Apologetics Is Practically a Fifth Wheel, Right?

Consider the Great Commission, with its recursive or perpetual command to future generations of disciples:

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 23.16-20, ESV)

Without going as far as to insist that the word “if” (as used below) either expresses or implicates the proposition that something will occur only if such-and-such occurs (we’ve mentioned both Gricean nonconventional implicature and the lesson of John 21.20-24 in the past), think about how likely or unlikely it is that one can be a disciple of Christ without abiding in Christ’s word:

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8.31-32, ESV)

Also think about whether certain groups that are nominally Christian at the very least are some who abide in the teaching of Christ—as if JWs or polytheistic Mormons, for example, abide in the teaching of Christ:

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. (2 John 1.9, ESV)*

How does one fulfill the Great Commission apart from the education, tutoring or mentoring of new converts to Christianity? What are some possible means through which it is ensured that disciples of Christ remain in the teaching and word of Christ? Is it possible that Trinitarian apologetics has ever been used either of God or of man to keep someone from straying into Arianism or Oneness theology? Is it possible that counter-cultural or counter-cult apologetics have at some moment had the effect of some person’s remaining true to things such as monotheism, the deity of Christ, inconvenient truths about capital punishment or sexual ethics, the reality of hell, and the belief of and trust in what God has said through his prophets and through the apostles of Christ?

These are some things one should think about if he or she as a Christian is ready to put any or all forms of Christian apologetics on the back burner or out to the curb.  Think about it further and you may discover that the various and numerous types of Christian apologetics are comparable to the preaching of the Law and Gospel in the degree to which they are important and have a place in the life of each and every Christian, each person already having his or her own strengths, interests and social connections which in many instances may call for one’s specializing in one of those types of apologetics.

_____________

* Note: practically everyone has “gone ahead” if one will use the phrase in the idiosyncratic manner in which some guy once used the following verse to declare to me that he knew all along, as it were, that I am not a Christian.  After all, and for example, everyone has a naive belief about what biblical personalities looked like: some think that Christ was Black, others thinking he looked like “people from the Middle East,” others having thought of Christ as being White, et cetera: only one group of people here can posses a veridical belief on the matter since it is impossible in any serious sense to speak of someone as being phenotypically both Black and White, for example.

Are Christians Totally Depraved?

Tullian explains what it is is and isn't.
D.

Believe it or not, this is an important question. It’s not simply a theological question. It’s a theological question that has profound practical implications. Our answer will inevitably reveal our understanding of the gospel and reflect our understanding of sin and grace.

First things first: what total depravity isn’t.

Total depravity does not mean “utter depravity.” Utter depravity means that someone is as bad as he/she can possibly be. Thankfully, God’s restraining grace keeps even the worst of us from being utterly depraved. The worst people who have ever lived could’ve been worse. So, don’t read “utter depravity” into “total depravity.”

Well, if total depravity isn’t utter depravity, then what is it? As understood and articulated by theologians for centuries, the idea of “total depravity” means more than one thing.

On the one hand, total depravity affirms that we are all born “dead in our trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1-3; Colossians 2:13), with no spiritual capacity to incline ourselves Godward. We do not come into this world spiritually neutral; we come into this world spiritually dead. Therefore, we need much more than to reach out from our spiritual hospital bed and take medicine that God offers. We need to be raised from death to life. In this sense, total depravity means we are “totally unable” to go to God. We will not because we cannot, and we cannot because we’re dead.

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. (Romans 3:10-12)

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7-8)

Salvation only happens when God comes to us.

When the Resurrection and the Life says “Lazarus, come forth”, the rest of the story does not depend on Lazarus. He can drag his feet all the way-admittedly, a hell of a thing to do-but he rises, no matter what. He just plain does… Jesus came to raise the dead. The only qualification for the gift of the Gospel is to be dead. You don’t have to be smart. You don’t have to be good. You don’t have to be wise. You don’t have to be wonderful. You just have to be dead. That’s it. (Robert Capon)

So, in the sense above, Christians are obviously not totally depraved. We who were dead have been made alive.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus…(Ephesians 2:4-6)

But once God regenerates us by his Spirit, draws us to himself, unites us to Christ, raises us from the dead, and grants us status as adopted sons and daughters, is there any sense in which we can speak of Christian’s being totally depraved?

Yes.

Theologians speak of total depravity, not only in terms of “total inability” to come to God on our own because we’re spiritually dead, but also in terms of sin’s effect: sin corrupts us in the “totality” of our being. Our minds are affected by sin. Our hearts are affected by sin. Our wills are affected by sin. Our bodies are affected by sin. This is at the heart of Paul’s internal struggle that he articulates in Romans 7:

For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.

The painful struggle that Paul gives voice to arises from his condition as simul justus et peccator (simultaneously justified and sinful). He has been raised from the dead and is now alive to Christ, but remaining sin continues to plague him at every level and in every way.

Paul’s testimony demonstrates that even after God saves us, there is no part of us that becomes sin free–we remain sinful and imperfect in all of our capacities, in the “totality” of our being. Even after God saves us, our thoughts, words, motives, deeds, and affections need the constant cleansing of Christ’s blood and the forgiveness that comes our way for free. This is what J.C. Ryle was getting at when he wrote, “Even the best things we do have something in them to be pardoned.”

While it is gloriously true for the Christian that there is nowhere Christ has not arrived by his Spirit, it is equally true that there is no part of any Christian in this life that is free of sin. Because of the totality of sins effect, therefore, we never outgrow our need for Christ’s finished work on our behalf–we never graduate beyond our desperate need for Christ’s righteousness and his strong and perfect blood-soaked plea “before the throne of God above.”

The reason this is so important is because we will always be suspicious of grace (“yes grace, but…”) until we realize our desperate need for it. Our dire need for God’s grace doesn’t get smaller after God saves us. In one sense, it actually gets bigger. Christian growth, says the Apostle Peter, is always “growth into grace”, not away from it. Many Christians think that becoming sanctified means that we become stronger and stronger, more and more competent. And although we would never say it this way, we Christian’s sometimes give the impression that sanctification is growth beyond our need for Jesus and his finished work for us: we needed Jesus a lot for justification; we need him less for sanctification.

The truth is, however, that Christian growth and progress involves coming to the realization of just how weak and incompetent we continue to be and how strong and competent Jesus continues to be for us. Spiritual maturity is not marked by our growing, independent fitness. Rather, it’s marked by our growing dependence on Christ’s fitness for us. Because we are daily sinners, we need God’s daily distributions of free grace that come our way as a result of Christ’s finished work. Christian growth involves believing and embracing the fact that, even as a Christian, you’re worse than you think you are but that God’s grace toward you in Christ is much bigger than you could ever imagine.

Because of total depravity, you and I were desperate for God’s grace before we were saved. Because of total depravity, you and I remain desperate for God’s grace even after we’re saved.

Thankfully, though our sin reaches far, God’s grace reaches infinitely farther.

Lame Arguments Defending Alcohol Consumption

A good look at some of the reasons folks give for 'promoting' Christian liberty in consuming alcohol. There may be a legitimate place for it, but we must be careful not to flaunt the liberty we have, as mature Christian (in particular), to not create stumbling blocks as well. While I have an occasional drink, I do not think it is the best thing for all folks, and even for myself 15-20 years ago...In any case Fred Butler adds some good insight into this discussion.

Lame Arguments the YRR Should Avoid When Defending Alcohol Consumption

Whilst I was on my blog break, John MacArthur, stirred the dander of the 30-something pastor set who love to play like they are sophisticated metropolitans. He wrote an articlebasically telling them to put down their beer steins and wake up to the fact that there is more to Christian liberty than the unshackled, “William Wallace” freedom of drinking imported booze.

I know they were upset with him, because I read a lot of their blog posts and tweets. Not only did the bulk of them entirely miss the point John was making, a number of them would spiral off into left field with some lame arguments they put forth to defend their convictions.

I boiled those arguments down to the four or so lamest ones I encountered repeatedly, and I thought I would highlight them for our educational pleasure.

Before getting to them, however, let me offer some preemptive comments.

I am not a teetotaler. I would never advocate for being a teetotaler. I probably have just as much disdain, if not more, for the legalistic social mores hoisted upon undiscerning Christians by classic American fundamentalists as representing true, Christian virtue as the YRR folks do.

In fact, I like a good wine. I may have a glass if I am on vacation with my wife and we have opportunity to stay at one of those fancy Pacifica hotels dotting the coast of California. We sometimes splurge a little and buy a bottle of Bailey’s around Thanksgiving time that takes us a good couple of months to sip on.

However, I am also aware of the fact that alcohol in any form is viewed by the majority of American Christians as being “sinful.” Yes, I realize they are mistaken about that, but reality is reality, and that attitude is not changing anytime soon, in spite of YRR efforts to the contrary.

As long as beer and wine is perceived as a terrible vice used by party people on spring break, rowdy tailgaters at a football game, and tavern brawlers whose mugshots appear on the “Smoking Gun” website, it is not a wise idea for Christian ministers to promote alcohol consumption among their people.

My life is lived in front of many folks, and it is to those people I am responsible for ministering Christ. Making it a habit to flaunt my liberty with alcohol consumption is not helpful for them, and will only generate more confusion than is necessary.

Now, with that being stated, let’s look at the lame arguments the YRR make to defend their alcohol consumption.

Martin Luther and/or the Reformers and/or the Puritans brewed beer and consumed wine

This is generally the immediate response to my position of cautious moderation. “Well, Martin Luther and/or the Reformers drank beer, so why can’t we?”

Keep in mind that Martin Luther lived 500 YEARS AGO! While we certainly applaud Luther and express our heart-felt Christianly thanks for him defending the timeless truths of the Gospel, that does not mean we are to automatically emulate him, or any other Reformer for that matter, and his various social convictions.

Think about it. What is more important? That we reform ourselves according to biblicalstandards, or historical standards? Honestly, what was a normal part of society in Germany 500 years ago may had been acceptable, but was it necessarily biblical? Even if it is just American Christians who have weird hang-ups with alcohol because of the old prohibition days still doesn’t mean we need to be like German Christians today. It may not be the best use of liberty for them either just because they live in Europe and have no connection to our prohibition past.

The same can be said about the other Reformers as well. Do we adopt all the social conventions of the Reformers and the Puritans just because they did them? Several Reformers practiced astrology, like Phillip Melanchthon. That’s not to say everything Melanchthon wrote stinks of new age mysticism. He was just as much a complex sinner as the rest of us. But his belief in astrology does reflect a common, historic practice among many Protestants during his time. So, who is ready to reclaim horoscopes from the Fundies and reform them for the glory of God?

The more bizarre use of the “Luther drank beer” argument is the appeal to Puritans, who supposedly were quite the bar flies, or at least one would think so according to many of the YRR. But we’re talking about the Puritans. These were the guys who thought wedding rings were popish and outlawed Christmas during Cromwell’s Protectorate. Will we “reform” according to those convictions?

And just a closing word about Mark Driscoll’s absurd claim that a brewery was the first building the Pilgrims built upon arriving in the new world. This is an urban legend. If you and your people are sick and dying and winter is coming on in a strange land, do you waste time building a brewery? Or will it be basic shelter?

Food is abused by way too many people, but you don’t hear Christians crying out about gluttony. Yet there are more people in churches who overeat than there are alcoholics and drunkards, and no one rebukes these brothers and sisters for their reckless overindulgence in food.

The biggest (no pun intended) problem with this argument is that gluttony is not just overeating. It is especially NOT overeating in the sense of a guy eating an entire large pizza in one sitting or scarfing down Chili’s 3,200 calorie “Freakin’ Onion” appetizer all by himself.

Gluttony is always tied to drinking in the Scriptures. What we know to be a drunken, debauched lifestyle. One may say overeating is a part of the debauched lifestyle, but it is the idea of out-of-control, riotous living that makes “gluttony” sinful. This is not super-sizing your McDonald’s order.

Consider Deuteronomy 21:20:

And they shall say to the elders of his city,`This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.

If you look at the entire context, you have parents – PARENTS; you know, mama and daddy – bringing their son before the elders to be judged because he is basically a thick-headed good for nothing who spends his time and money (family’s money) on riotous living. The word “glutton” has the idea of a vile, worthless person. Notice what happens with this son. He is brought before the elders of the town so they can pass judgment upon him and if they judge against him, he is stoned to death. That’s the death penalty, folks. He is not executed for being 60 pounds overweight and having lunch at Jack in the Box every other day.

The health consequences associated with eating recklessly is no joke. Just ask anyone with diabetes. Overeating should be treated just as seriously as alcoholism.

Related to the “gluttony” argument is the “obesity is just as bad if not worse than alcoholism” argument. This one is usually put forth in the combox after a teetotaler lists a bunch of statistics telling how many people die from alcohol related deaths, or how many women and children are abused by alcoholic husbands or parents. As a rebuttal, it’s dogmatically proclaimed that obesity is just as bad if not worse of an epidemic and social problem as alcohol.

This is a profoundly ridiculous comparison. The societal impact of alcoholism and obesity is incomparable. That is because alcoholism has the greatest potential to destroy innocent lives.

Many innocent lives.

In fact, alcohol has destroyed those lives unmercifully. There are no Mother’s Against Obese Driving organizations advocating against 350 pound people driving automobiles. There are no laws against driving under the influence of fried chicken. A cop won’t stop a guy and ask him if he has been eating, and then give him a breathalyzer to test his blood-gravy level. And there is a good reason for this: Obesity only hurts one person. No man, after leaving the Macaroni Grill, has ever gotten into his SUV, and under the influence of the chicken Alfredo platter he consumed 30 minutes before, ran a stop light and killed a family.

Now, just so I am clear. I am not saying obesity is a good thing. Being overweight does have considerable health problems for the individual. AND I would say Christians should make eating healthy a part of their spiritual lives. My point here is not to advocate overeating, but to merely show that obesity is no where near being the societal problem associated with the consumption of alcohol. No where in the ball park. Obesity is a result of bad lifestyle choices. Much like smoking, another vice the YRR tend to encourage.

Why do we want to be so legalistic about alcohol when it is such a blessing to mankind? God created wine for us to enjoy the bounty of His earth. The prohibition is against drunkenness, not consumption.

It is believed that because wine is processed from grapes, and alcohol is a natural derivative of fermented grapes, that places alcohol in a special category of blessing. Additionally, YRR argue that passages like Psalm 104:15 which says, And wine that makes glad the heart of man, Oil to make his face shine, And bread which strengthens man’s heart proves that God blesses the consumption of alcohol. After all, Psalm 104 is a psalm of praise to God who provides all good things for mankind.

Of course, this line of argumentation ignores the overwhelming multitude of biblical passages that warn against the consumption of alcohol. Certainly the prohibition is against drunkenness, not consumption, but seeing that the Bible speaks so pointedly against the dangers of drinking alcohol, why would God’s pastor want to use a tavern as a setting for a men’s Bible study?

Moreover, this is the exact same argument I have heard from Christians who seriously think it is God blessed to smoke pot. I kid you not. I once had one fellow, with a stern conviction in his voice and passion in his eyes, explain to me that God gave ALL the grass and green herb of the field for man to use, and that means cannabis. I reckon, by extension it would also include opium and the coca plant. And before anyone tries to “rebut” me by saying “but the grass and herbs were meant to be for FOOD, not SMOKING, duh,” keep in mind that pot can be baked in brownies.

And one final thought in response to the “the prohibition against drunkenness, not consumption” reasoning. There is no prohibition against slavery in the Bible either. Really. Go look it up. Paul never condemned slavery as a practice. The only thing condemned was “man stealing.” So, as long as your slave isn’t “stolen” there is no prohibition against owning him or her. Who is up to the challenge of defending slavery for the glory of God? Anyone?

Lookit

You young, restless and reformed dudes, no one wants to stifle your fun. Yes, I realize a lot of you all were saved in one of those smothering, fundamentalist Baptist churches who regulated every behavior and activity with an iron fist of legalism like a draconian-driven HOA board of directors. I mean, you couldn’t even wear short pants in the church building, let alone even dream about drinking a beer. I sympathize with you. I really do. But honestly, is drinking beer really THAT important? Seriously?

I have a niece who, when we went to Sunday brunch at some fancy restaurant, would only eat macaroni and cheese and chicken nuggets. She had an entire buffet laid out before her, and she obsessed on the mac N’ cheese. I remember telling her, “You have this wonderful banquet of food and all you are eating is mac N’ cheese? You know, there is much more to life than mac N’ cheese.” YRR pastor, there is much more to Christian liberty than drinking imported beer.

The Mike Warnke of this Generation?

I post this, in part, because I used to listen to Mike Warnke and even bought his book. It is certainly sad when someone claiming to be a Christian makes up stuff to make their testimony sound better. I hoped it was not true with Warnke, and I would hope it wasn't true with Caner, but some of the evidence and questions raised by Caner's inconsistencies does not seem good.
A Plea to Ergun Caner

Back in the late 70s and early 80s before I was genuinely saved, I was a church attending kid who merely enjoyed running around the game circle and drinking red punch. I had a low interest in anything Christian at all. Later when I reached my teens and entered the high school and college youth groups, my church interests turned from game circles to the Christian "sisters" if you know what I mean. I might have had a wider interest in Christian related issues by that time, but still, it was marginal at best.

I did however begin to take an interest in the then growing contemporary Christian celebrity scene with music by Petra and Amy Grant, and the ever increasing popular "Jesus Junk" paraphernalia like "This Bloods for You" tee shirts. One specific celebrity I was drawn to was Mike Warnke. Warnke was the first official Christian comedian/speaker I ever heard. His testimony was earth shaking. He told the story about his rough up bringing at a truck stop, his early years as a fundamentalist Baptist kid who hated Catholics, his going into the Vietnam War, his involvement with drug abuse and free love, and eventually his introduction to witchcraft and eventually Satanism.

Warnke claimed he became a Satanic high priest who led all sorts of horrific rituals of sacrifice and sexual deviancy. He even told how he could command spirits to do levitations and other such supernatural acts. Eventually, he was saved by Jesus Christ from this wretched lifestyle and became an evangelist warning people, especially youth, against the evils of Satanism. He gained something of a reputation as an "expert" on Satanism, even writing a book on the subject incorporating his testimony called The Satan Seller. He even began to make the interview circuit on the TV news shows when commentary was need to explain the Satanic origins of Halloween.

I liked him because he told a good story. I must have handed out dozens of bootleg copies of his "testimony" tape, Mike Warnke Alive, not so much because I wanted to evangelize as I thought the man's story was wild and interesting. But wild is what really described Warnke's story.

In the early 90s, some reporters for Cornerstone Magazine, did a full investigation of Warnke's background and uncovered how all of it was an outright lie. A complete fabrication. He was never a satanic high priest. The original articles are still online detailing his background. Even more disturbing was his sexual immorality and the multiple divorces and marriages, 4 all together if I am remembering correctly. The guy's life was an utter sham. Slowly, his "ministry" and comedy album making days began to come unraveled.

Now. 

I share all of that about Warnke because I see another similar situation happening with another Christian celebrity in our current day: Dr. Ergun Caner. Ergun Caner has written a handful of books on the subject of Islam. His testimony is that he was raised a Muslim in a family committed to Islam. As a teen, he was saved and eventually led his entire family to Christ. His background as a Muslim provides him a platform of sorts to speak as an "expert" on the religion, so he has a position of credibility. He is a well loved speaker at SBC youth conferences and other gatherings. He is also the president of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. Meaning he has a significant position in one of the major Baptist schools in the United States affiliated with the SBC. That's pretty big.

Ergun Caner boasts of doing a number of "debates" with Muslim opponents. One would think that if you are former practicing Muslim who is now a leading apologist of sorts in the SBC, debates with practicing Muslims would be expected. The problem, however, is that no one can find any proof of his public debates. The Muslim apologists Dr. Caner claims to have debated testify that they have never met the man, let alone debated him. That is a rather serious charge if it is true.

All of this is coming to light recently with a series of blog posts between James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries andsupporters of Dr. Caner addressing the issue of Dr. Caner's integrity as to his ministry. Dr. Caner has had harsh words in the past against the Reformed faith James White holds to. I'll admit I stand with Dr. White on the issue of Calvinism; but laying that aside for the moment, I am much more concerned with the continual exposure of Dr. Caner's dishonesty regarding his apologetics resume if we could call it that. What is to be gained by standing before an audience of teenagers to tell them you have several debates with leading apologists from all the various world's religions when in fact you don't? Even more troubling is how it has been brought to light that Dr. Caner claims to have debated specific Muslim individuals who clearly deny they have never even met him. James White goes into more detail here: AResponse to Dr. Ergun Caner.

Look: I don't care if Dr. Caner hates Calvinists and has a disdain for James White and his supporters. I do, however, Care [with a capital "C"] about the integrity Dr. Caner brings to our faith when he represents it before both a believing and unbelieving world. Muslims don't care what he thinks about Calvinists. They do care that he tells the truth about the things he says about Islam and their apologists.

Moreover, and specifically to the point, Dr. Caner is the president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

Did you read that carefully? The PRESIDENT.

He represents the theological seminary for one of the major Baptist colleges in the world. Being the [let me note that again] PRESIDENT of a theological seminary means he sets the academic tone for the entire school in the studies of theology [that means the "study of God"]. Did you get that? When people hear Dr. Caner speak, they are hearing the PRESIDENT of a theological seminary speak to them! He reflects what is being taught at that seminary at that major Baptist school. Is there not one colleague, professor, fellow academic - a pastor! - who either teaches at that same college or is an alumni who is the least bit troubled by these revelations of Dr. Caner's public persona? Additionally, Dr. Caner is a Christian. He not only reflects the integrity of the entire Liberty university, but he reflects Jesus Christ. Does that matter to any of his supporters!?

When the Warnke scandal was made public, I had a friend who I knew in high school, to whom I gave a copy of Warnke's testimony tape, call me out of the blue. He was not a Christian and I hadn't really spoken at length with him for a few years because our lives took us into different directions after graduation. His call was sad, because he saw in Warnke a man who overcame great odds (as Warnke had told them on his "testimony") by the help of Christ. I tried to explain to my friend that the Bible is clear that many false prophets will deceive many and that Warnke doesn't represent biblical Christianity. To my friend, he didn't seem to care. This man had failed in his Christian faith and my friend didn't see any hope in further pursuing anything church related he had known as a kid.

My hope is that Dr. Caner will come to his senses and realize he cannot continue in a public ministry based upon dishonest academic credentials. At this point I could never recommend his published works as being reputable. In the long run, this dishonest boasting will only lead to the ruination of souls. I pray that Dr. Caner will repent and change how he describes his background for the sake of Christ and His Church.

Do we "Only Need Jesus"? Is This Christian?

FactChecker: Is the 'I Only Need Jesus!' Declaration Christian?

Note: FactChecker is a monthly series in which Glenn T. Stanton examines claims, myths, and misunderstandings frequently heard in evangelical circles.

We hear this often in good Christian circles. The credo is adopted by many Christians in an effort to declare and live by a more stripped-down faith. They want their Christianity unleaded, organic, unplugged, non-fat, free-range, locally sourced and sustainable. The real-deal without the fluff.

Except it's not.

Believing that all we need is Jesus is simply an incomplete theology and fails to understand Christianity and what it is that God teaches us about our life in him.

Let's examine this in four key parts.

1)    Jesus never taught this.

John the Baptist pointed us to Christ and Christ points us to His Father.

Jesus, in John 14, explains something very important about himself to his disciples. He proclaims to them,

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will knowmy Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.

And we can know the Father because the Son points us to him. Now, how would the "just give me Jesus" folks answer Jesus?

Jesus says he is the Way, the way to somewhere or someone. Jesus told us he is going to prepare a home for us in God's home, a place where we can dwell with the Father, through redemption from the Son, by the Holy Spirit's drawing and keeping. Jesus tells us that he is obedient to all the Father has commanded him "so that the world may know that I love the Father." (John 14:31)

What are the first words of Jesus' recorded in Scripture? They tell of the center of Christ's life, when he tells his parents,

"Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Luke 2, ESV)

The New King James puts it this way,

And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?"

Jesus announced to his parents, as if it is obvious, that he must be about his Father's business, in his Father's house. The meaning here is literally, "I must about the things of my Father!"

Jesus our Savior makes a way for us to know and dwell with the Father. It is Christ's delight and unwavering heart to do this, which leads us to our next point.

2)    The God of Christianity is not Jesus alone.

Jesus' fundamental essence, personality, and being is as the Second Person of the divine and eternal Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Most of the early creeds of the Church were carefully written and proclaimed to make this central tenant of our faith clearly understood for all. We declare and confess one God in Three Divine Persons. We cannot take one member of the Godhead over the others, for to do so is to deny each of them.

This makes the "Just give me Jesus" claim problematic even while it might be very well-intentioned. Consider the ancient Trinity Shield, created to easily communicate to the illiterate the mystery of the Three-in-One. Each of the three are fully, completely, God---one no more than the other---but each of the three are distinct from one another in their divine personhood, character, and nature.

We cannot take Christ without taking his Father and the Holy Spirit. To do so is to not take Christ in actuality. And because of this dramatic and profound truth, addressing the "All I need is Jesus" topic is not mere theological quibbling.

Now, it would be wrong to say that those who take this "All I need is Jesus" attitude are denying the Trinity. It's just that they don't seem to have really considered the fuller implications of their position. While Christianity is not complex, it is neither this simple.

Some who proclaim this singular need will certainly say, "Well, of course. When we say all we need is Jesus, we mean we need God the Father and God the Holy Spirit." To this, the question "Then why don't you say that?" is not unreasonable. The word "all" is by definition an exclusive term.

This leads up to our third point, because to say all you need is the Trinity is not biblical either.

3)    Good Ecclesiology Refutes It.

We cannot simultaneously hold the "All I need is Jesus" position and understand how and what Christ established the Church for. There are no lone-ranger Christians.  Doesn't Paul tell us that "we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body . . ."? The body of Christ is made up of each of us who are baptized in the name of the Trinity. I Corinthians 12:21 tells us "the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you!' And the head cannot say to the feet, 'I don't need you?'" We are told here that "God has arranged the parts of the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be"?

And Hebrews 10 commands us in our relationships with the others that we make up the mystical body of Christ with,

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

By our very nature as Christians we are bound to others. We need them and they need us. That is how God fashioned his Church to work as Christ's beloved Bride. As such, we cannot forsake the assembling of ourselves together.

4)    Creation contradicts it.

In the very second chapter of the first book of scripture, God says something deeply profound that curiously contradicts this seemingly noble idea. Here we have the second telling of humanity's creation. God has created man first. It's a remarkable situation for Adam. Man is there in God's wonderful, untainted creation with every tree (save one) for his delight, pleasant to the eye and delicious to the tongue. And best of all, the man had perfect, unhindered communion with God. They walked and talked together. If anything was ever idyllic, this was.

But in this very setting, God said something quite profound about the man. Perhaps the most profound statement uttered about humanity in all of human telling, second only to explaining that male and female are uniquely created in the image of God.

What was this statement?

"Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone . . .'"

(Genesis 2:18)

Before the Fall had touched and defaced humanity and creation, God said there was something that was not good. It was not good for man to be alone.

But what might we have said to God in response to His statement? I know what I would say:

"But God, I'm not alone. I have You, what else could I possibly want or need?"

God did not forget or overlook the fact of his own sufficiency. He wants to show us something very important about us, what God made us to be. Man was made for another, like him, but different as well. And it was not good without . . . her.

God made us in such a way that even in our sole relationship with him, we are not as we were created to be. Yes, that is very curious, even startling, but it's what God said.

Just as God is a community of Divine Persons, man as God's unique image-bearer in creation must live in a community of human persons. And the first community of human persons that God established is the communion of husband and wife called to enter a union of intense physical, emotional and spiritual intimacy of love which is life-giving, just as the Trinity is life-giving. This human pro-creative union will bring forth the third member of this human trinity after their own kind. A baby. A new generation God-imagers.

This is what God gave us to satisfy and solve the original problem of man's solitude.

Jesus is Lord of all creation. We must hold him above all and before all. But we don't hold him alone. We honor the Lord of all creation by enjoying, glorying, observing, and participating in the wonder, beauty, majesty, and fullness of His creation.

Christians are not  gnostics nor solipsists. We live in our Father's world. And we do so with others.

No Super Christians

---Here is an encouraging post, to me, that we are not all super Christians, and that's alright. Just because I am not doing something "world-changing" does not mean I am not living a quiet life, loving people, or being faithful to what God has given me, to the glory of God.

DB

Would you describe yourself as totally in love with Jesus Christ? Or do the words halfhearted, lukewarm, and partially committed fit better?

- Francis Chan, Crazy Love

* * *

We’ve been having quite a discussion since I posted Francis Chan’s video about “Aging Biblically”  yesterday and said that I found it worthy of a rant. Though what he had to say about aging Christians was bad enough, I was more concerned about theentire approach to the Christian life that his words and attitude reflected.

I called it world-denying, dualistic, pietistic, and totally bereft of the Gospel.

When Chan says, “Respectfully, I don’t meet a lot of elderly who live like they are about to see Jesus, and saying goodbye to the things of this world,……and risking more than ever, and some of you are buying stuff like you are going to enjoy it…and saving stuff…my life has been about letting go, letting go, letting go…” his words may carry some truth regarding the dangers of materialism, but they go beyond that. He comes perilously close to denying the existential value of material “stuff” — period. As if God didn’t make that “stuff,” didn’t mean for us to have it, enjoy it, savor it. The only logical end point for this approach, as I said in the comments, is the monastery. That kind of “letting go, letting go, letting go” lifestyle, in my mind, is perfectly legitimate for some, who are called to a cloistered vocation, though I can’t picture any good monk or nun being as frantic about it as Chan sounds.

However, for Chan, the stakes are black and white for every Christ-follower. This is reflected inCrazy Love, where the contrast he draws is between “lukewarm” or “totally obsessed.”  Really. It’s one or the other. Unless a person is (and these are his words) — obsessed, consumed with Christ, fixated on Jesus, risk-taking, radical, wholly surrendered — that person may not even be (likely is not) a Christian. “As I see it, a lukewarm Christian is an oxymoron; there’s no such thing. To put it plainly, churchgoers who are ‘lukewarm’ are not Christians. We will not see them in heaven.”

This is the essence of the kind of “discipleship” people like Francis Chan tell us is necessary:“Do you understand that it’s impossible to please God in any way other than wholehearted surrender?”

Well, and I thought trusting Jesus and what he did was enough.

In Crazy Love, Francis Chan spends a chapter highlighting examples of people he thinks fit the bill of “obsessed” Christians who have shown us what “crazy love” looks like.

• Nathan Barlow, a medical doctor who served in Ethiopia for sixty years. Once when he got a toothache, he had to leave the field to get dental work done. He had the dentist pull allhis teeth and give him dentures so he wouldn’t have to leave for a toothache again.
• Simpson Rebbavarapu, an Indian man who lives solely by faith and runs and orphanage and evangelism ministry.
• Jamie Lang, a woman who adopted a little girl from Tanzania and has returned there to work with Wycliffe to translate the Bible.
• Marva Dawn, a scholar and teacher with severe medical problems who has committed to living a simple life and still drives her 1980 VW Bug.
• Rings, a homeless man who uses his monthly check to buy food for his fellow homeless, which he serves them out of the back of his truck while telling them about Jesus.
• Rachel Saint, whose brother Nate had been one of the five missionaries killed in 1956 in Ecuador. She went back to those same people, lived among them for twenty years, translated the NT into their language, and is now buried there.
• George Mueller, well-known English pastor who started orphanages for two reasons: (1) to care for the needy, (2) to show that God provides by prayer alone.
• Brother Yun, who came to know Christ at age 16, preached the Gospel in China and was imprisoned dozens of times, and on the last occasion had his legs severely beaten and broken. He escaped China and now works for a mission establishing fellowships of believers in all the countries between Jerusalem and China.
• Shane Claiborne, a leader in the “new monastic” movement, who lives and serves in Philadelphia in The Simple Way community.
• The Robynson family, a family of five who celebrates Christmas by making breakfast for the homeless in their community.
• Susan Diego, who feared speaking in front of people, and yet who went to Uganda and led a conference for women.
• Lucy, an older woman who was a prostitute in her early years. She now opens her home to other young women who are in trouble on the streets.

I have to say, stories like these move and inspire me. They always have. I could tell you a hundred more from my own experiences and reading. And I too have been to places where poor Christians, in living conditions that would be intolerable for comfortable Americans, are trusting Christ and serving their neighbors faithfully. I know people who have made great sacrifices and left much behind to serve Christ. I too have used them as examples to encourage and challenge others in their faith and service. Many of them are personal heroes to me.

But I also remember a conversation I had with one of my best friends from college many years ago that chastened me and gave me caution in telling “heroic” stories. He was young and struggling in ministry and feeling very discouraged. He had sought help from others, and they had suggested he read some biographies of great people of faith from the past, Christian leaders they thought might inspire him. He said to me sadly, “Mike, I’ve read several of these biographies, but they don’t encourage me, they make me feel completely inadequate. I’m not like those people.”

What my friend needed was a different story, a story that wasn’t on a heroic level. He needed an example that made it seem like doing the work of an ordinary pastor in a small rural parish was worth it. He didn’t have to go overseas or start some big mission project or adopt a child from an impoverished country. He wasn’t necessarily called to trust God to provide all his needs solely in answer to prayer, or build a great church, or do anything other than be himself, walk with Jesus, and love his neighbors.

I’m afraid, by Chan’s definition, the majority of Christians are “lukewarm,” and therefore unworthy. But I wonder:

• Is it “crazy love” to devote my life to loving my spouse and staying together through thick and thin? If I never did any more than that, would it be enough to prove I’m not a “lukewarm” Christian?

• What if I never did any more than show up at my job day after day and do my work well, as a faithful employee? Would that please God enough?

• What if I’m a private person, a shy person, a deeply wounded person, a physically disabled person, a person with mental or emotional problems? What if I’m a person who needs to be cared for rather than one capable of actively caring for others? What if someone in my family is ill and I must devote most of my time, energy, and resources to serving them in obscurity? Do people like Chan ever talk about passages like 1Cor 12:22-25? “On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.”

• What if I’m part of a small congregation of few means, and I work together with my brothers and sisters to keep it going year after year, and we never do anything particularly creative or risky or “crazy”? What if we just meet every Sunday, teach our children, do a few things now and then to make our community a better place, and support a few missionaries? Is that “obsessed with Jesus” enough?

• What if I take to heart a NT text like 1Thessalonians 4:11-12 and use it to define my understanding of the Christian life — “Make it your goal to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, just as we instructed you before. Then people who are not Christians will respect the way you live, and you will not need to depend on others.”(NLT)?

• And, most importantly, what if I’m a miserable failure and all I can do is come to church and cry out, “God be merciful to me, the sinner!”? Will God be pleased with me? With my doubts? With my lack of trust? With my depression? With my poor social skills or embarrassing appearance? With my constant stumbling and fumbling through the most basic matters of life? Am I worthy enough to be called a disciple?

It seems to me that some preachers simply have no tolerance for ordinary, daily life with all its messiness and imperfection as a realm in which God is at work, and in which we participate through simply being who we are, trusting God, and loving our neighbors. No, the message is loud and clear: do more, give more, sacrifice more, serve more, be more obsessed, take more risks, go farther, reach higher, run faster, be more like this extraordinary person and not like your ordinary self.

Chan’s vision of the Christian life is more, more, more. In Crazy Love, he writes, “If life is a river, then pursuing Christ requires swimming upstream. When we stop swimming, or actively following Him, we automatically begin to be swept downstream. Or, to use another metaphor more familiar to city people, we are on a never-ending downward escalator. In order to grow, we have to turn around and sprint up the escalator, putting up with perturbed looks from everyone else who is gradually moving downward.”

I’m worn out just reading those words.

When did “discipleship” come to mean a manic sprint up a down escalator? I thought it was “walking with Christ.”

I don’t think people who promote this kind of discipleship read the New Testament correctly.

• They realize, don’t they, that Jesus himself only lived a “radical” life of active ministry for two or three years?
• They realize, don’t they, that the exciting, non-stop action of the book of Acts describes primarily the acts of the apostles, who had a different calling than most Christians?
• They realize, don’t they, that none of this frantic, manic, obsessive activism that is being promoted as an antidote to nominal Christianity is represented in any of the epistles?

There are no super-Christians in the New Testament.

Just people, saved by grace, called into a variety of vocations in which we live our ordinary, daily lives in Jesus.

Some may have extraordinary callings, some may have great gifts. Most are normal people, walking with Jesus day by day in the context of family, work, church, and community.

Nor do Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, or John preach at us incessantly to live a “letting go, letting go, letting go” lifestyle that is focused on “heaven” and dismissive of the ordinary stuff of this world. Indeed, they tell us we are free from the voices of religious demand that cry out continually, “More! More! More!” They remind us of a good Creator and a faithful Redeemer who has given us freely all things to enjoy and the greatest gift of all, contentment in his love.

What some people call “crazy love” I call “crazy-making.”

And Jesus calls us away from that:

“Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you’ll recover your life. I’ll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won’t lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you’ll learn to live freely and lightly.”

- Matt. 11:28-30, MSG

The Difference Between Doubts and Questions- Douglas Wilson

---Here's a good companion piece for the one from a couple days ago.

The Difference Between Doubts and Questions

Written by Douglas Wilson  
Tuesday, 03 April 2012 06:33
What is the difference between doubts and questions?

Many Christians struggle with this problem. Because the two are not properly distinguished, many are trapped in a confusion that can lead to despair.

We grow as Christians when we question, even if the questions are difficult, requiring hard answers. But when we doubt, we dry up and our spiritual vitality is destroyed. What is the difference? The answer is straight-forward. Questions have answers, and doubts do not.

For example, take the apparent discrepancy between Paul and James on faith and works. Paul says we are saved by faith apart from the law. James says that faith withtout works is dead. More than one Christian has been bothered by this. But when they put this discomfort into words, they have asked a specific question which has a specific answer. That answer is found through a careful examination of both James and the letters of Paul. Paul and James are using the same concepts, but they use different words; what James means by "works" Paul means by "fruit." There is no discrepancy. In the book of Galatians, Paul recounts how he and James offered one another the right hand of fellowship. It is no different today. They are still in fellowship.



The point is that questions, even tough questions, can be answered. And when they are answered, the questioner grows in his knowledge and understanding. Don't worry whether the Bible can stand up to your questions. It is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.

Doubts are another thing altogether. A doubt cannot be answered in principle. How do these doubts afflict us, and how should we respond? A doubt begins with words sucsh as "what if . . ." "What is Christ is not God?" "What if the Bible is not inspired?" Doubts are counterfeit questions. They have a surface resemblance to questions but are far removed from them in one major respect: they have no answers and never will.

A questioner asks, "Is the Bible the Word of God?" Then he proceeds to seek the answers which are there. A doubter wonders, "What if the Bible is not the Word of God?" There is no reason for the doubt; it has no anchor in reality. This is seen when you respond to the doubt with "What if it is?" There are no reasons to go either way, so the doubter is at the mercy of his emotions.

Questions breed answers which result in a godly confidence. Doubts breed more doubts which result in greater insecurity.

This explains Jesus' praise of John the Baptist when he said, "Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11:11). This was spoken just after John's messengers asked, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" John was troubled by a question, not by a doubt. Jesus answer the question, and then praised the questioner.

Meet your questions head on. Get them answered. Reject and ignore doubts. They will only waste your time and squander your assurance. Avoid the condition that James warned us about. ". . . he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind" (James 1:6).

Originally published in The Hammer (Vol. 2, No. 4) in the fall of 1983. The Hammer was a publication of Community Christian Ministries.

Is It Wrong for Christians to Have Doubts? Sean McDowell

Is It Wrong to Have Doubts About God?
July 31, 2012, 12:00 am » Sean McDowell

God wants us to believe in him. He wants us to place our faith in him and believe he has our best interest at heart. So is it wrong to have some doubts creep in—doubts over what God has to say about what he has commanded in the Bible or how we are to live out the Christian life?

The faith of the great John the Baptist seemed to waver when he was imprisoned and things were looking grim. He sent his followers to ask Jesus, “Are you the Messiah we’ve been expecting, or should we keep looking for someone else?” (Matthew 11:3).

Remember this is the man who had said, “I testify that he [Jesus] is the Chosen One of God” (John 1:34). But after John was thrown into prison he must have wondered why Jesus wasn’t coming to rescue him.

Like many of us do when faced with difficulties, John the Baptist experienced doubts.
When other disciples of Jesus were questioning who he actually was, he told them to “believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen me do” (John 14:11). Jesus wasn’t put off because his followers had some doubts or wanted some proof. He appealed to evidence to establish that he was who he claimed to be. God wants our faith in him to be assured and become deepened by our convictions. And having some uncertainties at times isn’t necessarily wrong. Like John the Baptist, we sometimes lack sufficient evidence to support our faith. And so, seeking to know why we believe what we believe can strengthen our faith and is by no means wrong.

Many of our doubts can be put aside as our faith becomes more intelligent about the evidences—knowing why we believe. But the evidences are not limited to things like Christ’s resurrection, his deity, the reliability of Scripture, and so on. There are also evidences about God’s character and nature that will support our faith and remove our doubts.

A man came to Jesus hoping Jesus could heal his son. The man said,

“Have mercy on us and help us, if you can.” “What do you mean, ‘If I can’?” Jesus asked. “Anything is possible if a person believes.” The father instantly cried out, “I do believe, but help me overcome my unbelief!” (Mark 9:22-24).

This man had faith, but he wanted help from Jesus not to doubt that the Master would heal his son. This father had probably heard stories of the miracle-working teacher. He may have personally known the blind man who got his sight back because of Jesus. He may have had a neighbor who was among the thousands who were fed by the five loaves of bread and two fish that Jesus blessed. So the man no doubt believed Jesus had the power to heal his son, but the big question for him was, Will Jesus care enough to heal my son?

Sometimes our doubts revolve around our faith in God’s nature and compassion. Does he care enough about me to heal my child? Does he want to meet my material needs? Will he keep me safe? It is important to know the evidences of his caring heart to help remove our doubts.

Jesus was once taking a nap on a boat while crossing the Sea of Galilee with his disciples. A fierce storm came through and the disciples thought they were going to drown, so they woke Jesus up. He rebuked the foul weather and stopped the storm. “Then he asked them, ‘Where is your faith?’ ” (Luke 8:25). It appears the storm is what occupied his disciples’ minds and emotions. And that kept them from trusting their situation to Jesus. Of course he wanted them to believe he was the One who had the power to calm the storm and who cared enough to keep them safe. He wanted them to have faith in him.

Jesus also told his disciples not to worry about their need for food and clothing. He said God took care of the birds and the flowers and “he will certainly care for you. Why do you have so little faith?” (Luke 12:28). Again, Jesus wanted his followers to focus on the caring and providing nature of his heart. Yet the worries of life and all its insecurities could easily cause them to doubt. They can cause us to doubt too.

Placing our focus on the providing and protecting nature of God’s heart allows us to follow Peter’s admonition to “give all your worries and cares to God, for he cares about you” (1 Peter 5:7). The future is unknown and our lives are full of uncertainty and insecurity. And while it is in our nature to question how things are going to turn out, when we add the knowledge or evidence of the caring heart of God to our faith, our doubts can be removed. So while it may not be wrong to have some doubts about God, he wants to remove them so we can trust him for whatever comes our way.

This article first appeared in 77FAQs About God and the Bible by Sean and Josh McDowell (Harvest House, 2012)