicality; it is understood to be a judgement of morality. There is a clear distinction between practicality and morality that people generally recognize, and gratitude (independent of a practicality judgement) is understood to have a "good" moral judgement. And this judgement is not just a subjective opinion about morality but an objective claim that is independent of how many people do claim or do believe it or do not claim or do not believe it.
If naturalism is true, then all morality reduces to practicality, and practicality and morality ultimately are not independent of or even distinct from one another. On naturalism, the "moral" status of a specific instance of offering gratitude is necessarily dependent upon its practical implications. Which means that if showing gratitude could result in negative effects on the one showing the gratitude (such as in gratitude's natural origins), then it is judged to be immoral. But most people understand that showing gratitude is never immoral. And since naturalism does not allow for such a judgement, naturalism is defeated on this third count.
But That's Not All!
Naturalism is not the only worldview defeated by these three tests of reality. Any worldview that denies the existence of free will and/or agents is defeated (this would include worldviews like atheism, Buddhism, deism, and some forms of theism that deny free will). Any worldview that does not allow for the distinction between practicality and morality is also defeated (this would include atheism, pantheism, panentheism, new age and other occultic worldviews). And the most sweeping test of the three: Any worldview that posits a naturalistic origin of human psychology is defeated (this would be all non-theistic worldviews). When taken together, every atheistic, pantheistic, deistic, and deterministic worldview is removed from the table of possibility by the existence of gratitude.
What Is Left?
Ultimately, Christianity is the only worldview that escapes all three of these severe tests. But it is not always enough to merely exercise the use of the process of elimination to arrive at the final answer. We need to positively identify Christianity as the correct worldview to explain the existence of true, authentic gratitude.
First, let's examine where we left off: the distinction between practicality and morality. Practicality is a judgement based upon something's ability to bring a purpose or goal closer to fruition. Something is said to be "good" if it brings the goal closer, and it is said to be "bad" or "evil" if it moves the goal further away. An example would be a "good" move in the game of Chess would bring the player closer to check-mating his or her opponent. The philosophical term for these is "teleology;" it is a judgement based upon a purpose. Morality (that is the philosophical term, by the way), on the other hand is a judgement of intrinsic right and wrong that is independent of teleological implications. For instance, it is morally good (right) to run into a burning house to save the life of a stranger's child even if it would result in the (practical) loss of our own life. Self-sacrifice is morally good despite its teleological wrongness.
However, without some objective standard by which to judge right and wrong, there is only subjective or relative opinion, which ultimately would lead to "might makes right." With Christianity, God is the standard by which moral judgments are made. This standard is independent of how many of whoever believes whichever way. If one society believes that murder is good and another believes that it is evil, the objective standard of God's nature allows us to know which society is right and which is wrong. This video from Reasonable Faith helps to explain morality:
Last year I came across an article about a study that empirically demonstrates seven benefits of gratitude. The problem for the atheist (or agnostic or skeptic) is that unless Christianity is true, gratitude is nothing more than a generally "useful fiction"- evolution has preserved those who embrace falsehood in order to survive not those who embrace truth. If your intellectual goal is to go beyond what simply works to what is true, then Christianity is the only worldview that makes sense of all the evidence, including the ability to make sense of evidence (philosopher Alvin Plantinga goes into great detail on this implication in his book "Where the Conflict Really Lies"). I like how Os Guiness explains the reality that we experience and how it relates to the truth of Christianity:
Conclusion
Christianity is not true because gratitude works; gratitude works because Christianity is true. Gratitude merely reflects this reality. If you understand the value of gratitude, it is time to take your understanding of it beyond mere pragmatism to discover its foundation and why it works. As we move into the Christmas season it is the most appropriate time to investigate the evidence for the truth of Christianity. Start with investigating the linchpin of Christianity: the claim of the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here is a post that provides an overview of the evidence: Did the Historical Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? I encourage you to also follow the links contained in the post to dig deeper into the details of the evidence.
"You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."- John 8:32
"America's tragedy today is that while that motto adorns the university walls, for many people it no longer animates the mind."- Os Guinness
"Far from being a naïve and reactionary notion, truth is one of the simplest, most precious gifts without which we would not be able to handle reality or negotiate life."
"Our challenge today is not to lament, protest, or simply talk about the crisis of truth in one of a hundred ways. Rather, it is to do something about it by becoming people of truth and learning to live free."
"Postmodernism, in fact, is the mirror image of modernism and is born of its deficiencies. It is therefore equally confused and equally confusing, but in a reverse way."
"If truth is truth, then differences make a difference — not just between truth and lies but between intimacy and alienation in relationships, between harmony and conflict in neighborhoods, between efficiency and incompetence in business, between reliability and fraud in science and journalism, between trust and suspicion in leadership, between freedom and tyranny in government, and even between life and death."
"When nothing can be judged except judgment itself— 'judgmentalism'—the barriers between the unthinkable, acceptable, and doable collapse entirely. And then, since life goes on and the sky doesn't fall, people draw the conclusion that the original concern was unfounded. Lighten up, the newly amoral say as they skip forward blithely, complicit in their own corruption."
Has Dr. Sean Carroll escaped the theistic implications of the Big Bang?
Does The Universe Have A Cause?
One of the most popular arguments for God's existence is the argument from the beginning of the universe. It goes like this:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
That conclusion serves as a springboard to identify that the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, and possess immense causal power. When combined with other scientific observations of the universe, it is implied that this cause additionally is both intelligent and personal. The argument from the beginning of the universe provides powerful evidence that God is the Cause of the universe.
Because this argument's reasoning is valid and its conclusion strongly implies theism, atheists commonly attack the argument by denying one of its premises: namely, the second one, that the universe had a beginning. Dr. Sean Carroll is one such atheist. He attempts to escape the theistic implications of the beginning of the universe without denying the (appearance of a) beginning of the universe. A friend presented to me this slideshow from Dr. Carroll not too long ago:
Can an all-loving and all-powerful God possibly have reasons for allowing all the evil, pain, and suffering in this world?
The Purpose Driven Life (hardback, Kindle, audio book) by Rick Warren is a book that I have meant to review for quite some time now. I had heard about it when it first came out in the early 2000s and had heard both raving reviews and scathing critiques. It was not until my pastor at the time did a sermon series on it that it really caught my attention. Over the years I have referred to it here and there in my blog posts, and I believe that the time has come for me to give it a full chapter-by-chapter review from the perspective of a defender of the Christian faith.
Some people have wondered why I decided to review The Purpose Driven Life considering it is not a book that is focused on the defense of the Christian faith. My reason is quite simple: Rick Warren makes the claim in this book that God has multiple reasons for allowing evil, pain, and suffering in our lives. This claim, if demonstrated to be correct, directly addresses one of the most common and emotionally powerful challenges to God's goodness, His power, and even His existence: the problem of evil, pain, and suffering.
Initially, I had separated this review into multiple posts to keep the individual posts shorter, but it has been requested of me that I publish the whole review as a single post. This review will consist of my usual chapter-by-chapter summary format with my recommendation at the end; however, I have added additional thoughts for each part of the book between the summaries of those respective parts. I will include some of my initial impressions from years ago and reflections on the book's content that have bounced around in my mind from the last several years (including some of the theological critiques).
Atheists sound the alarm: Removing God from culture is dangerous!
Warnings To A Godless Society
Earlier this year I highlighted the warnings of rejecting God, coming from the mouth of an atheist. Richard Dawkins saw the moral degradation of world society and couldn't help to understand that the world's rejection of God's existence (that he, no doubt, helped catalyze) has led us here. He warned that it would continue, and in recent months, America has certainly seen Dawkins' warnings come true.
With the rejection of God comes the rejection of two important concepts that keep civilized society together: the existence of objective moral obligations and duties, and the existence of intrinsic human value that is grounded in our being created in the Image of God.
With the rejection of the first, there is no objective "right" or "wrong," all thoughts, actions, and behaviors just are- they have no moral value whatsoever, and none can be correctly judged as "evil" or "good." Every evil act, from the "eugenics" promoted by Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger to domestic and international child sex trafficking, have become common in our world. Politicians, the media, and even everyday citizens often turn a blind eye to these acts because "who is to say that these acts are 'evil'?"
With the rejection of the second, there is no reason to think that humans have intrinsic value and should not be used however we wish towards our goals. A human's value is wholly constituted in their ability to contribute to an arbitrary purpose set by someone in power over them. In the event that a person has a goal of achieving career development or sexual pleasure, that means that if a child must be murdered or raped in order to achieve that goal, the rape and murder are not wrong because that child possesses no intrinsic value and, of course, the rape and murder are not evil because there is no objective "right" or "wrong," "good" or "evil" by which to properly categorize the rape or murder (or torture, or theft, etc.).
