Compromising the Kingdom

Introduction

As many of my readers and friends are aware, I am a big proponent of unity within the Church. I like to see interactions among ministries that specialize in certain areas of knowledge and evangelism for the cause of expanding the Kingdom. At the same time, though, I rarely shy aware from difficult theological discussions and differences. I hold certain views that I will accept and address the most difficult challenges against. I've always said that if one has the truth, they should not be afraid to be challenged. Yet we also need to understand and recognize challenges when our views cannot overcome them and adjust or abandon our views as necessary.

Having said that, I believe that when ministries or individuals engage in debates or discussions concerning doctrines on which they disagree, it is of the highest importance that they recognize the points of agreement between them. They can then clearly articulate the disagreement and the reasons, then engage those reasons with the highest level of gentleness, respect, and academic prowess.

Unfortunately, this week I read an article by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (AiG) that meets none of these standards. Now, before you continue reading this post, please read Ham's article "Compromise Being Spread;" the rest of this post assumes you have read it.

Ravi Zacharias on Race and Homosexuality

This quote got me thinking...

"The reason we are against racism is because a person's race is sacred. A person's ethnicity is sacred. You cannot violate it. My race is sacred; your race is sacred; I dare not violate it. The reason we react against the issue of homosexuality the way we do is because sexuality is sacred. You cannot violate it. How do you treat one as sacred and desacrelize the other? Sex is a sacred gift of God. I can no longer justify an aberration of it in somebody else's life than I can justify my own proclivities to go beyond my marital boundaries.

Every man here who is an able-bodied man will tell you temptation stalks you every day. Does it have anything to do with your love for your spouse? Probably not, because you can love your spouse with 100% desire to love the person, but the human body reacts to the sight entertained by the imagination and gives you all kinds of false hints that stolen waters are going to be sweeter. They are not. They leave you emptier. So a disposition or a proclivity does not justify expressing that disposition and that proclivity. That goes across the board for all sexuality.

When God created mankind and womankind, it was His plan, not our plan. It is extraordinary what He said. He said, 'It is not good for man to live alone.' Well, man wasn't living alone; God was with him. Why did He say that? He created the mystique and the majesty and the charm and the complimentary nature of womankind in a way that made it possible for her to meet his emotional needs that God, Himself, put only within her outside himself from himself in her in that complimentariness. It is a design by God." -Ravi Zacharias*

Is Pain Inherently Evil?

I want to take a few minutes to look at the question of pain. I have two reasons for choosing this topic today. The first is that many people outside the Christian worldview say that pain is incompatible with the loving God of Christianity. The second reason is that this view is also a very popular view within Christianity. The problem of pain causes many to avoid Christianity and others to walk away from it. I want to address both of those in this post.

The Hunger Games: Revisited

A few weeks ago I posted a critique of the movie The Hunger Games. It came to my attention that Fred Edwords posted a short piece at the American Humanist Association's website addressing the general evangelical response to the movie. He linked to my original article and broadly addressed my comparison of the society of The Capital to where today's societies are leading. Mr. Edwords had two main points of contention that I feel need to be addressed.

Secular vs. Agnostic Society
The first point of contention that I considered the society in The Hunger Games to be secular and not merely agnostic. Edwords claims that there was no mention of God (which he's correct), thus the society must be concluded to be secular. He implies that that distinction removes the society from critiques of agnosticism. But is there really a distinction between secularism and agnosticism that allows such an escape?

In order for a society to avoid either label of "theistic" or "atheistic", it cannot affirm or deny either. It must simply hold the position that God's existence cannot be known. This position is called "agnosticism". Secularism necessarily entails "agnosticism". Since secularism necessarily entails agnosticism, secularism is subject to critiques of agnosticism by the necessary connection.

Book Review: Why It Doesn't Matter What YOU Believe If Its Not True

Introduction

I am always on the look out for books that take different apologetic issues and puts them into bite-sized chunks that a complete beginner can understand and begin interacting with. That task is quite difficult because many authors take concepts and mutilate them in such a way that the beginner would actually be more confused than when they began.

The opportunity was given a while back to review a copy of Stephen McAndrew's new book "Why It Doesn't Matter What You Believe If It's Not True". The book is a short read of only 86 pages. The eleven chapters break up the short book into sections that are extremely manageable for those with only spurts of time to read or need time to digest. This format holds much promise to being a great introductory book. But does it come through?

Book Review: This Is Your Brain On Music 🧠🎵

Introduction

I am not a musician and do not sing (well), but like most people, I do love music. Both science and music have been long-time fascinations of mine, and when a certain book was spotted, the urge to buy it could not be resisted. "This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession" by Daniel J. Levitin is that book. It was a bit hefty of a book for me at the time I purchased it, but the idea of seeing the awesome connections between music and science was worth the risk. My usual style of book reviews begins with a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book and concludes with my thoughts. However, I have decided to invert this particular review to place my thoughts before the chapter-by-chapter summary because it may not be so obvious as to the reason why such a book would appear on a blog about defending the truth of the Christian worldview. Here are my thoughts followed by the chapter-by-chapter summary:

Reviewer's Thoughts

This book was an incredible read. The combination and connection of an art and science was quite thrilling and fascinating. It was extremely thought-provoking yet not difficult to understand. From the perspective of a Christian, this book is a "must-get". In our evangelistic efforts to defend the existence of God, we often like to use the argument from beauty- specifically appealing to music. The content in this book, though, can be used to demonstrate the meticulous design that was required for music to not only be possible but to be appreciated as "beautiful" by humans. Every system that we know of with this level of intricacy and this many interdependent parts are the work of intelligent engineers. And the systems that add beauty to those engineered system are the work of the most talented architects. Therefore, it is reasonable also to believe that the entire system that is responsible for music, from the physics responsible for sound creation to the auditory system's ability to receive it, is the work of an engineer- one who, in order to create physics and the universe must transcend both. This transcendent engineer is also responsible for the portion of the system that appreciates music for its beauty and emotional connections (the brain and mind); therefore, it is also reasonable to conclude that this transcendent architect is also a personal being who desires a relationship with those He endowed with this ability. The only option for such a being is the God of the Bible. It is only in the Christian God that all of the scientific data provided by Levitin can find a reasonable and consistent explanation.

If you are an apologist and musician, this book will be "mind-candy" to you. It will provide you with a way to appeal to science when defending God's existence to other musicians. If you are just an apologist, it will provide more teleological evidence for God's existence that can be appealed to. I cannot recommend "This is Your Brain On Music" highly enough.

Recommended Books for Further Reading:

Who Was Adam: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity
Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science
Where the Conflict Reality Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism

Chapter-by-Chapter Summary:

Book Introduction

Levitin introduces his book by telling the reader of his fascination with music, psychology, and neurology. He addresses anticipated cringing from musicians who may believe that the art should not be reduced to dry, mechanistic science. He shows how artists and scientists hold many things in common, and how their respective disciplines can be used to inform the other.

Making Sense of the Resurrection

Two years ago Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 published an Essay Series: Is Christianity True? Many apologetics bloggers contributed to the series. My piece was on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This weekend as Christians around the world celebrate Christ's resurrection- the event reconciles us to the Father- let's not forget that if, in fact, this did not happen in history, our faith is useless (1 Cor 15), and anyone who does not believe it has no hope (John 14:6). Here is the greatly abbreviated case for the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ, as submitted for the essay series: