Fundamental Radical Extremist

We hear these words all the time, but what do they really mean? Often these adjectives precede or follow a religious term in the case of "radical Muslim" or "Christian fundamentalist." In an interview this week of Muslim turned atheist author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, TV show host Travis Smiley made the statement that Christians commit murder every day. Citing shootings inside post offices and schools, he says "There are so many more examples of Christians, Ayaan, who do that [murder] than you could ever give me of Muslims who have done that inside this country where you live and work" (full video here).

The claim by Smiley seems to be that Christians are responsible for as much violence as Muslims. They say people commit crimes from all religious backgrounds, so the problem isn't religion, but extremism. On the contrary, religion is the center of the problem. Smiley, like Rosie O'Donnell before him make three major errors in reasoning.

A 'Religious' Problem

For the third time this week, someone said to me, "I'm not really a religious person," so I'd like to respond to what might be a common misunderstanding of the Christian religion. It made me wonder how a "religious" person is different from a regular person. If these three friends represented only anecdotal accounts, it wouldn't be worth blogging about, but I fear it represents an underlying assumption that's widely held.

Last month, famous biologist and UCI professor Dr. Francisco Ayala donated $1.5 million dollars to a UCI genetics program. Dr. Ayala was awarded the Templeton Prize in March which comes with the cash prize matching this gift he gave to the University. The Templeton Foundation was impressed by Ayala's work in solving the problem of faith and science. In reference to this, Ayala told the press "We don't have belief in evolution; belief is accepting something for which we have no evidence" ($1.5 Million Dollar Prize Donated to UCI, Orange County Register, April 22, 2010, Local 3) So, according to Ayala, once we relegate faith to the private and personal realm, and we allow science to determine the reality of our daily lives, the problem goes away. In short, science is objective; religious belief is not.

Arizona's Immigration Bill: 'Racial Sin' or Liberal Spin?

What is with all the controversy over Arizona's immigration bill SB 1070? I'm a law enforcement officer relocating to Arizona next month, so I figured I should read this bill for myself. After all, unlike the 1,100 page health care bill, it's only 15 pages long.

The primary charge by critics is the deprivation of civil rights. Since the bill's passing, we've all heard of public outcry from immigrant groups as well as boycotts by cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. Liberal Christian and Sojourners founder, Jim Wallis, has gone as far as calling for all Christians to blatantly violate the new law. Despite threats to sue Arizona, at least two leading White House officials who voiced their opposition to the bill admitted they haven't even read it. So, before I decided how Christians should respond, I read it myself.

The text of the bill begins by laying out the specific way in which the bill is to be implemented. Despite the claim by Jim Wallis, in a Huffington Post article that the bill "would require law enforcement officials in the state of Arizona to investigate the immigration status" or "all law enforcement officers will be enlisted to hunt down undocumented people," nothing in the text even implies as much. The bill doesn't require law enforcement to do anything. In contrast, the bill specifically requires what law enforcement is NOT to do. You'll find it's actually pretty restrictive.

The Good-O-Meter

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

 - Ephesians 2:8-9 -

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us so richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

 - Titus 3:5-7 -

The Facts of the Resurrection

Earlier this month I made a post drawing your attention to the Essay Series taking place at Apologetics 315.

All of the essays have been a pleasure to read and the series will continue until the end of the month. If you have missed the series make sure you check it out. Brian has made audio recordings of all the essays and will be placing all of the essays in a ebook which can be downloaded at the end of the month. Sure to be a great resource!

My essay entitled The Facts of the Resurrection was posted today. Check it out and feel free to leave comments.

Many thanks to Brian for allowing me to participate in the series.

Book Review: The Case for Life

Quick Facts:

Title: The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture
Author: Scott Klusendorf
Publisher/Year: Crossway, 2009
Pages: 254

Review:

The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf is an absolutely outstanding defense of the pro-life position with regard to the abortion debate. Being familiar with Scott's work through Stand to Reason I was looking forward to this book with much anticipation. Scott is one of the most able, articulate, persuasive, and winsome pro-life speakers in the country and his book does not fail to deliver. Scott lays out his thesis in the introduction:

My own thesis is that a biblically informed pro-life view explains human equality, human rights, and moral obligations better than its secular rivals and that rank-and-file pro-life Christians can make an immediate impact provided they're equipped to engage the culture with a robust but graciously communicated case for life.1

An Evolutionary Explanation for Morality

It seems as though college students want to be lectured more about morality these days. At least that's the impression we get at one community college in south Orange County. In addition to the February 26th McDowell-Corbett debate (organized by Apologetic Junkie) on the question “Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?” there was another moral-themed academic event on the Saddleback College campus on the same night, on the same topic, and in the same room that we used for the overflow crowd just a few hours later. World renowned evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala was a guest lecturer in a lecture series sponsored by the biology and chemistry departments in a talk entitled “Biological Foundations of Morality”.

Ayala’s argument is that morality comes from both biological and cultural evolution which he develops through two main contentions: 1) The human propensity for a “capacity for ethics” (ability to perceive moral actions as good or evil) is a result of biological evolution, and 2) the development of “moral norms” (socially acceptable conduct) comes about through cultural evolution.

Can Bias Make You Open-minded?

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Philosopher J.P. Moreland points out that conservative Christian scholars have a point of view, like everyone else. The Christian's bias, though, doesn't inform his conclusions the same way biases inform the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar and liberal theologians.

Because people like Robert Funk start with the "scientific" view that there can be no miracles in principle, their bias arbitrarily eliminates options before the game even gets started. Before they consider the evidence for miracles, it’s thrown out. Funk must conclude the Gospels have been tampered with because his presupposition demands it. He can't consider any evidence for a resurrection because he's rejected from the outset the possibility of miracles.

A conservative Christian is not so encumbered. Yes, he has a bias, but his bias informs the process in a different way than a theological liberal’s bias does. He believes in the laws of nature, but is also open to the possibility of God's intervention. Both are consistent with his worldview. This means he can be faithful to all the evidence, unhindered by a metaphysical view that automatically eliminates supernatural options before even viewing the evidence.

The bias of the Christian broadens his categories, making him more open-minded. The believer has a greater chance of discovering truth, because he can follow the evidence wherever it leads. The bias of the Jesus Seminar, on the other hand, makes it close-minded and dogmatic.

Can bias make you open-minded? Under the right set of circumstances, absolutely.

Is There Any Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

Jonathan Morrow at thinkChristianly.org recently addressed this issue:

Yesterday, I had the great privilege and joy of preaching our Easter service at Fellowship Bible Church. My topic: The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?

What is the difference between believing in Jesus and the Easter Bunny? That may seem like a silly question...but what would you say?

Full MP3 Audio here.

Make sure you check out Jonathan's website here and his book here.

Happy Resurrection Day!

He is Risen! He is Risen Indeed!

"The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead.'" - Matthew 28:5-7

Read This: 50 Reasons Jesus Had to Die

Looking for Resources on the Resurrection? Check out these sites:

Apologetics 315

Apologetic Junkie

Bringing Back the Tao

Truthbomb Apologetics

Wintery Knight

Good Friday - Remembering What Christ Did For Us

Is Christianity True? Essay Series at Apologetics 315

Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 has brought Christian bloggers together from across the web and compiled a series of essays to be featured throughout the month of April on the topic "Is Christianity True?":

For every weekday in April 2010, Apologetics 315 will feature an essay contributed by a Christian apologetics blogger in response to the question: Why is Christianity True? The goal of this project is a simple one: to share the reasons that we have found compelling to believe that Christianity is true. This is not intended to prove the Christian worldview beyond all doubt or to counter every objection of those who zealously reject God. Rather, it is intended as a starting point for those sincerely looking for truth – for those wondering if there are good reasons to believe. 

(MP3 audio here)

All 23 essays have also been recorded as MP3 audio files to be released along with their respective text version. These audio files can be downloaded through each day’s blog post, or through the “Is Christianity True?” podcast feed here or in iTunes. At the end of the month, readers may download an ebook version of the essay collection.

Read Brian's full introduction here.

I have been privileged with the opportunity to contribute an essay of my own which will be featured on April 15. Check out the list of contributors here.

The line-up looks great and I am looking forward to reading each essay. Make sure you check out Apologetics 315 for a great new essay each weekday.

The Problem of Unfair Damnation

Jim Wallace at PleaseConvinceMe.com tackles the question of hell and the destiny of the unevangelized:



Check out Jim Wallace's website PleaseConvinceMe.com and his you tube channel for more great videos.

Jesus and the Apostles were Evidentialists

Christian apologists disagree when it comes to methodology. That is, apologists don't agree on how to do apologetics! The disagreement lies in the answer to this question: What is the most biblical and effective way to communicate and defend the truth of the gospel? Various methodologies include the classical approach, evidentialism, the cumulative case method, and presuppositionalism.

I do not intend to solve the debate here. For those who are interested in this topic please see the book Five Views on Apologetics.

When I say "Jesus and the Apostles were Evidentialists" I am using the term evidentialist (or evidentialism) in a much broader sense to mean "presenting evidence or appealing to facts in order to demonstrate the truthfulness of the Christian faith." Apologists from various methodologies (including the classical, evidentialist, and cumulative case approaches) can agree on the biblical nature and effectiveness of this broader definition.

Reading through the New Testament it is hard to deny the fact that both Jesus and the apostles backed up their claims by appeals to facts and evidence. In other words, they were evidentialists.

As you read the verses below pay particular attention to how often reference is made to the resurrection of Christ, especially in the book of Acts. This really shouldn't be surprising. After all, it was Jesus Himself who said,

An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:39-40). 

In other words, the Resurrection is the sign given to mankind as evidence for the truthfulness of the Christian faith.

One Way by Apologetix

What is Apologetix? Picture this: Weird Al Yankovic meets William Lane Craig.

Well...maybe not exactly.

Apologetix is a Christian parody band with a special interest in...you guessed it...apologetics! Some good, wholesome, entertaining music so you'll "always be ready to make a song defense."

Check out their website here.

The song below is titled One Way and is a parody of the song One Week by Barenaked Ladies:



Check out another Apologetix video here: Smooth Grandmama (a parody of Smooth Criminal by Michael Jackson).

Is God a Genocidal Bully?

(Conversantlife.com) by Sean McDowell

Richard Dawkins sure thinks so. In The God Delusion he wrote:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

This is certainly a well-worded objection, but is it convincing? I remember the first time I heard this objection. It unsettled me quite a bit. How could a loving God be so malevolent as to command the extermination of an entire people-group (the Canaanites) including men, women, and children (Josh 9:11-15)? Undoubtedly, this is one of the most difficult questions confronting Christians. While not all answers will entirely soothe the emotions, there are three points that can help us makes sense of this challenge. (For a more in-depth analysis, I suggest reading an excellent article by William Lane Craig.)

Who Made God?

(Stand to Reason) by Melinda Penner

Who Made God?

From Edgar Andrews’ Who Made God?: Searching for a Theory of Everything.  Andrews is Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London and an international expert on large molecules.  His book is insightful, engaging, and light-hearted for a deep subject.  It's scientifically and philosophically astute.  Andrews' has no fear of the atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, who attempt to wield science as a weapon against theism.

…There is one answer to the question that atheists are happy to accept – the answer “We made God.”

…For the moment let me point out three small problems with the “We made God” hypothesis.  First, it falls into the very same trap that the atheist cunningly sets when he asks, “If God made everything, who made God?”  Because when he confidently declares that we made God it must then be asked, “If we made God, who made us?”  Since the answer “God made us” is obviously excluded ab initio, the question “Who made us?” is no more answerable than “Who made God?”  Just to replay, “Evolution made us” simply will not do.  As Scott Adams has observed, “Evolution isn’t a cause of anything; it’s an observation, a way of putting things in categories.  Evolution says nothing about causes.”  Or to put it more simply, if evolution made us, who made evolution?

Is Atheism a Crutch?

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Some say Christianity is just a crutch. But let's turn the question on its edge for a moment. Is atheism an emotional crutch, wishful thinking? The ax cuts both ways.

Perhaps atheists are rejecting God because they've had a bad relationship with their father. Instead of inventing God, have atheists invented non-God? Have they invented atheism to escape some of the frightening implications of God's existence? Think about it.

And to the question "Is Christianity a crutch?" I say yes, but not in the way the atheist puts the challenge.  Just as someone with a broken leg needs a crutch to lean on to help him heal, Christians have recognized that we are broken people who need a Savior who is the only Healer of our sin.

We all need a crutch. The questions is, are you using a crutch that will hold you?

A Text Out Of Context: 2 Chronicles 7:14

One of the most frequently quoted passages from 2 Chronicles is verse 7:14:

If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

I hear this verse often because it is commonly quoted with reference to America. We need revival people! And if America as a nation would only humble itself, pray, seek the face of God, and turn from wickedness, then God would hear from heaven, forgive our sin, and heal our land. Sometimes the verse is applied more specifically to Christians living in America since God refers to "my people." Regardless, notice that God is making a promise: If you do this, then God will do that.

No doubt you have heard this verse quoted every year on the National Day of Prayer. Look for it again this coming May 6, 2010. However, to use 2 Chronicles 7:14 in this manner is to take the passage out of context and skew its application.

7 Factors for Testing a Historical Hypothesis

(Apologetics 315) by Brian Auten

The following is an excerpt from William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, p. 233:

"The process of determining which historical reconstruction is the best explanation will involve the historian's craft, as various factors will have to be weighed. In his book Justifying Historical Descriptions, C. Behan McCullagh lists the factors which historians typically weigh in testing a historical hypothesis:

1. The hypothesis, together with other true statements, must imply further statements describing present observable data.
2. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope (that is, imply a greater variety of observable data) than rival hypotheses.
3. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory power (that is, make the observable data more probable) than rival hypotheses.
4. The hypothesis must be more plausible (that is, be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths) than rival hypotheses.
5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc (that is, include fewer new suppositions about the past not already implied by existing knowledge) than rival hypotheses.
6. The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beleifs (that is, when conjoined with accepted truths, imply fewer false statements) than rival hypotheses.
7. The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling conditions (2)-(6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis, after further investigation, exceeding it in meeting these conditions."

For writings from William Lane Craig on the Historical Jesus, see here. Wikipedia on the historical method. Philosophical papers by C. Behan McCullagh here.