The Daily Detour

The unavoidable reality of Christianity

At Wayne State University last Thursday night, Pastor Chris Brooks reiterated the open invitation to have any and all members of the audience bring their toughest questions to us. His unequivocal invitation was intended to confront head-on the common myth that Christianity cannot stand up against the toughest scrutiny. I would contend, in actuality, that the impression that Christianity is only a worldview for the weak-minded and naive is often because many practicing Christians do not take the time necessary to properly understand exactly why they believe what they believe. It has less to do with the robustness of Christianity worldview itself. Instead, it has more to do with the approach of many people toward the Christian faith.

As I've referred to in the past, the famous British journalist and commentator G.K. Chesterton writes in What's Wrong With the World, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried" (Ch. 5). Thus, the number of perceived "experts" concerning apologetics and the Christian worldview is significantly limited to those who are willing to sit on a panel at a public university and take all comers. I don't write this to elevate myself in any way. Nor do I intend to denigrate the professing Christians out there reading this. But I simply want to challenge and encourage each of us to engage more diligently in this effort. Our ability to share the Good News of Jesus Christ often hinges on our willingness to better understand the implications of our faith. The fact is, as I've shared in many of the classes I've taught over the years, anyone is capable of doing the same thing, if they are willing to study, learn, and apply the truth of the Christian faith to their conversational interactions with others. The apostle Peter's challenge in 1 Peter 3:15 to "always be ready to give an answer" for one's faith was not issued only to the religious or intellectual elite; it was put to all believers, and it still applies today.

The final thought I left the audience with at Wayne State came from C.S. Lewis' book, God in the Dock. Lewis acknowledges the unavoidable truth about Christianity when he writes,

One of the great difficulties is to keep before the audience's mind the question of Truth. They always think you are recommending Christianity not because it is true but because it is good....You have to keep forcing them back, and again back, to the real point...You must keep on pointing out that Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important (p. 101).

And indeed the exclusive claims inherent to Christianity do not actually allow for the tepid approach that many of us take toward our Christian faith. This is the same message that Lewis was articulating concerning the exclusive nature of Jesus Christ when he wrote in Mere Christianity,

I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher...let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to (p. 52).

As Lewis points outs, we each have a choice to make. Either we accept that the exclusive claims of Christianity are true or we don't. What we cannot do is pretend that our lukewarm approach to God and the Christian Gospel message is sufficient. Christianity, by its very nature, carries with it life-altering implications that are inescapable. It cannot be any other way. God does not allow for that (as the church in Laodicea discovered after it was too late--Revelation 3:15-16). 

"Answering the Challenge" in Detroit

Friends, sorry for the delay in getting back on here. I got home from Detroit late Saturday night, had to get up at 2:00 a.m. for my job, and am just now slowly pulling myself together after a tiring, but very rewarding, weekend.

I wanted to provide a brief recap of the time spent up in Detroit. Last Thursday I was privileged to be a part Q & A panel at Wayne State University. Pastor Chris Brooks opened the event by addressing the question, "Is Christ the only way?" His address was followed up over an hour of Q & A. Those on the panel included Yours Truly, a messianic Jew, a former skeptic, and a former Muslim (both of whom are a part of Aletheia Ministries). The crowd of over 125 students and faculty brought a number of well-thought out questions that covered the gamut of apologetical, theological, social, and cultural subjects. And it was a privilege to be able to address as many of them as time would allow. Here are a sampling of them for you to chew on a bit:

If God knows our beginning and our end (which implies that He knows what will happen before it does happen), is it really free will?

How can God be three persons?

How do you explain American Christianity's fixation on gays and abortion, when Jesus Christ was here and his actions were completely contrary?

Does anyone who doesn't believe what you believe go to hell?

If God is a Spirit, why did He come in the form of a lesser being of a man?

What happens when you die? And will you see loved ones?

Can you communicate with the dead? Are our loved ones looking down?

Are you committing adultery if you marry again?

Why do key Christian leaders not agree on what the Bible says? How do I know who is right?

Did Jesus die for all? Why aren't all going to heaven? Where is heaven?

Why does God allow so much suffering by the innocent since no good parent with the knowledge of such suffering, and the ability to prevent it, would allow it if it involved his or her children?

There's archaeological evidence which shows that dinosaurs predate human existence. So how do you explain the "dinosaurs" or extremely large beasts [mentioned] in the Bible?

Homosexuality, is it genetic?

If you commit suicide, can you go to heaven?

Is it true that only 144,000 people are going to heaven (referring to Revelation)?

How do we account for the "lost books" of the Bible? What should we believe about them? Why weren't they included in the canon?

Can you be a Christian and believe in abortion?

If Jesus is love and doesn't like suffering, why does He send us to hell to suffer?

If I'm a skeptic, what's so appealing about Christianity compared to other religions when Christians seem to be the most judgmental, unorganized, and divided (e.g. into various denominations)?

Now, imagine that you're on the panel awaiting the next question and you have about 30 seconds to process the question and respond to it. Challenging is an understatement, :) But we were able to provide the questioners with as comprehensive an answer to each question as time would allow. The remaining questions provided conversational material for Friday's "Equipped for Life" radio broadcast where Chris and I were able to address some of the lingering issues from Thursday night.

On Saturday was a follow-up to the Wayne State University event. A good sized group of people came to Pastor Chris' church for four hours of apologetics and evangelism presentations. From the overall feedback, it seemed as though the entire experience was very rewarding to all of those who participated. I know it was for me.

And it was particularly encouraging to see the good work that Chris Brooks and the other Christian leaders are doing through Evangel Ministries. It is evident to me that their sustained efforts to promote Christian worldview and apologetic training are taking root. In reality, there are very few, if any, innercity African-American churches who are doing sustained apologetical ministry. And it reinforces the fact that where such information is presented, the people are craving it.

UPDATE: One other note of interest that I found out after the fact: Apparently, there was a group of atheists in the middle of Wayne State's campus protesting our being there. I'm not sure the purpose--perhaps a lack of equal representation on the panel or something? Maybe next time we can remedy that... Regardless, it's always nice to know that your doing something that is arousing people's attention. :)

John to be on "Equipped for Life" radio broadcast

Sorry for the delay in getting back on here. As you know, I came up to Detroit yesterday for the first of a few apologetics events. We were speaking at Wayne State University yesterday afternoon to a room of over 125 students, faculty and others primarily on the reasonableness and uniqueness of the Christian faith. (I'll have more on that later...)

Just wanted to give you all a quick update to let you know that I'll be on the "Equipped for Life" radio broadcast with my friend and Oxford colleague, Pastor Christopher Brooks of Evangel Ministries. The broadcast airs today from 3:00-4:00 p.m. EST. If you're not in the Detroit area, you can catch it on the web at the at the AM1500-WLQV website. I'll give more updates later as I have opportunity, but wanted you all to be aware of this in the meantime. Gotta run...

"...so people start to see transexual pregnancy as normal."

That's the stated motivation given by Ruben Noe Coronado as to why "he" went public with the birth of his twins. This is not the first time that a "man" has gotten pregnant. In fact, as we've discussed before, this effort first came to the public's attention with the much-publicized pregnancy of Thomas Beatie. Now with Ruben Coronado's pregnancy, the goal toward increasing the "normalcy" of transexual pregnancy is underway.

What do you think? Is this something in which we should simply let people live as they see fit? Or, is there a time for intervening due to larger social considerations? Over and above any particular moral parameters, it seems that a child born into the home of transgendered "father" may be at greater risk in their personal, social, and emotional development.

The struggle with instances such as this is the tension between allowing people to live by the dictates of their own conscience, while at the same time ensuring that their behavior is in conformity to the greater good of the larger society. Thus, there is within the spectrum of morality that cloudy gray area somewhere between right and wrong. How we determine what is right and what is wrong, particularly apart from God's moral Law, becomes increasingly difficult. And this is especially true in our postmodern culture. Moral relativity brings a sliding scale of morality that secures our cultural moorings to the shifting sands of personal preference. Such a "foundation" can't long survive.

Heading to the Motor City

As most of you know, I was up in Detroit last October to participate in an "Answering the Challenge" apologetics conference. I've been given the opportunity to head back up to the Motor City on Thursday for a couple of similar events sponsored by the "Equipped for Life" radio broadcast, hosted by my good friend and colleague from the Oxford program, Pastor Christopher Brooks.

The first event is at Wayne State University in which a large group of freshmen will be confronted with the question, "Is Christ the Only Way?" We then will be available as a panel to answer questions from the audience. As with any of these kinds of scenarios, it is always very interesting and challenging to hear what questions the audience brings.

The Thursday evening session will be followed up with a training event on Saturday through "Challenge the Culture University". It is an opportunity to bring in campus ministry leaders for a series of sessions related to the various issues they will face in campus ministry. I will be presenting a session addressing "The Most Common Objections to the Christian Faith".

If any of you are in the area, or know someone that you think would benefit from these events, feel free to encourage them to attend. The pertinent information for each event can be found here. Or, you can contact me directly via my TDD email address.

I'll be in transit for much of the latter half of the week, so my contributions to the blog will be posted as I can. For those of you inclined toward pray, all of us who are participating would certainly appreciate your prayers as we prepare for, and engage in, the ministry opportunities with these students. I trust it will be a great experience.

Should gay men be able to donate blood?

Over the weekend I was catching up on some reading, including some past newspapers that are beginning to flow off the end of the table (one of the perks of being a newspaper carrier--you never run out of good reading material). I ran across this Letter to the Editor from Michael Lehtonen lamenting his desire to be able to donate blood to the Red Cross. What complicates his desire is that he is gay, and the FDA has specifically implemented a restriction on blood donations from gay men (given the fact that it is that specific demographic which has the highest rate of developing HIV/AIDS).

For Mr. Lehtonen, it is the implications of what he perceives as an unnecessary discrimination against gay men versus the medical implications which represent the FDA's interest in the decision. What do you think? Is the FDA warranted in their policy? Or, does Mr. Lehtonen make his case? Such are the complications of this culture in which we find ourselves.

Tennis pro facing gender issues

(TDD Content Warning: Some of the content in the post may be unsuitable for some of our younger TDD readers. Please use appropriate discernment.)

German tennis pro Sarah Gronert is embroiled in controversy, and it has very little to do with her tennis ability. Instead, it is her ambiguous gender which has caused some very heated reaction. Ms. Gronert was born with a very rare condition which resulted in her having both male and female genitalia at birth. Since then she has undergone corrective surgery to remove the male genitalia, so she is now officially certified as a female.

But the questions still persist. There are those who think that her gender ambiguity has given her an unfair advantage in the sport. "There is no girl who can hit serves like that, not even Venus Williams," says Schlomo Tzorefm, the coach of an opponent Gronert recently beat. "This is not a woman, it's a man." 

I bring this story to your attention to visit the deeper issue of gender and personhood itself, an issue that comes up regularly here at The Daily Detour. As one writer posed, "What makes a man a man, and what makes a woman a woman?" Indeed, this particular case in the world of sports highlights the central issue in the homosexual/transgender debate. With many people undergoing surgery to change their gender identity, one wonders, "What exactly is the difference between a man and a woman?" (Is it simply related to the presence, or absence, of one's sexual organs? Or, is there more to the answer than that? What happens, for example, if a man is castrated by accident or intention--does he cease to be male?)

Certainly, God designed human beings to have identifiable genders. And different sets of genitalia are an integral part of that design. The complimentary nature of each set of organs testifies to their respective roles in the procreation (and recreation :) of the human species. But are we truly defined by those sex organs? (No more, I would argue, than the true beauty of a person disfigured in an accident or fire is defined by the resulting physical condition of their body.)

Within God's economy, we are so much more than our physical bodies. After all, Scripture is clear that we are made "Imago Dei", that is, in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6). In fact, it is that reality which defines so much of our view of humanity and personhood, and the corresponding dignity that is inherently accorded the human race that other species do not share.

Sometimes, because Scripture refers to God in the masculine sense, we may fail to remember that women are also made in the image of God. While many theologians in history have wrestled with exactly what the "Imago Dei" idea means, we do know that we as the created originate from the Creator. Thus, while both men and women fall on the continuum of defining human characteristics, there are certain strengths which more readily represent one gender or the other. For example, the essence of masculinity--which may include qualities of physical strength, fierce protectionism, and a logical rationality--is complimented by the strengths that make up the essence of women--relational intimacy, emotional connection, nurturing presence, and greater sensitivity. And vice versa. But God defines all of these qualities and more. And He has created us with such qualities. Moreover, we see the perfect representation of those qualities come together in the confines of marriage between men and women. That is how God designed our most intimate relationships to be. And it's only possible if indeed there are distinguishable, necessary differences between men and women.

(I'll leave for a future post an expansion of this idea within the confines of the most intimate of relationships between men and women. But in the meantime, I leave you with this idea to chew on, "Why are women necessary? Put another way, when we think about the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2, what was it, if anything, about the original relationship between God and Adam that was insufficient in itself--to the point that only the creation of a woman would provide the missing ingredients?" Particularly if God is perfect in Himself. Something to think about... :) 

Interstate windfall

In these tough economic times, you never know when you'll get your break. And who would think that your local neighborhood drug dealer would make all your dreams come true? That's exactly what many commuters on a southern California interstate thought as they drove down the highway in San Diego yesterday afternoon. A black truck was seen driving down the highway with the police in hot pursuit. Suddenly, a bundle of cash (over $17,000) was thrown out the window into the middle of the road.

What happened next was both expected, if not disappointing, as commuters came to a screeching halt. People jumped out of their cars and rushed to gather up as many of the $20 and $100 bills as they could get their hands on. As one witness reported, "I've never seen anything like this. People were literally risking their lives running into the highway."

This is not the first time we've heard of such stories. In fact, I remember a similar story of an armored car which turned over on a highway and thousands of dollars were spread all over the road. In that instance, people actually thought of it as God's provision for them. And I'm sure many people saw their good fortune in this particular instance as well.

Whenever I hear of these kinds of stories, I always wonder what I would do if faced with a similar situation. There is the question, "What would we do?", as well as, the more telling question, "What should we do?" Is such money simply free for the taking to whomever is willing to play a human version of "Frogger" in order to grab it? To the victor go the spoils?

Or, do we have some moral obligation to return such money that, it could be strongly argued, is not ours to begin with? I would like to think that people in those situations would do the right thing (like the little girl in a previous incident who turned in the handful of change she recovered to a local police station). Interestingly, in watching the CNN coverage of the event, the body language of those picking up the money seemed to display a certain level of self-consciousness. I certainly may be reading more into the footage than was actually there, but I wonder, "If those folks really thought it was okay to take the money, then why does their body language seem to project a sense of self-conscious guilt?" Often, one's conscience reveals one's moral compass.

It's easy to walk through life and assume we are good people, based on how we generally live. But it is those moments of decision when our true character shines forth. I hope, (and if I may be presumptuous, I believe) that I would make the right decision and turn in the the money to the authorities. It certainly would be nice to have the kind of cash infusion into our financial situation that such money would provide. But my own guilt-laden conscience could not justify keeping it.

Either way, the challenge for each of us is to consider those moments in our own lives when we're called to make the difficult choices. It may not be scavenging for drug money on the interstate, but the challenges remain--at work, at home, in our leisure time, etc. How do you respond? How should you respond?

The deterioration of Western culture

Is it already happening? And what does it (or, will it) look like? These were the questions put to Dr. Ravi Zacharias at a recent event up in Alaska. I wrote about this same basic idea back in June of 2007 when summarizing Malcolm Muggeridge's thought-provoking little book, The End of Christendom.

With the seismic shifts on all fronts in our culture, there are increasing questions about the future. Uncertainty is the feeling of the day. What will happen to our country, our values, and more specifically, our own lives and families. As Ravi Zacharias points out at the beginning of his answer, no one can accurately predict what may come. But we can attempt to be prepared for whatever may come.

Most significantly, I wonder, "Is the collapse of Western culture inevitable?" Some people like Malcolm Muggeridge believe so. Others like Ravi Zacharias would contend that we are headed that way, unless, as he put it, there are reformers willing to chart a different course. I believe there are reformers in our midst. Time and circumstances are calling. Will they--will we--answer the call of our time?

UPDATE: Here's a related article by Michael Spencer talking about "The Coming Evangelical Collapse". He poses the question, "Is all of this a bad thing?" We Christians would do well to pay close attention to these trends.

Not "sex in the city"

More like "sex in the country". And in the church no less. A recent sermon series on sex in Alabama has caused quite a stir, making national news. Pastor Jerry Lawson of Daystar Church recently launched a billboard advertising campaign announcing the upcoming sermon series with such traffic-stopping messages as "Great Sex: God's Way".

This creative attempt to address what is a controversial subject for most churches has garnered mixed results. There are those in the rural community who understand and support the effort, while others, like Evangelist Roland Belew, "Paul said preach the Gospel. Talking about sex ain't gonna get nobody to heaven."

While I understand Mr. Belew's attempt to keep people's eyes fixed on Christ alone, I respectfully disagree with his assessment. For what he is articulating represents the very distinction between a compartmentalized faith that is most often viewed as merely religion and the more comprehensive understanding of what is an integrated Christian worldview that affects all of life. For too long, the Church has adopted a "separation from culture" approach to their Christian faith. The newer generations of Christian leaders have come to understand the dichotomy and are attempting to correct this misappropriation of Christianity.

This means helping people ask the basic question, "What does the Bible have to say about (fill in the issue under consideration)?" and attempt to apply a biblical perspective on that issue in one's life. This includes sex, whether we want to admit it or not. The fact is, despite the secular culture's assumptions to the contrary, sex is God's gift to humanity. And the fact that humans have often managed to severely taint it, in no way diminishes God's original intent.

Too often the Church has remained virtually silent on this critical issue. And yet, everyone else is talking about it. If Christians think that our young people, as just one example, are not being brainwashed with a steady diet of sex-related issues, we are naive at best. And there is ample evidence to show that many Christians are struggling with pornography (including many pastors and church leaders). Instead of embracing the need to address this issue in a responsible, biblically-based way, our abdication of our responsibility in this area has only made it worse. This is one of many areas where Christians can present a perspective on an issue that people cannot find anywhere else.

I applaud Pastor Lawson's attempt to do just that. And the overwhelming response at his church demonstrates that the need is there. I only wish other Christian leaders would be so bold. The reluctance to do so will certainly not make the issue go away. On the contrary, the key is to determine how we effectively deal with this issue and help other people to do so. Imagine if the Church led the way in redeeming sex. It would certainly turn heads (and hopefully, point people to the God who is behind it all).