“That’s true for you, but not for me… Truth means different things to different people… there’s no one absolute truth for everybody…” Ever had your Christian perspective rebutted by statements like these? You may not walk around thinking about the nature of truth or routinely use words like “epistemology.” But Christians today- especially those raising teens or who work with youth and college students- have the important job of presenting and explaining truth within a chronically skeptical culture.
The nature or essence of truth is often described using terms like “absolute truth” or “ultimate truth,” or (the term preferred by America’s founding fathers), “self-evident truth.” The Biblical view of reality is one in which truth exists, can be known, and is relevant for all people. Or, as Josh McDowell puts it, “That which is true at all times in all places for all people.” Since truth is related to the character of God (which is eternal and unchanging – See Malachi 3:6; Psalm 90:2; Hebrews 13:8), the nature of truth is fixed. Truth does not have an expiration date, and is not up for revision and re-invention.
Many today judge the heights of arrogance to be not only that some one would claim to know truth, but that some one might claim there is truth. The relativistic spirit of our times presents a challenge for both the missions-minded Christian and the values-minded parent. How can people be convinced to turn from their sin, if no objective moral standard exists that has been violated? How can our children live according to Biblical morals, when a commitment to relativism seems to a prerequisite in social, academic, and professional arenas?
Romans 1:18-22 describes the destructive end of all who willfully “suppress the truth” (v. 18). But problems with a relativistic view of truth are identifiable even without using the Bible. Our own rational faculties (what your grandmother called “common sense”) can lead us back from the hazy realms of relativism. The next time you hear some one’s explanation on why truth is relative, listen for what the skeptic is asserting. You’d be amazed at what has to be assumed as true in order to deny that there is truth! If, “Truth doesn’t exist,” then by definition, that statement is also false. How can relativists be certain about their position if, “truth can’t be known?” Why should I believe the relativist who gives no one the right to be dogmatic but himself: “No one can have a monopoly on truth!” (Notice the self-contradictory implication: “My analysis of reality is true, that no one can really grasp what is true”). Many, many more examples could be given, but the point is this: In order to reject truth, skeptics have to imply the very thing that they are denying. This is what scholars call a “self-defeating” statement.
God hard-wired our brains to for rational thought. With a little practice, you can become very adept at spotting the false and defending what is true. Our culture’s glib and common denials of truth are all- to one degree or another- based on rational fallacies that become easy to spot. In light of his own times, C.S. Lewis observed the following:
“The moment you say one set of moral ideas is better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms more nearly to that standard than the other. But the standard that measures the two things is something entirely different. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something- some real Morality- for them to be true about” (Mere Christianity, page 25).
Our culture has become quite comfortable in pontificating about the nature of reality and the absence of truth. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal explained that in our internet-driven, “virtual world,” the lines between fact and fiction are often blurred. For many, “default-position” subtly becomes, “truth is what I say it is.” The Christians are often chided into silence, because “all beliefs are equally valid,” and people are “sure that no one can be sure.” Besides relativism’s inherent logical mistakes, the fact is, such platitudes just aren’t livable. It is doubtful that some one would remain tolerant with a bank teller who said, “You and your bank statement both say your account contains $5,000.00. That may be true for you, but it’s not for me.” We can talk as if the world is relative, but we live as if it is absolute.
I believe that the need to instill a love of truth in the hearts of students is more critical than ever. Given this, our upcoming conference at the Cove training center has been planned to give attendees a unique, cutting edge experience, preparing both “heart and head” to stand for truth. The conference will sharpen the thinking skills of those who attend, and provide training to share one’s faith confidently and effectively.
An authentic commitment to truth involves both orthodoxy (right belief), and orthopraxy (right action). A relationship with the One who called Himself the Truth (see John 1:1, and 14:6), must manifest itself in both belief and behavior. Truth can be known, and should be shown. Our lives must convey this to our prodigal world.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
No need to apologize for doing apologetics!
While speaking at a church conference recently, a parent came up to speak with me after my first session. With a troubled expression, he said, “I don’t apologize for being a Christian! Where did you come up with that, that … word?”
Clearly, the man I was talking with hadn’t really gotten the gist of what is meant by the term, “Christian apologetics.” I explained that the Greek word for apologetics appears several times in the Bible. Probably the most well-known passage in which the word appears is I Peter 3:15. This verse uses the word apologia twice⎯ the ancient legal term meaning “to speak in defense” of something. Categories of Christian apologetics include the following:
(1) Textual apologetics—defending the trustworthiness of the Bible, then presenting the content of what it says;
(2) Evidence-based apologetics—presenting external data that provides objective confirmation of the Christian faith (such as historical or scientific facts); and
(3) Philosophical apologetics— exposing the flawed reasoning behind popular arguments against Christianity.
Apologetics addresses questions such as, Is there absolute truth? Does God exist? Is the Bible trustworthy? Was Jesus authentic? Why does God allow pain and suffering in the world? The discipline of apologetics is not about ‘apologizing’ for our faith; rather, it is about ‘speaking in defense of’ the timeless truths that we hold dear. All the way back in 1933 G. K. Chesterton observed the following: While it is important to win the lost to Christianity, leaders must increasingly endeavor to “convert the Christians to Christianity.”1 Chesterton’s remark was a timeless reminder that the church must be ever dedicated in its duty to pass on biblical truth to upcoming generations. Many today reject the Bible and the very notion that there might be ultimate truth which is binding for all people. The degree of rejection impressed on me again as I recently finished writing of book entitled 10 Answers For Skeptics. I interviewed several dozen professed atheists and skeptics. In the course of handling many Q & A sessions with this modern crop of doubters, I was reminded of the vital need for churches to incorporate apologetics and worldview content into their ministries. Let’s be clear about our language: “Worldview” refers to what some one believes. “Apologetics” is all about why we believe the things we believe. Christians today need to learn about both. Believers need to be preemptively equipped for the intellectual questions and spiritual challenges that inevitably come. Apologetics content helps by demonstrating that Christianity is credible, reasonable, and relevant.
We should never apologize for our faith, though we are commanded to exhibit sound reasoning and an authentic life as a means of demonstrating Christianity’s truthfulness (see I Peter 3:15, 2:15, and Jude 3). I am encouraged by the knowledge that one of the most well-known verses related to apologetics was written by the apostle Peter. First Peter 3:15—quoted by apologists everywhere—was penned not by Paul the theologian and philosopher, but by plainspoken Peter, the fisherman. More than ever before, we must rise to the challenge of his words and equip a generation to “always be ready.”
1. Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the “Dumb Ox.” Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, 2009, page 20.
(1) Textual apologetics—defending the trustworthiness of the Bible, then presenting the content of what it says;
(2) Evidence-based apologetics—presenting external data that provides objective confirmation of the Christian faith (such as historical or scientific facts); and
(3) Philosophical apologetics— exposing the flawed reasoning behind popular arguments against Christianity.
Apologetics addresses questions such as, Is there absolute truth? Does God exist? Is the Bible trustworthy? Was Jesus authentic? Why does God allow pain and suffering in the world? The discipline of apologetics is not about ‘apologizing’ for our faith; rather, it is about ‘speaking in defense of’ the timeless truths that we hold dear. All the way back in 1933 G. K. Chesterton observed the following: While it is important to win the lost to Christianity, leaders must increasingly endeavor to “convert the Christians to Christianity.”1 Chesterton’s remark was a timeless reminder that the church must be ever dedicated in its duty to pass on biblical truth to upcoming generations. Many today reject the Bible and the very notion that there might be ultimate truth which is binding for all people. The degree of rejection impressed on me again as I recently finished writing of book entitled 10 Answers For Skeptics. I interviewed several dozen professed atheists and skeptics. In the course of handling many Q & A sessions with this modern crop of doubters, I was reminded of the vital need for churches to incorporate apologetics and worldview content into their ministries. Let’s be clear about our language: “Worldview” refers to what some one believes. “Apologetics” is all about why we believe the things we believe. Christians today need to learn about both. Believers need to be preemptively equipped for the intellectual questions and spiritual challenges that inevitably come. Apologetics content helps by demonstrating that Christianity is credible, reasonable, and relevant.
We should never apologize for our faith, though we are commanded to exhibit sound reasoning and an authentic life as a means of demonstrating Christianity’s truthfulness (see I Peter 3:15, 2:15, and Jude 3). I am encouraged by the knowledge that one of the most well-known verses related to apologetics was written by the apostle Peter. First Peter 3:15—quoted by apologists everywhere—was penned not by Paul the theologian and philosopher, but by plainspoken Peter, the fisherman. More than ever before, we must rise to the challenge of his words and equip a generation to “always be ready.”
1. Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the “Dumb Ox.” Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, 2009, page 20.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Scientific Breakthroughs and Timeless Moral Boundaries
Over the last few years, science-related news has included much coverage related to the creation of “synthetic cells.” Of these, researchers in Maryland and California are said to have developed a hybrid type of bacteria called Mycoplasma mycoides. This newly engineered bacteria results from scientists implanting strands of DNA into another, different bacteria from which the original DNA had been removed. The “new” resultant bacteria package began behaving as if it had originated naturally. Oxford University ethics professor Julian Savulescu commented, "This is a step towards ... creation of living beings with capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved.”
Indeed. On a number of levels, such scientific “accomplishments” amount to pushing nature toward things unnatural. Some of the news coverage included journalists asking persons if they thought that such research was an example of, “man trying to play God?”
One’s answer to that question should be tempered by the fact that that while the creation of hybrid bacterias is admittedly complex work, the scientists are, after all, merely manipulating existing material. Scientists still haven’t truly started from scratch and brought anything into existence ex nihilo.
But the real concern should be over the ethical implications of such research. Savulescu remarked that such experiments and their results are, “creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny.” The prospect of new life forms being developed is unsettling enough. Of great significance are two realities, that: (a) such scientific powers are being honed in an age when man’s moral sensibilities seem to be at their most diminished. And (b) these scientific “advances” are coming about in the age of global terrorism and amidst political instabilities throughout the world.
Here in America, most individuals aged from childhood up are polarized by discussions over what is right and wrong. As debate over values perpetually increases, the practice of virtue seems to correspondingly decrease. In a self-contradictory twist, the assumption that there are no absolute moral truths has become dogma for many Americans.
Our nation might be well served to reflect on the fact that the moral code originated from God. Some of history’s best and brightest thinkers (such as Augustine and Aquinas, not to mention America’s founders) believed that ultimate moral truth exists, can be known, and originated from God. In his book The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis gives historical documentation that all cultures throughout history have recognized a basic, common moral code of what was right and wrong. The Christian scriptures (such as Romans, chapter 2) also tell us that mankind knows what is morally right, even though he may earnestly give himself over to what is morally wrong. Man has known the moral code, even when he did not always follow the moral code.
The reason that this ubiquitous moral code is not open for revisions is because God’s nature (or essence) does not change. Remember that God is eternal. Morality⎯ reflective of Who God is⎯ likewise, does not change. The question becomes “To what degree is my aversion to the moral code an offense to the One Who handed down the moral code?” Opposition or indifference to “natural law,” i.e. “morality,” is actually a rebellion against the Lawgiver.
The human ethical problem is a sort of militant autonomy⎯ the desire to live independently of God. In previous times, we called this sin, and most had no problem admitting their own share in human culpability. Today, many impose their own standards over God's standard, and set themselves up as their own moral judges. American culture of 2010 all but shouts: "Since God's way cuts across the grain of our own wants and desires, we’ll disbar God, and replace Him with a Law-giver that may be tolerated more easily...ourselves.”
Commenting on the potentials of the hybrid bacteria, Dr. Venter said, “We are entering a new era where we're limited mostly by our imaginations.” I would submit that we’d better be limited by something more than just our imaginations. When operating apart from solid moral grounding, the human imagination has inflicted some grisly things on the world. Let’s hope that today’s cutting-edge laboratories don’t create biological armaments, which wind up equipping modern libertines to set new benchmarks in human suffering.
Some say that such scientists are “playing God.” But before doing that, modern science would have to recognize that there is One! Whatever the scientists are doing, let us pray that the results are ultimately handled only by those who live within standards of absolute morality and who recognize the value of human life.
About Alex McFarland
Author, educator, and speaker Alex McFarland has spoken in all 50 states and internationally. He is the founder of Truth For A New Generation, the nation’s largest conference on apologetics and evidence for the Christian faith.
Indeed. On a number of levels, such scientific “accomplishments” amount to pushing nature toward things unnatural. Some of the news coverage included journalists asking persons if they thought that such research was an example of, “man trying to play God?”
One’s answer to that question should be tempered by the fact that that while the creation of hybrid bacterias is admittedly complex work, the scientists are, after all, merely manipulating existing material. Scientists still haven’t truly started from scratch and brought anything into existence ex nihilo.
But the real concern should be over the ethical implications of such research. Savulescu remarked that such experiments and their results are, “creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny.” The prospect of new life forms being developed is unsettling enough. Of great significance are two realities, that: (a) such scientific powers are being honed in an age when man’s moral sensibilities seem to be at their most diminished. And (b) these scientific “advances” are coming about in the age of global terrorism and amidst political instabilities throughout the world.
Here in America, most individuals aged from childhood up are polarized by discussions over what is right and wrong. As debate over values perpetually increases, the practice of virtue seems to correspondingly decrease. In a self-contradictory twist, the assumption that there are no absolute moral truths has become dogma for many Americans.
Our nation might be well served to reflect on the fact that the moral code originated from God. Some of history’s best and brightest thinkers (such as Augustine and Aquinas, not to mention America’s founders) believed that ultimate moral truth exists, can be known, and originated from God. In his book The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis gives historical documentation that all cultures throughout history have recognized a basic, common moral code of what was right and wrong. The Christian scriptures (such as Romans, chapter 2) also tell us that mankind knows what is morally right, even though he may earnestly give himself over to what is morally wrong. Man has known the moral code, even when he did not always follow the moral code.
The reason that this ubiquitous moral code is not open for revisions is because God’s nature (or essence) does not change. Remember that God is eternal. Morality⎯ reflective of Who God is⎯ likewise, does not change. The question becomes “To what degree is my aversion to the moral code an offense to the One Who handed down the moral code?” Opposition or indifference to “natural law,” i.e. “morality,” is actually a rebellion against the Lawgiver.
The human ethical problem is a sort of militant autonomy⎯ the desire to live independently of God. In previous times, we called this sin, and most had no problem admitting their own share in human culpability. Today, many impose their own standards over God's standard, and set themselves up as their own moral judges. American culture of 2010 all but shouts: "Since God's way cuts across the grain of our own wants and desires, we’ll disbar God, and replace Him with a Law-giver that may be tolerated more easily...ourselves.”
Commenting on the potentials of the hybrid bacteria, Dr. Venter said, “We are entering a new era where we're limited mostly by our imaginations.” I would submit that we’d better be limited by something more than just our imaginations. When operating apart from solid moral grounding, the human imagination has inflicted some grisly things on the world. Let’s hope that today’s cutting-edge laboratories don’t create biological armaments, which wind up equipping modern libertines to set new benchmarks in human suffering.
Some say that such scientists are “playing God.” But before doing that, modern science would have to recognize that there is One! Whatever the scientists are doing, let us pray that the results are ultimately handled only by those who live within standards of absolute morality and who recognize the value of human life.
About Alex McFarland
Author, educator, and speaker Alex McFarland has spoken in all 50 states and internationally. He is the founder of Truth For A New Generation, the nation’s largest conference on apologetics and evidence for the Christian faith.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Uh Oh! Your Kilogram is Shrinking
Suppose that you ordered an expensive custom bowling ball online, and you want to know if it really weighs seven kilograms like the ad promised (Hey. . . it could happen). How could you determine the actual weight of your rare bowling ball? You would weigh it on an accurate scale, of course! How would you know that the scale is accurate? Scales can go out of adjustment and be wrong, you know. Scales used in science and in commerce are kept accurate by calibration. In other words, the scale-maintenance-people test the readings on scales by seeing if they match up with some unchanging, know-to-be-exact quantity of weight.
In the late 1800's, scientists in Europe agreed on what the exact weight of a kilogram is. A small weight (composed of the metals platinum and iridium)- which equalled one kilogram- was named the "International Prototype Kilogram" and was safely stored away. It is said that every 40 years, scientists from various countries are allowed to take this IPK out for examination. In measuring their own countries' kilograms against the ultimate standard for what a kilogram weighs…. the scale and science boys can keep things honest.
"Look ma! I handled the kilogram!"
I can see how it would be a big deal to handle the IPK. I mean, think about it: Any old scientist could use generic scale in the lab down at the local high school. But how many people ever get to see the scale or touch the weights that all other weights are measured against?
It reminds me of being in high school back at Southeast Guilford where I attended in rural North Carolina. There was this little scale back in science lab. It was painted sort of white and black, and had a pan on one end for weighing things like milky quartz rocks, stinky sulphur powder, or the small brain that my teacher (Mr. Helms) removed from a dead rat. The scale had with it a cool set of little gold colored weights with it. We would carefully balance the scale, and perhaps observe, "Wow! A two gram brain… that must have been one intelligent rat!" Had we not had those little counter-weights, our pursuit of scientific knowledge (or rat brain weights, at least) would have been impossible.
In 2007, it was announced that after one hundred uneventful years, the IPK kilogram didn't seem to weigh the same as it had. When scientists had their regular, "let's get the official kilogram out of the box so we can say we handled it" time, a disturbing discovery was made. Supposedly, the IPK was off. Not much- but enough for scientists to be alarmed. Somehow, the weight of the International Prototype Kilogram had changed. The scientific community was asking, "So how do we really know what the ultimate standard for a kilogram is?"
Theories were tossed about: Had the scientists in the late 1800's measured wrong? Had the metal object somehow lost some of its mass? Were our modern, computerized scales more accurate than previous scales- or less- and therefore giving a weight that conflicted with the old familiar kilogram amount? So far, no single answer has been agreed upon. But uncertainty about the weight of a kilogram didn't make gas any cheaper, or cause the price of a one liter bottle of water to go down! (A liter of water weighs one kilogram).
An unchanging standard
The Bible is like that IPK, only better. The Bible is the standard for goodness, morality, virtue, knowledge about God, and the truth about salvation. The Bible is our measuring stick- our ultimate standard by which right is affirmed and wrong is exposed. But the Bible is different from the IPK in two ways: Choice and change. Humans didn't arbitrarily decide to make the Bible the ultimate standard; In His grace God revealed His Word to the human race. And regarding change…. In this ever-transient world, it is good to know that there is something that will last forever, impervious to the tides of time and culture- The Bible, God's Word.
About Alex McFarland
Author, educator, and speaker Alex McFarland has spoken in all 50 states and internationally. He is the founder of Truth For A New Generation, the nation's largest conference on apologetics and evidence for the Christian faith.
In the late 1800's, scientists in Europe agreed on what the exact weight of a kilogram is. A small weight (composed of the metals platinum and iridium)- which equalled one kilogram- was named the "International Prototype Kilogram" and was safely stored away. It is said that every 40 years, scientists from various countries are allowed to take this IPK out for examination. In measuring their own countries' kilograms against the ultimate standard for what a kilogram weighs…. the scale and science boys can keep things honest.
"Look ma! I handled the kilogram!"
I can see how it would be a big deal to handle the IPK. I mean, think about it: Any old scientist could use generic scale in the lab down at the local high school. But how many people ever get to see the scale or touch the weights that all other weights are measured against?
It reminds me of being in high school back at Southeast Guilford where I attended in rural North Carolina. There was this little scale back in science lab. It was painted sort of white and black, and had a pan on one end for weighing things like milky quartz rocks, stinky sulphur powder, or the small brain that my teacher (Mr. Helms) removed from a dead rat. The scale had with it a cool set of little gold colored weights with it. We would carefully balance the scale, and perhaps observe, "Wow! A two gram brain… that must have been one intelligent rat!" Had we not had those little counter-weights, our pursuit of scientific knowledge (or rat brain weights, at least) would have been impossible.
In 2007, it was announced that after one hundred uneventful years, the IPK kilogram didn't seem to weigh the same as it had. When scientists had their regular, "let's get the official kilogram out of the box so we can say we handled it" time, a disturbing discovery was made. Supposedly, the IPK was off. Not much- but enough for scientists to be alarmed. Somehow, the weight of the International Prototype Kilogram had changed. The scientific community was asking, "So how do we really know what the ultimate standard for a kilogram is?"
Theories were tossed about: Had the scientists in the late 1800's measured wrong? Had the metal object somehow lost some of its mass? Were our modern, computerized scales more accurate than previous scales- or less- and therefore giving a weight that conflicted with the old familiar kilogram amount? So far, no single answer has been agreed upon. But uncertainty about the weight of a kilogram didn't make gas any cheaper, or cause the price of a one liter bottle of water to go down! (A liter of water weighs one kilogram).
An unchanging standard
The Bible is like that IPK, only better. The Bible is the standard for goodness, morality, virtue, knowledge about God, and the truth about salvation. The Bible is our measuring stick- our ultimate standard by which right is affirmed and wrong is exposed. But the Bible is different from the IPK in two ways: Choice and change. Humans didn't arbitrarily decide to make the Bible the ultimate standard; In His grace God revealed His Word to the human race. And regarding change…. In this ever-transient world, it is good to know that there is something that will last forever, impervious to the tides of time and culture- The Bible, God's Word.
About Alex McFarland
Author, educator, and speaker Alex McFarland has spoken in all 50 states and internationally. He is the founder of Truth For A New Generation, the nation's largest conference on apologetics and evidence for the Christian faith.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Why Are Evangelicals Surrendering on Homosexuality?
Exodus International, a 37-year-old ministry helping people overcome
homosexual behavior, announced it is closing down yesterday on the same
day its president, Alan Chambers, issued a public apology to those who
have been hurt by its efforts.
"We're not negating the ways God used Exodus to positively affect thousands of people, but a new generation of Christians is looking for change—and they want to be heard," shared Tony Moore, an Exodus board member. The question must be asked: Is this the Bible's approach to dealing with same-sex attraction and activity?
Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary told Baptist Press "Sadly, it appears that this rethinking has resulted in something like a surrender to the cultural currents of the day." Indeed, in a year when the Boy Scouts of America have changed policy regarding gay members and conservative Republican politicians are announcing a public embrace of same-sex marriage, many are concerned that the historic Christian view of marriage and family is in jeopardy.
A look at both social science research and Scripture affirms the ideal design for family, marriage and sexual ethics. A 2012 University of Texas study conducted an, "Analysis of 3,000 Americans raised in, 'different types of family arrangements.'" The study found that, "...A person is more likely to get molested in a household led by two lesbians than in a traditional two-parent household. They are also more likely to have STD's, to identify as a homosexual, to be on public assistance, to have thoughts of suicide, and to have been forced to have sex unwillingly."
US census data confirms study done by Mark Regnerus, leader of the New Family Structures Study: "Kids raised by homosexual parents are more likely to suffer from a host of social problems. Among them are strong tendencies, as adults, to exhibit poor impulse control; suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide; need mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; to be unfaithful partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana."
Biblically, Jesus made clear his view of marriage and sexuality. When asked about divorce and remarriage, he noted, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).
This affirmation of Jesus regarding the marriage relationship of Adam and Eve—one man and one woman in lifelong marital partnership—represents the view of Christianity's founder and the history of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Those who argue for evangelicals to accept and embrace "marriage equality" propose a redefinition of family in direct conflict with the religious teachings of the Bible.
How are evangelical Christians to respond to this latest "surrender" to same-sex activists? First, we must continue to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). This teaching from the apostle Paul provides the proper perspective of standing firm in one's belief without resorting to name-calling or animosity toward those who embrace unbiblical alternatives.
Second, evangelicals are called to live pure lives as an example to others. Much of evangelical Christianity's credibility has been tarnished through unloving attitudes toward those different from us, whether gay or otherwise, high rates of divorce and infidelity among Christians and other visible contradictions between faith and action. Those who oppose biblical beliefs need to both hear and see a message of light from those who claim to follow Christ.
Third, Christians should consider it a privilege to stand firm for truth that others oppose. The apostle Peter instructed, "It is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil" (1 Peter 3:17). Many do and will oppose the biblical view of family. We should not be surprised, but rather expect opposition and even consider it an honor that others would attack us for standing for biblical truth.
These days, opposition to God's revelation on sexuality comes well packaged, impressively marketed, and with the endorsement of celebrities and cultural icons. Must formerly trustworthy organizations to capitulate simply to placate the demands of well funded idealogues? Should this daunting cultural tide against truth and morality force Christians to betray their convictions? Should the souls of millions be imperiled because we resign ourselves to tell people what they simply want to hear? The answers must be, "No, no, and no!"
While same-sex marriage activists will continue to mobilize to pursue their particular agenda, the priorities of Christian believers are clear—to love the Lord and to love others. This includes a clear stand for God's truth as related to sexuality and marriage, communicated in a gracious, civil manner, as Christians seek to oppose the redefining of morality in our time.
About Alex McFarland
Author, educator, and speaker Alex McFarland has spoken in all 50 states and internationally. He is the founder of Truth For A New Generation, the nation's largest conference on apologetics and evidence for the Christian faith.
"We're not negating the ways God used Exodus to positively affect thousands of people, but a new generation of Christians is looking for change—and they want to be heard," shared Tony Moore, an Exodus board member. The question must be asked: Is this the Bible's approach to dealing with same-sex attraction and activity?
Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary told Baptist Press "Sadly, it appears that this rethinking has resulted in something like a surrender to the cultural currents of the day." Indeed, in a year when the Boy Scouts of America have changed policy regarding gay members and conservative Republican politicians are announcing a public embrace of same-sex marriage, many are concerned that the historic Christian view of marriage and family is in jeopardy.
A look at both social science research and Scripture affirms the ideal design for family, marriage and sexual ethics. A 2012 University of Texas study conducted an, "Analysis of 3,000 Americans raised in, 'different types of family arrangements.'" The study found that, "...A person is more likely to get molested in a household led by two lesbians than in a traditional two-parent household. They are also more likely to have STD's, to identify as a homosexual, to be on public assistance, to have thoughts of suicide, and to have been forced to have sex unwillingly."
US census data confirms study done by Mark Regnerus, leader of the New Family Structures Study: "Kids raised by homosexual parents are more likely to suffer from a host of social problems. Among them are strong tendencies, as adults, to exhibit poor impulse control; suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide; need mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; to be unfaithful partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana."
Biblically, Jesus made clear his view of marriage and sexuality. When asked about divorce and remarriage, he noted, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).
This affirmation of Jesus regarding the marriage relationship of Adam and Eve—one man and one woman in lifelong marital partnership—represents the view of Christianity's founder and the history of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Those who argue for evangelicals to accept and embrace "marriage equality" propose a redefinition of family in direct conflict with the religious teachings of the Bible.
How are evangelical Christians to respond to this latest "surrender" to same-sex activists? First, we must continue to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). This teaching from the apostle Paul provides the proper perspective of standing firm in one's belief without resorting to name-calling or animosity toward those who embrace unbiblical alternatives.
Second, evangelicals are called to live pure lives as an example to others. Much of evangelical Christianity's credibility has been tarnished through unloving attitudes toward those different from us, whether gay or otherwise, high rates of divorce and infidelity among Christians and other visible contradictions between faith and action. Those who oppose biblical beliefs need to both hear and see a message of light from those who claim to follow Christ.
Third, Christians should consider it a privilege to stand firm for truth that others oppose. The apostle Peter instructed, "It is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil" (1 Peter 3:17). Many do and will oppose the biblical view of family. We should not be surprised, but rather expect opposition and even consider it an honor that others would attack us for standing for biblical truth.
These days, opposition to God's revelation on sexuality comes well packaged, impressively marketed, and with the endorsement of celebrities and cultural icons. Must formerly trustworthy organizations to capitulate simply to placate the demands of well funded idealogues? Should this daunting cultural tide against truth and morality force Christians to betray their convictions? Should the souls of millions be imperiled because we resign ourselves to tell people what they simply want to hear? The answers must be, "No, no, and no!"
While same-sex marriage activists will continue to mobilize to pursue their particular agenda, the priorities of Christian believers are clear—to love the Lord and to love others. This includes a clear stand for God's truth as related to sexuality and marriage, communicated in a gracious, civil manner, as Christians seek to oppose the redefining of morality in our time.
About Alex McFarland
Author, educator, and speaker Alex McFarland has spoken in all 50 states and internationally. He is the founder of Truth For A New Generation, the nation's largest conference on apologetics and evidence for the Christian faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)