may 16, 2024

*Published by Christianpost.com

Culturally, people and some Christians too are mistakenly led to believe that philosophy can be as arbitrary as mathematical equations. Philosophy is not so. Nevertheless I am not suggesting that it’s a menace to Christian faith. The discipline of philosophy is one of ideas. That’s it. Some are good, and some are bad. There isn’t an ultimate standard by which a bad idea should be philosophically repudiated without God, as the material Universe is neutral. It simply couldn’t care, define, or distinguish good from bad.

Further, secular philosophy provides ideas that are preferred and conveniently adopted by cultural thought, especially when they are reputed to debunk Christian faith. As a Christian, I have come to realize that philosophical critiques of Christian faith create more of a nuisance. I remain convinced that for many good reasons a Christian’s faith shouldn’t be intimidated by secular philosophy.

Ideas are necessary, and should always be stimulated. Our minds were wired by God to think, innovate, and also to advance knowledge by observations. Throughout history, Christians too have contributed significantly in all disciplines and with other theists have received the majority of Nobel prizes, while atheists have received about 10 per cent. The tension between secular philosophy and Christian faith has always been that the former insists on naturalizing everything, while the latter acknowledges the natural world and philosophizes that belief in Christ is reasonable for a comprehensive human experience of reality.

In Western culture, since the Enlightenment, it’s been reputed that the traditional arguments for God’s existence have been refuted. That’s not true at all. They remain reasonable, logical, and compelling. Retorts from high profile critics have been established in cultural thought ex cathedra and thereby accepted gratuitously. A celebrated academic who holds a prestigious chair at a distinguished university rebuts, ‘who created God,’ and so the Design argument is deemed refuted. Or a popular public intellectual philosophizes about how moral objectivity was established by growing social concords and then that is treated as refuting the moral argument for God. It’s all conveniently contrived, with a point here and there, to derail from any path towards a reasonably held Christian faith.

Take for example, the logical positivism popularized by the highly influential English philosopher A. J. Ayer. Philosophical terms can be abstract and even mesmerizing when unfamiliar. It’s important for Christians to learn the definitions, as that will make it less difficult to think through what seems intimidating. Positivism is the idea that knowledge of something is verified either by direct observation or a priori. A priori refers to statements that are known without observation; such as, a bachelor is not married, or grey is a color, or a square has four equal sides. These are self-evident truths prior to any empirical attestation. You can see how Christian faith is categorically excluded as positivists demand empirical verification and pounce that God is not self-evident.

It's generally acknowledged, however, that Ayer’s positivism failed his own test. Its methodology is neither self-evident (a priori) nor observed empirically. Thus it fails its own requirements for valid knowledge and thereby self-referentially defeated. Culturally, however, many continue to treat the idea as refuting claims of Christian faith. In variations, positivism persists as more than its status as an idea. It’s treated as a binding solution to the Christian message that “since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1).

The tension of “we walk by faith not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7) is at the core. The apparatus of secular philosophy is its underlying assumption that “faith” is blind and so it demands “sight” in order to establish any truth claims. We all know that “sight” is not possible. This impossibility is exploited with ideas that are proffered as warranting unbelief. For the Christian, there is much philosophical theology and philosophy of science that is logical, compelling, and support the reasonableness of one’s faith.

The tension will persist largely because secular philosophy has the subtle demand that unless God is observed it will not believe. Actually, it cannot appreciate how God allows Christian faith to be in relationship with Him. If the ultimate request of secular philosophy were satisfied, it would result in immediate physical death. Can anyone come close to the Sun and survive? How much more could one see the Almighty who created that great light and remain alive? For our own good, God said: “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live” (Ex. 33:20).

By faith, Christians have an unmistakable experience that, “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:16). This experience forms part of a cumulative warrant for a reasonably held faith. A Christian doesn’t need to feel insecure until faith is validated by the ideas of secular philosophy. Frankly, that will never happen. With forethought, philosophical naturalism persists and so it’s limited from the outset. Some secular philosophers, however, have come around to realize that metaphysics and ontology are a realm that is beyond the categories of direct observation, and yet provides meaning.

In many ways, Christian faith is itself intimidating and purposely avoided. I get it that talk of sin, repentance, judgement, and Hell is not endearing at a dinner party. These tenets of Christian faith are not culturally welcomed. That does not mean they are false, but it does challenge believers to be prudent and learn how to articulate appropriately. As the Bible teaches, there is “a time for every matter under heaven” (Eccl. 3:1). Nevertheless, I believe that love and kindness towards secular thinkers go a lot further than rigorous arguments or seeking to win in debate. When the ideas of secular philosophy are properly acknowledged and understood they can make stimulating conversation.

*Published by Christianpost.com

As a young Christian, I attended a leaders conference in the Caribbean. On the evening of formally ordaining local pastors, a superintendent made an indelible impression. He said to them, “you are not here to receive a trophy, a medal, or a plaque of honor.” There was a hush, and then he continued: “you are here to be supported in God’s call to battle.” As a neophyte, I realized that ministry was not about prestige, elevated status, or distinguishing titles. Nowadays with so many questionable practices in the Church, leaders need to rekindle their understanding of what it means to be called by God to ministry.

In today’s world, can a believer know that God is calling them to ministry? I believe there are 5 distinguishing traits that can provide benefit to this question.

Passion for the Gospel

This is indispensable. A believer who is called by God will possess an inward conviction of the Gospel’s truth insomuch that it cannot be contained. Passion doesn’t reveal itself by showmanship or enthusiastically telling people what they want to hear and making a successful career out of it. Passion for the Truth is what Jeremiah said, “there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot” (20:9). Such passion characterizes a person who is called by God for service to His people. Real passion develops a mind-set that is determined to communicate repentance, grace, and to enrich the faith of believers.

Increasing fear of God and decreasing intimidation of others

When God places His call upon believers, they will develop a growing sense of His majesty and become less intimidated by the culture’s besmirching of Christian faith. These Christian leaders are growing in boldness and in the fear of God, and they really know that “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31). They “can confidently say, ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me’” (Heb. 13:6)? Those called of God acknowledge that human beings are flawed, not wiser than God, and that everyone needs His grace. If God is calling you, then expect your spiritual tastebuds to develop a growing sense of awe for God with decreasing intimidation of those who oppose the Gospel.

Professional pursuits are unfulfilling

There is nothing wrong with pursuing a career in a chosen profession. Remember that Billy Graham was a Fuller Brush salesperson, but he wasn’t happy. Many believers who are called of God are now serving tables, selling something, or in a prestigious corporate position, and yet they think about their calling incessantly. Their passion is great, and I would encourage them to continue to work and “be still before the Lord and wait patiently for him; fret not yourself over the one who prospers in his way” (Ps. 37:7). Also know that when God calls and gifts someone, He never takes it back. It will always be yours. “For the gifts and the calling of God,” reminded Paul, “are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29). So, there is no shame in working for a living, but keep the fire burning within you. Continue to walk close to Him and in due time your gift and calling will impact the lives of others.

Holiness is not boring

If you think holiness is boring, then you should continue to pray about your calling. The Bible teaches everywhere that God’s people are to be set apart, and that life is a gift from God. Life was intended to be lived out apart from sin, and sin is destructive. Those whom God calls have a profound sense of this destructive reality. They hate it when lives are destroyed by sin, and endeavor by the power of grace to make a difference in people’s lives. The antithesis to holiness is worldliness, that is, living apart from God. Those called by God will identify seriously with the Scriptural address to holiness: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). The joys of holiness will be so strong that the world dims in comparison for those whom God calls. Holiness should take on a whole new dimension when God impresses His call upon you.

Growing discernment of human nature

A key distinctive in knowing God’s call is that one has discerned the difference between loving Jesus and loving to talk about Jesus. Ministry offers an abundant supply of attention and so talking about Jesus to an audience can become intoxicating. The platform of a faith community can become a status symbol whereon those who occupy it compete for attention. God’s leaders know this, and so they strive to manage without political interferences. They carefully develop believers to do what’s best for God’s people, and not to grandstand. One called of God has discerned the pitfalls of pride and that the fundamental problem of humankind is its rebellion against God and desire to be a god. Christian leaders know that a faith community is not immune to these temptations. With their passion, fear of God, and desire for people to experience all that God has for them, they will facilitate ministry that promotes holiness unto God.

Finally, those called of God know their place in the Kingdom. After Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, He said: “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them” (John 13:17). The example of Jesus is not merely theoretical, but a living reality for those whom God calls. They may have natural gifts of charisma, winsomeness and flair, or intellectual aptitude, but deep within they fear God. Deep within they also possess servant hearts, and enjoy seeing the people of God achieve all that He has for them. Ministry will be a never-ending battle, with many ups and downs. Nevertheless those genuinely called of God will find joy in serving, and they will never find true fulfillment outside their calling.

*Published by Christianpost.com

What is ‘Cultural Christianity’? It seems difficult to define without paradox. Can it be defined by the trends of a particular culture? How is ‘Christian’ understood? A culture’s thinking may provide answers but what makes them offer anything special to humankind? That seems to be the paradox: it offers a sense of ‘Christian’ without it being Christian. ‘Cultural Christianity’ can freely reinterpret Christian faith to accommodate cultural trends, one today, another tomorrow, and yet another next week. So, what was the point of the world’s most famous atheist when he recently complained about the decline of ‘cultural Christianity’ in the UK?

During Easter,  Richard Dawkins said in an interview, “I call myself a cultural Christian. . . . I’m not a believer, but there’s a distinction between being a believing Christian and a cultural Christian. And so, I love hymns and Christmas carols, and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos.” The sobriety of Dawkins is commendable, and we certainly witness a tone far removed from the iconoclasm of The God Delusion. There definitely seems to be an experience of something about Christianity, and it’s intriguing to witness a staunch atheist speak of feelings towards “the Christian ethos.”

Dawkins seemed to embrace something about Christianity while declining belief in its actual faith. He mentioned that he “loves hymns and Christmas carols.” What does he love about them? Most lyrics are theological, Christological, and doxological. Does he have an inner feeling that desires Christian faith but is suppressed by empirical demands? The feeling to “love hymns and Christmas carols” is not uncommon for a human being. Is the sentiment compelled by ‘believing Christianity’ and substituted by artificial exercises?

So when Dawkins lamented the decline of ‘cultural Christianity’ in the UK, what is the antidote that would benefit the UK if the trend reversed? I believe the ‘cultural Christianity’ of Dawkins could pass as a tenet of Secular Humanism. Even a humanist could identify as a ‘cultural Christian’ without accepting Christian faith. It becomes a preferred identity that could appreciate a moral ethos of “love your neighbor” teachings of Christianity, and participate in an occasional hymn singing to get the feeling of something. 

The real antidote for humankind’s predicaments is what distinguishes “a believing Christian,” particularly belief in grace, repentance from sin, and regeneration. Jesus said, “I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture” (John 10:9). This is the door that allows entrance into the home of Christianity. Through this door, a believer receives grace and experiences the joys of sins forgiven with a peaceful relationship with God. This is the real “distinction.” So then, I wonder what makes Dawkins believe that his identity as a ‘cultural Christian’ should be preferred over that of “a believing Christian?”

As a believer, I submit that the Gospel is a hard message that makes everyone uncomfortable. It certainly can provoke antagonism from people. That is why believers are commanded to be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:15). The Gospel is an all-or-nothing message. For a contemporary natural person, it’s simply not part of the cultural way of thinking. Yet the Gospel continues to invite people to experience the grace of God, and regeneration provides a substantially new manner of appreciating the Savior.

Humanity is the ultimate object of our interpretations of Christian faith. Whatever question one asks about the Lord Jesus, the object of the answer will always be the human mind, heart and will. This is why inquirers can become contrarian and often emotional, as answers provide implications that challenge lifestyles. ‘Cultural Christianity’ can provide artificial fillers that suit one’s preferences, but I believe it’s misleading and not a bona fide world-view.

To amplify the real distinction and eliminate paradox, a questioner should consider sympathetically what the High Priest of Christianity taught. What I mean by sympathetically is genuinely seeking to understand what Jesus Himself wanted humanity to know. A seeker can always disagree, but at least it will be an intelligent disagreement. The distinction between ‘cultural Christianity’ and Christian faith should reveal a clear understanding of both so that people can decide intelligently.

Jesus began His ministry by uttering this initial directive, “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14). He then taught humankind that, “the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matt. 7:13). This message shocks cultural thought, but makes people feel something about the Lord Jesus. As He said, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (John 6:63-64). A natural person considers the message but evaluates it as too counter-cultural, and not realistic to how modern people should live their lives. Nevertheless the convictions are real and so is the call to repentance. Thus cultural thought embraces an “appearance of godliness, but denying its power” (2 Tim. 3:5).

Perhaps ‘Cultural Christianity’ is not all meaningless, but I am still thinking about whether Dawkins has any common ground with Christian faith. Would he feel comfortable standing around a piano at Christmas time with me and my believing Christian friends and singing, “Joy to the World”? Would he be open to joining a Bible study on the Sermon on the Mount with evangelical scholars? When someone says they “feel at home” with something there is usually some willingness to participate in that “home.” Nevertheless I can appreciate these sentiments of Dawkins towards Christianity, even though his interpretation borrows what he likes but can’t offer an antidote of his own.

Christian faith remains an intelligent world-view as it demonstrates competent engagement with reality and offers a unique antidote to humanity’s predicaments, one which people of all socio-economic, educational, and political groups continue to experience. The grace of God is beautiful as it doesn’t discriminate against anyone. The Gospel continues to prod people by the Spirit to enter “the Door.” This prodding is felt by many, but unfortunately cultural thought often makes the decision for them and so they settle with ‘cultural Christianity.’

*Published by Christianpost.com

I understand that atheism is a denial of all religious deities, and I agree that the burden of proof is on the claimant. However, I have come to realize that a denial of the Christian God is intellectually disordered.

The implication is not that unbelievers are themselves intellectually disordered. They could possess fine intellectual aptitude but when it comes to a denial of the Christian God, I believe the content requires intellectual order. I use the term “disorder” by its meaning on dictionary.com, “lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion.”

So what is the point of this article? In the midst of raging cultural wars, it’s necessary to highlight how attempts to undermine a Christian’s faith are intellectually disordered. The Gospel remains a powerful message that offers grace, forgiveness, and a real personal relationship with God. The relevancy and credibility of it should be articulated with confidence. It resonates and makes complete sense of the human experience of reality. Christians should remain steadfast, “in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began“ (Tit. 1:2). Skepticism does not engage in serious orderly conversation, but seeks mostly to annoy by sarcastic rhetoric. Christian claims are nitpicked, and disordered with intent to disable their potency.

The first disorder is treating Christian faith like all other religions. Logic reveals that religions contradict one another. They teach different tenets and so they cannot all be correct. A Christian believes that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). So whenever skepticism retorts by mixing all religions together, it’s simply fallacious and disordered. For Christians, conversing with other religions seems more worthwhile as we respectfully acknowledge our unique differences, and thus logic is maintained. With many skeptics, we have lost that common ground of logic. Skeptics should admit that all religions do not teach the same things. That would initiate a necessary disentanglement in skepticism’s intellectual disorder.

Skepticism also talks as if it has a monopoly on scientific enterprise. Indeed, science is powerfully descriptive, and observations provide knowledge. Skeptics refer to their sources of interpretation as arbitrary over the ones that infer God. For example, the observed red shift is extrapolated to a point the size of a pinhead that exploded and brought the Universe into existence. There is no evidence that the “pinhead” contained fine-tuning, the laws of mathematics, physics and chemistry, the potential for male and female to procreate in perfect conditions, and all the nutrients to sustain life. It’s nevertheless assumed in conversation with Christians as ironclad science. When an excellent contemporary philosophy of science, such as, The Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen C. Meyer is brought into conversation, skeptics arbitrarily label it as unscientific.

Thus another intellectual disorder is that while skepticism constantly looks for opportunities to discredit Christian faith with preferred interpretations, it shows hardly any knowledge of “the God hypothesis.” Skeptics should take a lesson from the learned professor Jordan Peterson who read Meyer’s book and said, “well written, densely informative . . . It’s not often I encounter a book that contains so much I did not know.” If such a stalwart public intellectual admits to learning “so much (he) did not know,” how much more is there to learn for contemporary skepticism?

Conveniently, skepticism often quips, ‘there is no evidence for God.’ (I have written on this elsewhere, “No evidence for God? Says Who?”) This also leads to a conversation that is intellectually disordered. Even the great philosopher, Immanuel Kant said, “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe . . . the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” Kant was not necessarily alluding to God, but to our consciousness of practical reason that could suggest something beyond humanity. You could have an intellectually ordered conversation about Christian faith with someone who acknowledges that scientific laws cannot explain their own existence, that the actual human conscience exists apart from social conditioning, and that our capacity for practical reason seems inbred.

The realities of justice, love, free-will and rationality are as indisputable as mathematical equations. Intellectual disorder occurs as contemporary skepticism takes Christian concepts and treats them as human inventions by applying preferred interpretations. It says humanity created God; order simply emerged from primordial chaos; humanity then developed laws and the concept of justice; it delineated objectively right from wrong; it discovered the need for love; it created all the talents and gifts to compose art and music; finally, it neatly packaged them all in what has become Secular Humanism. This is not a caricature; it’s an intellectually disordered view. (Again, I have already written about this in “Christian faith and the illusion of secularism.”)

Christian faith and skepticism have become too far apart, but don’t take my word for it. Take it from the chief of skeptical rhetoric and sarcasm, the late Christopher Hitchens. In the documentary, Collision, with the competent Christian thinker, Douglas Wilson, Hitchens said: “despite our good personal relations, on a side apart, divided from one another . . . there’s no bridge that can suffice” (YouTube, 6:58-7:25).

Wilson reasoned that skeptics critique the Christian worldview by invoking a worldview that has no justification for its supposed superior moral judgements. Wilson said of Hitchens, “Notice that he is not . . . appealing to a standard that overarches all human beings that is obligatory for all of us. He says things like Substitutionary Atonement is immoral, well by what standard? Why? What worldview considers it to be immoral? Why is that worldview in charge of the Christian worldview” (17:58–18:25)?

Criticism of the Christian faith often contains sarcasm, ridicule, disordered rhetoric, and lacks genuine openness to discovering the Truth. A believer can press on with confidence that in an intellectually ordered conversation, Christian faith is philosophically, scientifically, and existentially sound. Regrettably, the shared center of civility seems all that’s left in conversations between Christian faith and skepticism.

*Published by Christianpost.com

Skeptics often ask, who created God? A similar question is, who designed the Designer? There is irony in these questions. Inherent is a commitment to God’s existence, for one cannot inquire anything meaningful about God unless He exists. How can a reasonable person ask seriously about the origin of anything that does not exist? It’s thus ironic that while the question attempts to undermine God’s existence or nullify it altogether, it’s committed to exploring God.

A claim of Christian faith is that, “The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. . . . his understanding is unsearchable” (Is. 40:28). How can this be verified to the satisfaction of an inquiring mind? Even committed Christian thinkers know that the cliches, “by faith,” “by experience” or “by biblical analyses,” do not necessarily satisfy questioners. Nevertheless I believe that the Eternal God can be known personally and intellectually to the satisfaction of rational thought.

Perhaps some are probably expecting me to provide a concrete reference that explains the origins of God. I must genuinely submit that this expectation is not reasonable. Even if I were to prove indisputably that “A” brought God into existence, then the skeptic would ask what created “A”? These demands could continue ad infinitum into absurdity. They lead to a fallacious line of thinking.

Knowledge does not require an explanation of its explanations in order to be true. For example, aviators know how much fuel is required to reach a destination and this workable knowledge is true without an explanation of where the computational values originated. We could attempt to investigate the origins, but only after we have acknowledged the computational values.

Likewise, a questioner must acknowledge God’s existence before asking where He came from. If God does not exist, the question is senseless. Where did God come from is a question that is committed to His existence. In other words, a sincere questioner seeks an answer that informs about God and not about whether or not He exists. The question does have a correct answer, and even if one were to reject it that would not negate the actual existence of God.

Further, the Design Argument is often challenged by the question, who designed the Designer? Note that this question does not refute the argument. The argument is compelling and so the question is an attempt to avoid the conclusion by conflating the issue into confusion. The explanation that something is designed can be true regardless of what we know about the designer. I can understand why such an irrelevant question is asked because the questioner doesn’t like where the conversation is going.

Knowledge of the Christian faith is always rigorously challenged. Unlike other knowledge, concessions to a tenet of Christianity could entail moral accountability. Christian thinkers offer explanations that are often compelling, and so a skeptic who wishes to escape accountability often spins the content. Confusion is then deemed as a warrant for unbelief.

In Christian theology, God is Eternal. He is without beginning and without end. He is the ultimate ground of reality. That is why we refer to Him as God. The question of where did God come from is purposeless unless it’s asked with theological curiosity. As a young Christian, I remember asking a pastor what God was doing before He created us and the universe? The pastor explained that we don’t know, and although it was a fair question it had no bearing on our relationship with Him as He has decided to reveal Himself to us. Since then, I have grown to understand that in a human lifetime there is no way we could understand everything about God.

Limited knowledge of God does not equate to His non-existence. To the contrary, it means that our knowledge of God is finite as we are finite beings grappling with the One whose “understanding is unsearchable.” Theologically and philosophically, it’s reasonable to believe and conclude that reality has an ultimate ground. For a Christian, there is a consciousness of God’s presence within that is also informed intellectually. We experience and understand God exactly as the biblical writers revealed: “Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting” (Ps. 93:2). What was understood and experienced of God thousands of years ago has been real to subsequent generations of believers, as well as to us today. We comprehend meaningfully that, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb. 13:8).

A questioner is sincere only if committed to exploring the attributes of God, and then making up one’s own mind about personal salvation in Christ. Isn’t it reasonable to consider that God is the ultimate ground of reality? It makes philosophical sense; otherwise, we regress into absurdity. All the evil, selfishness, and ill-will we encounter have a remedy in Jesus Christ. It’s a fact that throughout history the Gospel has transformed countless lives, and continues to do so today. Isn’t it intellectually honest to read and investigate this Good News for oneself? Questions are meaningful only when we are genuinely open to considering the answers.

I have a question for the skeptic who asks, who created God? That is, if you somehow discovered that Christian faith is true would you become a Christian? If you were to answer, no, then you should shift focus on why you would answer, no. It will reveal a great deal about your own questions.

*Published by Christianpost.com

Part of intellectual fulfillment is the exercise of unfettered curiosity. Also, wonder can provide inclinations that should make one think freely. Christian faith provides wonder that continues to draw people into conversation. Atheism also experiences wonder but compels itself to think about it within strictly material references. Its curiosity is thus limited to a strict methodology or even undermined altogether. Can such a thinking approach achieve ultimate intellectual fulfillment? I am convinced that personally knowing God achieves intellectual fulfillment, whereas atheism is intellectually trapped.

Look at the starry night, look at the precision of our solar system, look at the fascinating functions of our cells, and look at athletes excelling in their sport, these observations should create wonder in the minds of the curious. Ever wonder how the Earth can zoom around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour while spinning around at 1,000 miles per hour, and its surface maintains the perfect level of gravity for constant human stability? It’s utterly amazing. Ever wonder how an athlete can focus and run a flawless 100 meters hurdles with a speed of about 12 or 13 seconds? It’s so elegant and inspirational.

To answer that such phenomena are explained by materialism reveals not only intellectual smugness and a lack of wonder but also enormous incuriosity.

Richard Dawkins famously quipped that, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Does this mean that by material agencies Darwin accounted for all living organisms and so disbelief in God is justified? Even if a Darwinian world were true, how can matter alone generate curiosity, wonder, and reason towards intellectual fulfillment? If matter is what began life, and if matter is all that there is, or ever will be, curiosity, wonder and the experience of beauty cannot be calibrated. In materialism, then, how can the mind evaluate what is wonderful, beautiful, and appreciate remarkable achievements? Even if a curious atheist would ask these questions, there can be no fulfilling answers in a strictly material world. By extension, atheism cannot provide intellectual fulfillment.

Our human experience contradicts the restricted thinking of materialism. The mind is always inclined to explore what is beyond the material, as attested to by the research scientists at SETI. Does this mean that adherents to atheism cannot be genuinely curious or experience wonder? Not at all. What it does mean is that such inclinations do not come from atheism. They come from a realm that evidently is other than material.

A Christian also studies, comprehends, and engages with the realities of the material world, but claims that in Christ “are hidden all the treasurers of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). The experience of God’s grace opens up beauty and wonder about the material universe. The laws of science reveal magnificent structures of design, fine-tuning, and constants that are part of a cumulative warrant of His “wisdom and knowledge.” Likewise moral law and justice are part of life’s tapestry and take on profound meaning in a Christian world-view. Materialism cannot provide the objective reference of morality that we all experience. Christian faith thus provides a personal knowingness of the ultimate ground of our existence, thereby providing real intellectual fulfillment.

Now if it’s true that God created us and the material world, and Christ the Savior can be personally known to reveal “the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” wouldn’t that be the ultimate in intellectual fulfillment? An open-minded thinker would have to agree that if Christian faith were true, then the answer would be yes. If “no,” then why not loosen up and display curiosity about something that is evidently part of humanity’s experience?

Why insist adamantly that the material world only appears designed but is not actually designed? Why fabricate our moral order as something that emerged from cultural agreements? Why accuse Christians of embracing mythology? Why leave the intellect trapped in a material world?

Atheism’s main pushback is that with time and scientific methodologies we may discover what we do not know now, and so positing God is a “gap filler” (I have addressed this elsewhere). Nevertheless, if so, atheism reveals its intellectual dissatisfaction, for how can one make such concessions of ignorance and claim to be “intellectually fulfilled”?

Now let’s be frank here. Atheism is concerned with not conceding its autonomy to think and behave as it wishes. Do atheists experience inner convictions of transgression? Of course they do, for “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). So atheism must cleave to materialism and avoid any path that could lead to a personal surrender to God. This is what’s really going on. Debates, contentions, denials, theories to support “appearance” and denouncements of “actuality,” and philosophical mumbo jumbo, are all intended to maintain freedom from God.

Yet Christian faith remains compelling. A recent podcast noted that “the most Googled questions” are “does life have a purpose” and “is Christianity true”? People are obviously dissatisfied and searching for fulfilment. Of utmost importance is for people to do justice to their own thinking by exercising curiosity and genuine open-mindedness; otherwise, the mind is not being used to its full potential.

The Cross is a well-documented historical fact. There begins a wonderful journey that will satisfy a believer’s heart and intellect. The once famous former atheist, C. S. Lewis, articulated it this way: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” This should resonate with all curiously minded people, and prompt genuine free-thinking towards real intellectual fulfillment.

*Published by Christianpost.com

Cultural narratives can influence how one’s Christian faith is perceived. Sometimes, they even speak of love, peace, mercy, and justice with more exciting appeal than Christian faith. A classic example in the history of cultural thought was when the late John Lennon went on tour, singing, “All we are saying is give peace a chance.” He also personally funded signs in ten major cities around the world that read, “War is over! If you want it.” At the time, these appeals captured the imagination of people everywhere. Many noteworthy causes have entered cultural consciousness while influencing people to “imagine there’s no heaven . . . and no religion too.”

Public intellectuals have also been effective at glorifying humanism, and thereby encouraging an identity with the so-called “brights.” Altogether, in today’s world, a believer is constantly challenged in overt and subtle ways to overcome a cultural perception that Christian faith lacks a “cool factor.” Although this cannot be ignored, I believe it shouldn’t cause Christians to negotiate their beliefs in order to improve their image.

What is a perception of being cool? It’s about something or someone commanding attention, admiration, and acceptance. It’s also about being perceived as contemporary and progressive. Human beings are sensitive to their image, and everyone appreciates positive attention. Contrary to the children’s teaching that “names will never hurt me,” everyone quickly learns that names do hurt. So being labeled as irrelevant, regressive, or fundamentalist can influence a Christian to negotiate beliefs in order to gain a perception of admiration in society.

There is one incontrovertible fact that the sooner it’s realized the better for Christians: the world will never, ever, perceive the Gospel as cool. By definition, Christian faith cannot be admired by the world, because it “convicts the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8-9). We shouldn’t marvel that cultural thought consistently ridicules Christian faith. After all, it’s a pain-point to be reminded of one’s sins. Even so, Jesus knew that following Him would entail perennial undermining from the world. “If you were of the world,” He said, “the world would love you as its own . . . but I chose you out of the world” (John 15:19). So if we truly possess “the Spirit” that “bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:16), then we should preoccupy ourselves with exploring the depths of what that means.

When celebrities appeal to a societal cause, their star power projects an optical “cool factor” that draws people to identify. The Christian voice often engages the conversation, but by default, it’s not deemed as exciting. So whenever you have a panel discussion on a societal matter with a celebrity, a professor, and a Christian leader, guess whose view is boring? The Christian perspective is stigmatized by a lack of forward thinking. So cultural thought will always favor what contradicts Christianity. I cannot stress enough that the local church must teach believers to think and learn how to engage intelligently with these cultural realities.

We are in a battle for the Gospel to go forward and address comprehensively the needs of humanity. There is much to be confident about in this calling. Intellectually, the Christian faith has survived centuries of scathing criticisms. Philosophically, it has competed and engaged well with the myriad ideas throughout history. Scientifically, Christian faith continues to provide a solid world-view of reality. Altogether, the Gospel remains steadfast in its promises of grace, forgiveness, and an unmistakable experience of personal redemption. Every Christian should be encouraged to grow in the knowledge of these realities.

It begins by a profound inner conviction that the Gospel is indispensable. Jesus taught that it’s paramount to grasp the inestimable value of what we possess in the Gospel. He spoke in a parable that the Kingdom of God is like a jewelry dealer who comes across the find of a lifetime, and then the other inventory becomes incomparable (Matt. 13:45f). Knowing the spiritual wealth of Christian faith is not merely a mystical notion, but a source of strength and wisdom in the very real battle of spiritual warfare.

In culture, the bias against Christian faith is beyond our control. However, our relationships with unbelieving friends, colleagues, and neighbors can garner respect as we become “quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” (James 1:19). We should never project a “know-it-all” attitude. As just noted, it’s biblical to listen more and speak less. Proper tone and politeness in conversation are what will leverage the credibility of our Christian faith among our individual communities.

Being deemed as not cool by cultural thought should never offend us, because makers of culture haven’t experienced or known “the truth in Jesus” (Eph. 4:21). So, as John Wesley said, “I would rather stand with God and be judged by the world, than stand with the world and be judged by God.” When we accepted Christ, we also signed up to be counter-cultural. So let’s be confidant as we follow the One who said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Now that’s really cool!

*Published by Christianpost.com

Where did we come from? It’s the most fascinating question. The correct answer will define human beings. Moreover, the implications are significant and that is why conversations on human origins often get highly emotional. I believe the answer is available. Logic is a tool that can inform the conversation and contribute towards discovering the truth.

In logic, the rule of non-contradiction is indisputable. When a dilemma is faced with two competing explanations that contradict one another then both cannot be correct, because they are contradicting one another. They could both be false, however.

Consider the view that human beings evolved from non-human ancestors by strictly naturalistic processes, or that God aided these evolutionary processes. This is contradicted by the view that human beings were divinely created by God, without any evolutionary process that produced human beings from non-human ancestors. So by the law of non-contradiction, logic teaches us that either there is such an evolutionary component to human origins or there is not.

In Genesis, it says: “the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” (2:7). Naturalists read this strictly as myth. Some theologians accommodate an evolutionary interpretation while other theological perspectives do not. These views cannot all be correct. They may be false, but I don’t think so. Let me explain why.

Evolutionary theory, whether naturalistic or theistic, is predicated on gradualism. That is to say, non-human species evolved gradually by slight modifications into what we are today. The whole process was the work of Natural Selection, chance, and random mutations over millions of years, or some believe that at times God intervened. If this gradual process is correct, with or without God, we should observe a creative mechanism that demonstrates how apes transformed into male and female humans. Artistic expressions, drawings, and sketches are not evidence that supports evolutionary theory, because science does not rely upon artistic displays that imagine what happened.

If those drawings of an animal crawling and then walking and changing into Homo erectus (upright man) and finally Homo sapiens (modern man and woman) were true, then it necessitates that each species found the required reproductive mate. It’s also important to understand that Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are names applied by theorists as they developed the ideas of Darwinism, and not actual species of male and female. Such named species are theorized while assuming an appropriate female counterpart at every stage.

Male and female apes cannot mate with intermediate male and female apes/humans and fertilize an offspring, because each couple requires specific reproductive systems. Science reveals that it’s impossible for an ape and a human, or a partial ape and a partial human, to mate and fertilize an egg.

When the human female egg is fertilized by the human male sperm the zygote immediately contains specific, complex, and detailed genetic information. The color of hair and eyes, physical features, and the sex, are all determined by information that is immutable. The process can be manipulated by medical procedures but that requires forethought that is intentionally specific, and not a random occurrence.

Apes also mate and produce according to their own genetic information, with distinct hairy and physical features unlike human beings. If we were to rewind the film of the history of the world, what would be the replay of the scientific mechanism that transformed apes into humans by a mating process? On solely scientific bases, the film would reveal male apes reproducing with female apes, and human males reproducing with human females. Anything more requires imagination, art, and homological sketching.

The view of an evolutionary component doesn’t seem to distinguish what it wants to believe from what is actual. A few observations of micro change in the human species are noted and pretentiously extrapolated to accommodate a non-negotiable idea of humans descending from apes. This idea persists even though science has revealed that male and female apes are not programmed, nor ever have been, to be sexually active with male and female humans.

Now if God created humanity without a gradual evolutionary component that modified apes into humans, then accordingly we would expect modern science to make specific observations and confirmations. Particularly, we should observe species that can only reproduce within their own kind. Human male and female reproductive systems are complex, and without their distinct specificity a sperm could not fertilize an egg. Science also reveals that human male and female hormones are sexually attractive to one another, and not towards animals. Even so, apes are not wired with a sexual drive towards human beings.

Thus science observes and confirms that the DNA of animals and humans is programmed to reproduce within its own kind. Thus a gradual process could not have bucked the science by making slight modifications for apes or intermediate apes/humans to evolve with unique reproductive systems at each stage and eventually produce human beings. Likewise, the belief that God intervened in the process to provide necessary requirements is scientifically untenable. Sure, similarities in DNA between animals and humans are identified, but there is no scientific mechanism that substantiates an extrapolation that intermediate apes/humans mated and eventually produced human beings.

Again, science does not support a belief that in rewinding human history we would observe how Natural Selection marvelously assembled human reproduction from non-human reproduction, or that it was guided by God. So why do so many continue to believe it? A while back, a well-known American scientist lectured on evolutionary theory here at the University of Toronto. Afterwards, I asked him privately whether he believed that evolutionary theory is science or more of a cultural narrative? He replied quietly, “it’s more of a cultural thing.” “In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie” (Gal. 1:20).

Two foregoing explanations have competed within the law of non-contradiction. Observations and rationality reveal that the explanation that an evolutionary component modified apes into human beings is scientifically untenable. Thus it’s logical to conclude, that of the two explanations, an intelligent entity programmed humankind to produce on their own without descent from apes. I believe that entity is God.

This conclusion remains open to competing explanations. If a hypothesis is to challenge that “God created man,” logic and science will require an explanation other than an evolutionary gradualism that transforms male and female apes into male and female humans.

*Published by Christianpost.com

No ideology, philosophy, or religion, has been able to supplant the Good News. The Gospel continues its perennial influence over humankind. “Heaven and earth will pass away,” said Jesus, “but my words will not pass away” (Mark 13:31). Even skeptics cannot help but experience the convictions of Jesus. What is indisputably true is that for the past two thousand years whoever has accepted God’s grace has experienced a wonderful regeneration. You can fact-check this claim, and research the endless testimonies across the centuries, nations, cultures, and classes of people who have similarily experienced the Gospel’s promises: “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

What exactly is the Good News? It’s not complicated at all. The Good News is that Jesus provides forgiveness of sins for free. This message continues to fulfill its promises, and remains unassailable.

Whenever the Gospel is in conversation, people know what are the implications of its message. They take umbrage at being reminded of sin. The convictions are real. Jesus said that the Spirit “will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). So, attempts are made to circumvent the Gospel’s inescapable convictions. Myriad excuses have ensued: Maybe the Gospel was fabricated? Maybe the convictions are social constructs? Our collective conscience could have emerged from the evolutionary processes? Perhaps the dictates of reason give us all a sense of right from wrong? What about other religions? The maybes, perhaps, might of, could have, and what abouts, are all part of humanity’s escape mechanisms. In reality, nobody can escape the convictions of the Gospel.

What has been notable throughout history is how humanity has often sought to replace our Savior with surrogates. It’s not surprising. Jesus did say, “I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him” (John 5:43). The evaluations of the Gospel by public intellectuals, pundits and cultural icons have become more significant than the actual Good News. Natural explanations are far more welcomed, because they allow people to remain self-centered. As John revealed, “the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light” (1 John 3: 19).

Now there are unbelievers who are decent, civil, mindful of others, and make contributions to society. Accordingly, many now believe that the Gospel is irrelevant and a stumbling block to progressive society. This is misinformation because the Gospel does not prevent people from pursuing careers and contributing to society. As Jesus encouraged, “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matt. 6:33). The Gospel invites people to reconcile with God and by His grace the human experience is completed.

I realize that some readers here disagree. But on what grounds? I have already written extensively and shown that reason and science do not falsify Christian faith. Deep inside, people choose to be contrarian in order to maintain what they believe is freedom to think and do as they wish. Humanity has taken God’s gift of life, His intellectual and creative gifts, its God given free-will, and audaciously used them to replace Him with humanistic thought. Humanity has taken all of God’s gifts and thrown out His rightful rule. This rebellion is the fundamental problem of humankind.

Yet God showed “his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). Here everyone has heard the skeptic charge that it was unnecessary for Christ to die, because God could have forgiven sins without allowing such suffering. That perspective is also theologically misinformed, and is another excuse to escape personal conviction.

Okay, fine, now let’s pretend that Jesus did not suffer and die for our sins. The skeptic now charges that God’s forgiveness is facile. It’s too easy and meaningless, with no real justification for the forgiveness of our transgressions. God should have come down Himself and die for our sins. That would have been a remarkable display of love, but He didn’t do that. You see, skepticism can always, and conveniently, produce an escape mechanism.

Anything that evades accountability to God is welcomed by the natural person. No human concoction of knowledge, however, has ever appeased the convictions of the inner person and provided forgiveness. Blaise Pascal famously said, “The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.” Admitting to sin and receiving God’s grace continues to provide the most liberating experience.

We are soon approaching 2024, and people continue to search for peace and fulfillment. Artificial intelligence will probably make life more complicated, because it’s precisely that, artificial. Some might even believe that AI can somehow find a way to replace the Gospel, but this expectation is another “escape mechanism.” Humanity will continue to experience inward convictions which can never be de-programmed.

The Spirit remains nearby. You are now inhaling, and exhaling, as your breath has been given to you by God. That is how close He will always remain. Anyone who calls upon the Lord Jesus for forgiveness will make friends with God, and nothing can ever be greater than that.

*Published by Christianpost.com

Last week in London, over 12,000 people attended The O2 and paid “significant sums of money to watch (Jordan) Peterson, the rockstar of public intellectuals” and other panelists to discuss “everything from marriage . . . to what the book of Job tells us about suffering.” Peterson began by asking the audience, “What are we all doing here?” Spectators may have had diverse responses, but the greater question was really: What are we searching for and expecting to find?

Angst is everywhere and people are searching for what can reconcile one’s fragile existence with a threatening world of uncertainty. The Gospel has always offered Christ who “has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility . . . that he might create in himself one new man . . . so making peace” (Eph. 2:14-15). I think that the challenge for contemporary Christian faith is that the Gospel offers non-tangibles, and so the tangible competes ferociously.

Modern people are conditioned to be educated by observed phenomena. Thus humanity’s innate sensitivity for God is now distracted by the allure of teachings on self-improvement. This is nothing new, as every epoch has known. Like Bunyan’s timeless Worldly Wiseman whose counsel sought to replace Evangelist’s message of faith:

“Why in yonder village . . . there dwells a gentleman, whose name is Legality, a very judicious man . . . that has skill to help men off with such Burdens as thine is, from their shoulders; yea, to my knowledge, he hath done a great deal of good this way: Ay, and besides, he hath skill to cure those that are somewhat crazed in their wits with their Burdens. To him, as I said, thou may’st go, and be help’d presently.”1

Today’s Worldly Wiseman attempts to naturalize spiritual sensitivities in a manner that is culturally palatable. This attempt is noteworthy in Peterson. He is urbane, intellectual, a clinical psychologist, and offers many insights on biblical themes. With 7.5 million YouTube subscribers and over 600 million views, he is a bona fide influencer who is establishing a subculture of searching followers. What is particularly noble of Peterson is his honesty to often say “I don’t know” or “I don’t understand.” Such sincere concessions make him a decently humble and likeable person.

When it comes to the Gospel, however, his naturalized explanations present a “Christ” who offers an “unshakable moral proposition” and the resurrection as a “metaphor” where “parts of us must die because they are in error and then we move forward and are constantly re-born as a consequent of going forward.”2 Peterson’s “Christ” symbolizes an exceptional ideal that merits emulative action. Peterson takes great liberty to read his own ideas into the Gospel. It's quite bold, actually. People listen because they believe he is culturally more exciting than the stereotypical banality of a preacher’s sermon.

On Christ’s teachings, Peterson also sermonized:

“These stories portray the existential dilemma that eternally characterizes human life: it is necessary to conform, to be disciplined, and to follow the rules – to do humbly what others do, but it is also necessary to use judgment, vision, and the truth that guides conscience to tell what is right, when the rules suggest otherwise. It is the ability to manage this combination that truly characterizes the full developed personality: the true hero.”3

This abstract idea of “Christ” offers a narrative that doesn’t really require faith; it requires adherence to principles which provide improvement for those who can appreciate them. This is a form of legalism. That is, one must fulfill a moral code as exemplified by principles in the life of “Christ” in order to ameliorate oneself. As well, the sensitivity to conscience seems enough to gauge an identity with “Christ.” Peterson’s ideas of “Christ” are complex, but alluring as one can get a feeling of spirituality without obeying Christ to “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2).

What Peterson doesn’t seem to get is that whether you call it “chaos” or rebellion, or any other moniker that describes moral shortcomings, it’s essentially a repackaging of sin. Yet his “Christ” is culturally more appealing than the Gospel’s invitation to repentance, to justification by faith, and to new life in Christ. That’s because Peterson deals with tangibles that are easily adoptable, whereas the Gospel offers intangibles with heartfelt accountability.

As a psychologist, his tips for emotional well-being do offer practical wisdom and educated advice. The weaving of biblical themes into his brand of self-improvement is merely another opinion in the long history of attempts at naturalizing Christian thought. Such opinions have always found a hearing in culture, because inward selfishness is not directed at repentance but towards a negotiation of sin.

I have a ton of respect for Peterson’s public intellectualism, but he lacks the import of what is central to the Gospel: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). My counsel to people who wish to pay “significant sums of money” to listen to Peterson is go ahead if you wish to glean psychological insights, critiques of cultural thought, and to consider his tips on various topics. If you are searching for forgiveness, new life and ultimate fulfilment, then bypass Peterson’s filters on Christian faith and explore the Gospel for yourself. Don’t believe that in a post-modern culture, only sophisticated cultural icons can offer exciting reflections on spiritual matters.

Be mindful that what prevents most seekers from wholehearted searching is fear of discovering what will eradicate inherent selfishness. “Let not your heart be troubled,” said Jesus (John 14:1). Your personal acceptance of Christ will lead you to experience real “order” out of “chaos.” You will realize deep within what Jesus promised: “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). Intellectual respect and assent to a naturalized “Christ” is far different from personally knowing Him. As Bunyan’s Christian said:

“How! Think thou must believe in Christ, when thou seest not thy need of him! Thou neither seest thy original nor actual Infirmities, but hast such an opinion of thyself, and of what thou dost, as plainly renders thee to be one that did never see a necessity of Christ’s personal Righteousness to justify thee before God. How then dost thou say, I believe in Christ?”4

1John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress (Westwood, New Jersey: Barbour and Company, n.d.), 13-14.

2Jordan B. Peterson, Christianity and the Modern World, YouTube 1:15:15 to 1:17

3Jordan B. Peterson, Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (Toronto, ON: Random House Canada, 2021), 47.

4The Pilgrim’s Progress, 169.

*Published by Christianpost.com

Culture can never be underestimated. It can exert a mysterious influence. Cultural thought can establish trends that sweep a society and subtly demand compliance. Of course, not all cultural trends are wrong. What should always be concerning, however, is when a voice of democratic and civil people is not heard. Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper commented well when he said, “in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.” Here, polite society should take a lesson.

Evangelical Christians have always believed that sex outside of marriage between a biological man and a biological woman is sinful. Lately, some evangelicals have begun to negotiate this belief. What has caused this shift? Was it a great biblical awakening? No, I believe it’s cultural pressure. In short order, cultural thought has changed drastically and placed immense pressure on evangelicals to find appeasement.

In my country, the Anglican Church of Canada commissioned a team of its leaders in 2015 for the purpose of “developing a biblical and theological rationale” to affirm same-sex relationships. The committee recommended that it’s “theologically possible to extend the marriage canon to include same-sex couples, without thereby diminishing, or curtailing the rich theological implications of marriage as traditionally understood.” This suggestion reinterprets the ACC’s “theological and doctrinal heritage” and tweaks its understanding of the “marriage canon.”

In other words, what it has always maintained must now be negotiated and weaved  into our cultural fabric. The committee was also “charged with developing a conscience clause.” “So that no member of the clergy, bishop, or congregation or diocese should be constrained to participate or authorize such marriages against the dictates of their conscience.” Why didn’t the ACC institute the “conscience clause” as a denomination and articulate it accordingly? It’s obvious why: cultural pressure.

In culture, the gay lobby has become a tour de force. Think about this. In January, the Americans take one day known as Martin Luther King Jr. Day to honor the great achievements of the civil rights movement. In Ontario, we take one day in February to observe Family Day. Good Friday is one day. Mother’s Day. Father’s Day. Canada Day. Independence Day. Labor Day. Christmas Day. New Year’s Day. All the soldiers who died to protect the freedoms we enjoy, Remembrance Day. The gay community can have one day to observe its cause, but they have managed remarkably to make it Pride Month. Every day in June, the rainbow flag becomes ubiquitous. People are being enculturated into going along with it. Truth be told, in Canada, there are many who disagree but remain silent, because the cultural narrative does not tolerate disagreement.

For example, this past September in Canada, concerned parents organized the “1 Million March 4 Children” to protest nationwide against an “ideological approach to gender identity” as the only way to educate children. The events were framed by Canadian media and politicians as “hateful.” Thankfully, a transgender person spoke at one event and wrote about the experience in an article published by the National Post:

“I experienced no hate or dissent from a single individual. . . . Needless to say, I was disappointed when . . . the Mayor of Whitby made strong statements the following day, lambasting the protests as both harmful and hateful. . . . Rather tellingly, her narrative describes the hate in the most general and non-specific terms possible . . .  devoid of a single example. . . . That warning of hate from the Whitby Mayor seems to be the norm in the pushback against the parental rights movement. Whether from aspiring politicians or progressive news agencies – we have received a clear message that condemns parental hatred in the strongest terms while neglecting to provide any tangible example of what in particular is so hateful.”

Canadian politicians and media have become enculturated with bias, and they are making things worse by ignoring reality, that is, the diverse views and convictions of all people. Society must tolerate the shared center of civility and accommodate the rights of parents to have a say in how their children are educated. Shouldn’t their concerns be heard and discussed at the table of civility? How is it possible that parents are asking too much?

Christians believe in love and kindness for people of all sexual, political and religious orientations. Yes, there are times when our biblical conscience cannot accommodate some requests. If and when that were to happen, people should tolerate the evangelical conviction and respect society’s shared center of civility.

Can a Christian attend mosque services and expect an accommodation to read the traditional creeds of Christianity? Can a member of the Conservative Party of Canada attend a rally of the Liberal Party and expect to take the microphone and voice Conservative values? Can a conservative Christian attend meetings that plan for Pride events and expect to be accommodated in a leadership capacity? Polite society goes forward by the shared center of civility, and not by the usurpation of one group’s will over another’s.

I have heard and read many stories of openly gay people who attended a church that was welcoming and friendly, but when they requested to participate in leadership roles they were declined. They were under the impression that welcoming implied ministry opportunities. Those church leaders should have made it clear from the outset where they stood, instead of dancing around the topic.

Now it should be noted that requests for church ministry are also declined for many reasons. Doctrinal distinctive are particular to each denomination. Not aligning with a distinctive will most likely disqualify one from a leadership role. Qualifying for ministry in a local church is based on various criteria that apply to everyone. It has never been a free-for-all wherein anyone can come and lead.

The evangelical conscience should remain faithful to its distinctives, and not feel culturally pressured to engage in biblical and theological eisegeses. Do you honestly believe that our rich heritage of scholarship and exposition got it wrong on its biblical interpretations of sexuality? So you now have biblical revelations from God that they did not have? Seriously? Regardless, don’t you agree that evangelical thought should not be intimidated by cultural opinions of its worldview? When have we ever allowed culture to exposit the Scriptures for us on any topic?

The cost of practicing the Christian faith has never been cheap. “Fear not” is everywhere in the Bible. Evangelical Christians need to be reminded of how courage has always been required to uphold biblical values: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.”

*Published by Christianpost.com

Communicating God’s message is an extraordinary privilege with immense accountabilities to God and people, “for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1). Preachers present the Word of God in a unique context. No other setting comes with such a subservient demeanor. People listen passively with reverence, and with an implicit expectation that hopefully something will be learned. This weekly forum is a golden opportunity for preachers to communicate biblical themes that should resonate with people. We cannot allow the Sunday sermon to become a mere formality that congregants sit through because it’s a weekly ritual. Here are five questions that I believe will challenge God’s spokespeople to produce messages that are continually robust.

What is the point of my message?

In preparation, a preacher should identify the purpose of the message by asking oneself what exactly will be communicated? Without a determined point, rambling will most likely ensue. By remaining on point a preacher focuses on crafting a message that flows, and people can pursue the unfolding direction. Thus all components, the intro, scriptural commentary, relevant citations of scholars, engagement with cultural thought, anecdotes, and humor too, should coalesce to deliver the point. If anything does not fit that point, it’s fluff and congregants will likely become restless. The most successful preacher of all time was arguably Billy Graham. Throughout his decades long ministry, his sermons continued to contemporize with relevance. His cited references, anecdotes, and engagement with the cultural thought of the day, continued to make a single point: That God loves you and sent Jesus to die for your sins. May we habitually ask ourselves what is the point of this message?

Am I seeking to please people?

Is the message seeking to please a group of people or to satisfy a cultural trend? Needless to say, a preacher’s determined biblical point may not please everyone. Those who disagree should still be compelled to consider the point of the message. Humans are built with the capability of being convicted by Truth. A message should thus presuppose that everyone needs the grace of God, regardless of one’s position in society, income bracket, or power to influence. A preacher’s passion in communicating biblical convictions indiscriminately by proper tone and intelligent insight should challenge everyone. The message should bear in mind that as spokespeople for God, our integrity cannot allow favoritism. So let’s always be mindful that “God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:11).

What will be the great takeaway?

What is the point’s call to action? Or, what is the learning for people? If the message made its point coherently, the takeaway will be clear to everyone. They should takeaway something that inspires Christian faith and increases their knowledge of God. It should make a contribution to “fight the good fight of the faith” (1 Tim. 6:12) in our cultural context. A message should thus purpose to provide a God given benefit that people can understand and use to strengthen their Christian faith. Again, Graham made the takeaway so clear that everyone understood what the Gospel meant and required. Throughout the changing decades, he invited people to come “just as you are.” Even those who declined were cognizant of Graham’s intended takeaway.

Am I owning the takeaway?

Surely, a preacher should acknowledge one’s own intentions to fulfil the takeaway, and to strive personally towards a deeper Christian faith. As Paul said, “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own” (Philip. 3:12). A preacher’s own character cannot help but be imbedded in the message. For example, a message on the virtue of Christian humility requires of the preacher to appreciate the intended commitment that acknowledges the pitfalls of pride. Such a message would come from a personal framework that appreciates the joys of pleasing God, even at the expense of our own egos. When a preacher is wholeheartedly committed to the proposed call to action, it will be reflected in the point made to congregants.

Is God’s voice in the message?

Throughout history, inspiring messages are remembered for how they seemed to come from a Divine source. You can still read the classic sermons of the giants of preaching, Spurgeon, Wesley, Edwards, and others, whose voices seemed to have a distinct anointing. It’s as if their voices were plugged into the Spirit. They also grasped their Lord’s teaching insomuch that their people could experience similarily what was said of Jesus: “No one ever spoke like this man!” (John 7:46). These preachers walked closely with God and so had a heightened discernment of the applicability of Scripture for their contextual challenges. Today, personal hunger for God will likewise provide insights of Christian faith for us and then we can translate their relevancy for our challenging times. When God speaks through us, congregants cannot help but note that something inspiring was indeed communicated.

Conclusion

Mainstream culture has purposed to make preachers feel embarrassed of their message. It’s not time to dilute messages in order to please cultural thought. It’s time for devout preachers to double down on their biblical convictions. It’s time to allow the Spirit to liberate us from cultural intimidation. It’s time to study how to articulate the ageless message of the Gospel, with intelligence, insight, and cultural discernment. It’s time to take our preaching to the next level of cogency. It’s also time to have a real sense of urgency. As Paul said, “For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Cor. 9:16).

Great preachers have always been personally devoted to their Christian faith. They remained conscious of being Christians first, preachers and teachers second. May we purpose to be likewise in our times.

*Published by Christianpost.com

It’s all believable now. Extra-terrestrial beings and universes with alien civilizations are no longer fantastical beliefs. Science fiction isn’t a make-believe genre anymore. The possibility of some form of intelligence out there is passionately pursued with notable resources. Search for extraterrestrial intelligence, seti.org, says, “Where will you be . . . when we find life beyond Earth?” What has caused this shift in thinking? Why are educated people even considering that some mysterious intelligence exists ‘beyond Earth’? Science is acknowledging that intelligence is an integral part of our existence, but God is not an option. My point is that ‘time of the gaps’ thinking has begun to confuse science with science fiction, while influencing a cultural narrative of insouciance towards God and particularly Christian faith.

Scientific enterprise has its biases. One is naïve to believe that mainstream science follows the evidence wherever it leads. That is simply not true. In “Why we can’t trust the science journals,” a scientist recently explained that scientific research must support a cultural narrative or it will be ignored by prestigious journals. The public understanding of science is carefully controlled by publishing what the cultural narrative requires. Scientists are incentivized to do so in order to gain access to grants, to publish in prestigious journals, and for career advancement. The cultural narrative concerning Christian faith is that it’s regressive, restricts personal freedom, and that God is boring. Accordingly, scientific enterprise does not accommodate any data that suggests God’s existence.

It all began to accelerate in 1859 with Darwinism, and all of science became tainted with the ‘time of the gaps.’ Present observations that contradict a theory can always be challenged by the belief that with time the theory can still be confirmed. So the preferred narrative can continue regardless of present contradictory information. Darwin proposed that once upon a time a chemical reaction occurred which produced life. Eventually, this organism hopped out of a puddle of mud and from it all living creatures evolved naturally. Professional contemporaries of Darwin pointed to the gaps of evidence in his proposals, but he would insist that with time his theory would be confirmed. Subsequent generations of science schools fell in love with this manner of thinking, because it seemed to provide a path towards liberating humanity from the clutches of religious thought.

Science is roaring back, however. It’s beckoning us back to reason and to whatever is warranted by current evidence. For example, the eminent and decorated scientist, James Tour, has recently made a public challenge to the scientific community. Tour will remove all of his criticism of abiogenesis from his YouTube channel, if the scientific community will provide evidence for the chemical composition required to get life going. He claims that scientists are “clueless,” though they project a sense of knowingness to the public. Now some scientists claim that we may never know and they believe that it’s okay. Be mindful that claiming ignorance does not excuse one from accountability to current observations. Those who insist on the ‘time of the gaps’ should also realize that time is not on anyone’s side. Each passing year reveals that our knowledge of life is getting exponentially more complex, and as Tour emphasizes, time is moving the target further away. Why isn’t the scientific community listening? Is it asleep?

No, the scientific community is wide awake and following a cultural narrative that when it comes to topics associated with God, and particularly Christian faith, only things that point away from Him can be considered. So, panspermia as a hypothesis is okay. Perhaps aliens from outer space visited Earth and somehow sowed seeds for human development? Time may prove it. Such outlandish hypotheses are welcome because they are obviously unsupportive of Christian faith. How does this current mind-set face reality?

Telescopic and microscopic observations are revealing concrete knowledge insomuch that the odds of our existence happening by fluke, chance, luck, and without telos, are unimaginatively prohibitive. Mathematics is screaming for some common sense to prevail. Nevertheless, it’s all ignored by staking everything in the ‘time of the gaps,’ which isn’t even falsifiable. What will have to happen before it is relinquished in some aspects of science? This is a fair question. If the answers are, ‘nothing’ and ‘never,’ then it’s a blind commitment. Meanwhile, the lines between science and science fiction are becoming increasingly blurred.

Recently, a good friend of mine whose perspectives I respect challenged me with a peculiar question. He asked seriously, “What if an alien civilization produces video footage that the resurrection of Jesus was staged? Will you continue to be a Christian?” My immediate reaction was a dumbfounded smile. Then I explained that our present understanding of technology, that is, video and electronic transmissions, cannot be imposed on a supposed civilization that has never been witnessed. How can we assume that they even know anything about our technology? Let alone that they had access to it two thousand years ago. How could we ever know if such footage was not itself fabricated by evil conspirators? None of it makes any legitimate sense. Such questions nevertheless highlight how science fiction is something that educated people now entertain as possible. Moreover it demonstrates how ‘time of the gaps’ theorizing is unfettered and imagining possibilities that were once deemed fictitious by mainstream science.

The experience of Christian faith remains real. The Lord Jesus provides a living relationship with God, the ultimate reality. It’s perceived as boring and regressive only by those who are outside “The Door” (John 10:9). When “The Door” is opened, one will discover an exciting new relationship with God whereby one can still pursue a chosen profession with even greater fulfilment. It’s truly a comprehensive and liberating experience. Everyone who has accepted God’s grace, regardless of one’s level of education, socio-economic status, or profession, can identify confidently with what Paul said, “For I am sure that neither . . . things present nor things to come, nor powers . . . nor anything else . . . will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38-39).

*Published by Christianpost.com

Let’s begin by eliminating semantical ambiguities and highlighting what is not meant by ‘certain.’ It doesn’t mean that doubts about any part of Christian faith are forever gone. By ‘certain,’ I mean that a Christian can know God personally with the absence of unbelief. The Bible teaches that God can be unmistakably known and trusted by Christians, regardless of backlash from a cultural quagmire. There is a sense of knowingness in Christian faith. As Paul said, “I know whom I have believed” (2 Tim. 1:12). Unbelief usually emerges from various points of confusion and I will show that in Christian faith, unbelief differs from doubt.

Confusion is a tactic that is utilized effectively by determined skeptics. When it comes to debunking Christian faith, notable examples of causing confusion are found in the writings of Richard Dawkins. He is truly masterful at confusing readers about Christianity. His seductive style is especially designed to confuse a Christian, with the ulterior motive of converting one to atheism. In a recent book, note what and how he says it:

Do you believe in God? Which god? Thousands of gods have been worshipped throughout the world, throughout history. . . . Countless Greeks and Romans thought their gods were real . . . How do we know those ancient people weren’t right? Why does nobody believe in Zeus any more? . . . Many of you reading may have been brought up on one particular holy book, the Bible of the Christians. . . . Who wrote it, and what reason has anyone to believe that what it says is true?1

Do you see the confusion? Truthfully, “the Bible of the Christians” has a well detailed history that is different from ‘countless Greek and Roman gods.’ Throughout 16 centuries, and diverse cultural and political settings, various authors who mostly never met revealed with great harmony and symmetry God’s ongoing redemptive plan for humankind. Therein is a communicable and intelligible understanding of God unlike any other. Whether natural or supernatural, no other entity has such long-detailed documentation that continues to compel contemporary people. Nevertheless, eristic skeptics are determined to poke holes at Christian faith, with the intention of debilitating belief through confusion.

Thinking people from around the world, however, are beginning to discern the fallacious arguments against Christian faith. Last month, Coming to Faith Through Dawkins was published. It features twelve essays from scientists, professors, and professionals from various countries who explain how the writings of Dawkins and New Atheism were instrumental in why they embraced Christian faith. In fact, I heard one of the editors on a podcast say that there were many others, but they declined to go public due to professional considerations. The essays are quite revealing as authors describe their journeys from skepticism to Christian faith, and how they found glaring bias in contemporary atheistic writings. What I am learning increasingly is that the New Atheism is not following reason and evidence, but a predetermined path that is unwilling to even consider embracing Christian faith.

Such close-minded narratives often assimilate subtly into mainstream culture. A specific mode of thinking is then communicated in movies, documentaries, literature, art, music, commercials, and public education. Sadly, these can become a mysterious force that intimidate people into compliance. Narratives are complimented by authority figures who provide official support. So, cultural thought accepts denials of Christian faith ex cathedra.

Of paramount importance, then, is to assess denials of Christian faith apart from the supposed authority or overwhelming popularity of the pundit. In Discerning Culture, I questioned:

Honestly ask yourself how much undermining of Christian faith has influenced you because of much consideration for the source’s prestigious position? How often have you allowed your inward convictions . . . to be forfeited or negotiated because of cultural pressure? Had you concentrated strictly on the content regardless of the presenter, wouldn’t you have thought differently? (23)

When objectively evaluated, arguments that claim to falsify Christian faith become unwarranted as genuine defeaters. They serve more to confuse than to contribute meaningfully to a quest for Truth.

Now it’s important to note that a believer can have doubts about a doctrine, an attribute of God, a Biblical event, or a Biblical injunction, while their Christian belief remains intact. Such doubts are normal and can be worked through to mature a believer’s faith. The man in Mark pleaded, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief” (9:24). He truly believed that Jesus had healing powers, and that He was the Christ, but was unsure whether his son would actually receive a miracle. So he pleaded for help.

Throughout the ages, the spiritual transition into the family of God has been a unique and indubitable experience of Christian faith. “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:16). Contemporary believers can appreciate this experience of grace with certainty. Denials by skeptics will be ongoing, and a Christian’s counter-culturalism will require courage. Nevertheless, with meticulous discernment, a distinct awareness of the confusion, and with a commitment to the Golden Rule of Jesus, we can communicate the wonderful grace of the Gospel which will open the minds of our societal counterparts.

The Gospel continues to resonate powerfully and that is why it attracts antagonism, whereas Zeus and ‘countless Greek and Roman gods’ are defunct.

1Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide (Random House: New York, 2019), 4, 5, 14.

*Published by Christianpost.com

Muhammad Ali was proud of his boxing prowess and often exclaimed, “I am the greatest!” To some, Ali was stating the truth. They considered him the greatest of all time. To others, Ali was being arrogant. Arrogance can be subjective. What makes a claim arrogant? Any definition that is applied to a claim will still make it disputable. The veracity of a claim is independent of whether one deems it arrogant.

The Gospel invites people to repent, and so people can get emotional and seek to undermine it by applying labels. I remain convinced that the Gospel is indispensable to humankind by its unique message of God’s grace, and a charge of ‘arrogance’ is inappropriate.

The Gospel answers the question whether Jesus of Nazareth was Christ. What’s at stake is of ultimate significance. If Jesus was indeed equal with God, then the Gospel’s meaning for humankind is serious. The supremacy of the Lord Jesus Christ would take precedence over all other religions and worldviews, and the message becomes all or nothing. Do you see how easily it can become an emotionally charged topic? That is why proponents of the Gospel are sometimes perceived as making arrogant claims.

Intellectuals have always arisen to contest the Gospel, and Christian apologists were urged to respond. The classic trilemma of C. S. Lewis sought to provide a rationale for belief in the deity of Jesus. Lewis reasoned that when Jesus spoke of Himself as equal with God, He was either insane, lying, or telling the Truth. A brilliant teacher like Jesus could not have been crazy. Lying was inconsistent with His overall teaching and there was no motive to mislead people.

Lewis concluded that the reasonable position was that Jesus was revealing the Truth. There have been critiques of Lewis’s trilemma; notably, that there could be other alternatives that require consideration. Nevertheless, I believe that Jesus is Lord, because any alternative belief will not harmonize with the New Testament’s teaching on the efficacy of God’s grace. In other words, if Jesus is not Lord, then He was just another martyr and no martyr can offer the regenerative experience of God’s grace. Only Christ can say to everyone throughout the ages, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).

Furthermore, let’s note a rule of logic that has withstood the test of time, and is germane to the conversation. The law of the excluded middle is that a claim is either true or false. There is no middle option and an opinion of arrogance is in any case irrelevant. Nowadays I find that skeptics disregard this rule, because they don’t like the conversation’s direction. When Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6), He was either speaking the Truth or He was not. There is no middle option. Open-mindedness should concern itself with exploring the truth of this claim while dismissing emotionalism.

Now the Gospel doesn’t predetermine the efficacy of grace based on gender, race, level of education, socio-economic status, or political affiliation. Neither does it have an ulterior motive. It invites repentance, and “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift” (Rom. 3:23). It promises forgiveness, new life, peace, and a living reconciliation with God. This can either be accepted or declined. A perception of arrogance stems from a convicted heart that desires an excuse, because self-centeredness is considered of more value than repentance.

Here skeptics push back by underscoring that the Gospel threatens unbelievers. Ironically, this fails to acknowledge that the Gospel purposes to save from sin and from a world that is constantly threatening humanity with nuclear war, violence, human and drug trafficking, greed, malevolence, and exploitation. All inhabitants of the world are vulnerable to these threats. Perpetrators of the foregoing can be redeemed and regenerated to make better contributions in the world. Otherwise, God is our Maker and He has the right to impose ultimate justice. The cliché that ‘Jesus is our only hope’ remains a marvelous truth.

Finally, the Gospel does not vet or prefer anyone. Jesus taught, “Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find” (Matt. 22:9). Those who accept the Lord’s invitation receive a white robe from Him. After Paul recited sinful behaviors, he wrote: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).

The Gospel is gracious, merciful, indiscriminate, and loving. It’s also unassuming, unpretentious and humbling, and these are antonyms of ‘arrogance.’

*Published by Christianpost.com

The amount of time that atheists dedicate to God is a bewildering paradox. They write massive books. They are constantly appearing on podcasts, video blogs, and platforms to discuss God. This obsession seems unjustifiable. How can so much time be spent denying a being that doesn’t exist? Couldn’t that precious time be utilized for solving humanitarian crises? In 2006, an atheist published a lengthy book to claim that God is a delusion, with an arrogant comment that a religious believer who read it would become an atheist. Then in 2019, he wrote a copious guide on how to outgrow God. If God was already established as a delusion, why waste time instructing on how to outgrow Him? Perhaps G. K. Chesterton was right, “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”

The atheist preoccupation with God doesn’t seem to be sensible. The term ‘atheist’ should now be replaced by a more befitting term. God remains compelling and so atheism prefers to deny Him at every opportunity because it desires a world without Him. It’s not strictly about science, reason, or evidence (I have argued this point elsewhere).

Thomas Nagel, whom I respect, desired a world without God. He expressed his honest sentiments:

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I am right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.1

This longing might help to explain contemporary atheism’s inordinate fascination with God. In other words, it experiences God as a compulsion that necessitates a reaction. The conflict is more noteworthy than how it’s often caricatured.

Note Michael Shermer who is the editor-in-chief of the magazine, “Skeptic,” and a likeable person. As a teenager in the 70s, he once professed faith in Christ. In 2009, he wrote:

I have spent my entire adult life thinking about God – 30 plus years cogitating on a being that may or may not even exist. Although I am no longer a believer, I still think about him more than I care to admit. Once I stopped believing in God in the late 1970’s, I thought that the whole issue of God’s existence or non-existence would simply fall by the way side. . . . And yet for a concatenation of reasons involving both my personal and professional lives, God just won’t go away.2

If a chief skeptic has spent his “entire adult life thinking about God,” I believe it’s likewise for many atheists. “God just won’t go away.” No, God is never going away. So the only way for atheism is to focus on ousting Him. With equal rigor, open-minded skepticism should apply its interrogating skills towards the tenets of atheism, but it prefers not to. God becomes the exclusive object of criticism, and bias restricts a path toward discovering Him.

Another atheist attempted some clever intellectual maneuvering to explain God as a natural phenomenon. In his voluminous book, Daniel Dennett identified “believe in belief in God” among atheists. He wrote,

People who believe in God are sure that God exists, . . . because they hold God to be the most wonderful of all things. People who moreover believe in belief in God are sure that belief in God exists (and who could doubt that?). . . It is entirely possible to be an atheist and believe in belief in God. Such a person doesn’t believe in God but nevertheless thinks that believing in God would be a wonderful state of mind to be in, if only that could be arranged.3

For me, these mental gymnastics could even be described as “cultural theism.” That is, God is acknowledged practically by atheism and its pre-determined methodology establishes a culture of denial. Or it’s a “naturalized theism” whereby God must remain within specific atheistic parameters. Regardless, God is inescapably part of atheism’s experience and so the term atheist has evidently become a rigid misnomer.

Nevertheless atheism often explains belief in God as nature’s wiring of the mind, with a preposterous anecdote that humanity created Him. If so, how did nature wire some to deny that belief? It’s illogical to equivocate on nature’s wiring and have it both ways. Moreover, how did humankind ever come to a consensus on making up God? The truth is that people concocted these naturalistic ideas of God, and atheism prefers them. It’s convenient, but there remains a pesty existential conflict that seems to haunt atheism. A strictly atheistic worldview is failing in its suppression of God, and that is why “cultural theism” is emerging.

As a Christian, I speak for my faith and its unique Gospel message. Thus I encourage ‘cultural theism’ to open-up and consider the real connection to God through Christ, as multitudes have attested throughout the ages. Why not explore inner sentiments about God as emanating from Him? Some atheists reading this are probably thinking, nice try, but what about those who professed Christian faith and turned unbelievers? No person who truly comes to Christ can ever leave Him (John 10:1-18).

By the way, those books I mentioned in the intro were written by Richard Dawkins. He wrote another book in 2009 and dedicated it to Josh Timonen, his former right-hand man. Well, Timonen resigned and has professed faith in Christ. It seems that claiming God as a delusion and teaching on how to outgrow Him are personal desires.

1The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 130-31. Italics are mine.

2”How to Think About God: Theism, Atheism, and Science,” In 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why we are Atheists, Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk, eds. (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 65. Italics are mine.

3Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin Group, 2006), 221. Italics are in the text.

*Published by Christianpost.com

Can there be a rational conversation between a Christian and one who says that, “there is no evidence for God’s existence?” Nowadays this claim implies that unless God Himself can be observed empirically, there is no evidence. Everyone knows that such a criterion cannot be satisfied. Christianity defines God as an immaterial Being who can be experienced, and reason can justify Christian faith. The crux of the discussion, then, is whether a claim of ‘no evidence’ is rationally warranted. I am convinced that theism, and particularly Christian faith, are rational beliefs. In contrast, the claim that there is no evidence for God’s existence confounds reason, and is held arbitrarily.

Let’s take a page out of a playbook that supports no evidence for God. Be reminded that a supposed ‘cool factor,’ or an assertive title, do not substantiate a contrarian claim. Unless, of course, popular culture is allowed to determine one’s thinking. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris encouraged an open-minded exploration of religious experiences. He wrote,

There is no doubt that experiences of this sort are worth seeking . . . A truly rational approach to this dimension of our lives would allow us to explore the heights of our subjectivity with an open mind, while shedding the provincialism and dogmatism of our religious traditions in favor of free and rigorous inquiry. . . . It is important to realize that a healthy, scientific skepticism is compatible with a fundamental openness of mind.1

This framework directs one’s thinking towards a pre-determined course. Anything that suggests the existence of God isn’t part “of free and rigorous inquiry.” “Scientific skepticism” is applied exclusively to theistic claims. By definition, “a fundamental openness of mind” should not preclude the possibility of a Creator, and whether scriptural claims can be true.

Now let’s take a lesson on open-mindedness from the remarkable story of William J. Murray. He was the kid whose mother, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, managed through the courts to eliminate the Bible and prayer in American schools. She became the founder of American Atheists and raised William to deny God, and discouraged him from thinking about the Bible. As an adult, he exercised open-mindedness and read the primary literature about Christian faith. In his book, My Life Without God, he recounted:

I . . . read the book of the Bible written by the great physician Luke. There I found my answer – not the book itself, but Jesus Christ. . . . God was no longer a distant ‘force.’ I now knew Him in a personal way. Within days my life and attitudes began to change. . . . Now I looked back at the devastation. My family, particularly my mother and myself, had left a path of ruin behind us – ruined ideals, ruined lives.2

Shouldn’t a “fundamental openness of mind” allow this dramatic and radical experience of Christian faith as a possible testimony for the truth of the Gospel? Shouldn’t a “free and rigorous inquiry” include the possibility that W. J. Murray’s experience correlates to the claim that, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Cor. 5:17). Who says it shouldn’t?

Further, a “free and rigorous inquiry” of mathematics, chemistry, physics and even “scientific skepticism” would seem to suggest that the human mind was the intended object for comprehension. Conversely, what makes it rational to claim that it so happened without intention, purpose, and with no particular meaning? Is it rational to insist that it all happened by fluke? Isn’t it reasonable to consider that our perfectly fine-tuned planet, positioned at the perfect place in the solar system, and our perfectly crafted minds that can facilitate knowledge, and our built-in consciences to know right from wrong, and the unfaltering rules of science, can possibly be related to the four words, “In the beginning God“? In fact, if these four words were true isn’t our exquisite order that accommodates the complexities of human experiences exactly what would be expected?

How is it that such phenomena should not count as evidence? Who says? Sam Harris? Madalyn Murray O’Hair? Perhaps a reader here believes that science says so. That answer is neither scientific nor philosophically sensible. First, no tribe has a monopoly on scientific enterprise. Contributors to science come from various backgrounds, with various personal beliefs. Personally, I am dumbfounded that serious professionals in science and philosophy who should know better continue to insist that science can explain its own origins. This begs the question: all of science was brought into existence at the “big-bang.” It’s absurd to posit that science can answer questions about its own origins when it wasn’t there to observe itself.

The no evidence claim demonstrates bias against anything that infers a mind beyond the material. Reason suggests that our human reality proffers something beyond the physical, though it doesn’t necessarily mean God exists; that would be fair. However, such is not even considered, because it might lead to discovering the Truth and that would imply accountability. So that path is avoided by hands on ears.

A conclusion of ‘no evidence’ is arrived at arbitrarily. Who says the claim applies universally? My experience of reality doesn’t contradict my experience of Christian faith, and they correlate completely to the biblical revelations of the Lord Jesus. By “free and rigorous inquiry” people should investigate the Christian faith for themselves and not allow a cultural narrative to pre-determine the outcome. After all, what is the point of having your own mind if you are going to allow others to make up your mind for you? As Jesus replied to Pilate, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” (John 18:34). Jesus knew that cultural narratives were influencing some people negatively about Himself, and so He wanted Pilate to know that everyone is accountable to make up their own mind. If you really think about it, who says there is no evidence for God’s existence?

1(W. W. Norton & Company: New York, 2004), 40-41.

2(WND Books: Washington, D. C., 2012), 280.

*Published by Christianpost.com

The contemporary culture of relativism is making it increasingly difficult for the Gospel to communicate its unique message. Can the term, repent, provide meaning for people who unlike previous generations have significantly more educational and therapeutic methods to change their lives? In secular culture, it’s generally perceived that humanity’s sophistication has outgrown Christianity. Yet humankind continues to hanker for antidotes to its contextual predicaments of emotional discontentment, and thoughts about God remain in conversation. My conviction is that the Gospel is deeper than merely something that offers feelings of peace, comfort and hope on a Sunday morning. However, the challenge persists: how to make the grace of God relevant in a culture that’s accustomed to thinking relatively?

Foremost, we must personally value the Gospel. As Jesus taught, “Again, the kingdom of God is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all the he had and bought it” (Matt. 13:45). Does the Gospel have an overwhelming sense of preciousness to us? Even secular thinkers acknowledge the potency of something personally valued. In Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, the highly influential psychologist, Jordan B. Peterson wrote,

If I value something . . . I must determine how to value it so that others potentially benefit. It cannot just be good for me: it must be good for me and for the people around me. . . . Furthermore, it needs to work today, in a manner that does not make a hash of tomorrow, next week, next month and next year (even the next decade or century).1

Love, forgiveness, and emotional well-being are what people will continue to need. Ideologies will always emerge, make promises, and then leave humanity to search for another one. The Good News of the Gospel is universal, timeless, and addresses humanity’s need of love and forgiveness unlike any other message. It appeals emotionally and intellectually.

Unbeknown to many, a great testimony of personally treasuring the Gospel over ideology is that of Katherine Russell Tait. She wrote a book about growing up with her famous father, Bertrand Russell, and his school of atheism. In college, she found that the Gospel resonated more than atheism and became a Christian. In her own words,

As I listened, I began to think that what I heard made sense out of everything. Nothing that was said contradicted what I had learned from my father, and I was not offered a faith full of the absurdities he delighted in ridiculing. . . . For me, the belief in forgiveness and grace was like sunshine after long days of rain. No matter what I did . . . God would be there to forgive.2

She married a pastor and together served in missions and pastoral ministry for decades, with fruitful results.

Nowadays, there no longer exists a “shared center” where people understand what we mean by Christian terminology. Gabe Lyons and David Kinnaman noted well that up until “the last few decades, our nation’s leaders frequently acknowledged Christianity as the ‘shared center.’”3 When Christian terms were spoken, it was assumed that people understood them. We no longer have the luxury of a “shared center” whereby people understand Christian talk. I experienced this one Sunday when after speaking at a church I walked in a café. I ordered an espresso and the barista asked me what I had planned for the day. I mentioned that I had finished speaking at a local church and he curiously interjected by asking what I spoke about. I replied that I spoke about how the Gospel can provide “deliverance.” He looked at me quizzically and asked, “what the ‘beep’ is that”?

The solution is not to forfeit the Gospel’s unpopular terms, such as sin and repentance. We must remain on point with the Gospel’s message while being sensitive that people have hardly any appreciation for exclusivist demands. Eloquent theology and sharp apologetics (though important) alone cannot be relied upon to influence people. Paul stated that his mission was “to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17). A fruitful conversation about the Gospel is one that will connect spiritually with people.

Jesus said of the Comforter: “I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:7-8). In Gospel conversation, people often experience a personal sense of “sin and righteousness and judgment.” By experience and mistakes, I have also learned that tone and temperate passion can contribute to the Gospel’s resonance with people. Note that Russell Tait said, “As I listened, I began to think that what I heard made sense out of everything.” It seems like she was persuaded by an intelligible presentation. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit will do its work in the minds and hearts of our listeners and open them to consider that the offer of grace is uniquely special.

The Gospel is our “pearl of great value.” It’s not valued in an ideological sense, but personally by its wonderful work of grace in our own lives. We may no longer have a “shared center” with cultural thought, but an intelligible explanation of the Gospel can still make a powerful appeal to one’s inner being. Humanity is wired with a capacity for God. As Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20). This personal conviction by the Spirit is indispensable for effective evangelism. This generation can discover and experience that belief in Christ is as Russell Tait testified: “For me, the belief in forgiveness and grace was like sunshine after long days of rain. No matter what I did . . . God would be there to forgive.”

1(Random House Canada: Toronto, 2021), 9-10.

2My Father Bertrand Russell, First Ed. (HBJ: New York, 1975), 186-88.

3Good Faith: Being a Christian When Society Thinks You’re Irrelevant and Extreme (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, 2016), 55-56.

*Published by Christianpost.com

It’s easy to appreciate God when things are going well. When our careers are thriving, when shopping at our favorite store, when driving off in a new car, and when our kids are performing optimally. Life can be good and praise God for that. Nevertheless suffering is inevitable for everyone. Life will happen and then God will seem to have vanished. That’s when it will become challenging to exercise continued faith in His grace. If Christian faith is real, then suffering should be understood in relation to a believer’s immortality in Christ. As Paul wrote, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18).

Suffering is intrinsically part of life and since time immemorial it has beckoned for something beyond ourselves for an explanation. Philosophers and theologians continue to grapple with the problem, and it’s not a profound insight to note that life appears unjust. For example, some are born in the lap of luxury with favorable opportunities to succeed while others are born in abject poverty with no opportunities. We cannot choose the conditions of our birth. Neither can we determine exactly how long we will live on this earth. Surely, we cannot predict what tomorrow will bring. Humanity finds itself in a messed-up world of unfairness and uncertainty.

In a materialist world-view, solutions are limited to tangible reference points. These resources are beneficial. Christians also contribute and participate in remedying human problems by natural means. Even Jesus acknowledged the merit of a medical doctor: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (Lk 5:31). So if one’s affliction is causing depression or suicidal thoughts then professional help should be encouraged immediately. Christian faith is never compromised by consulting a doctor.

Humanity chose to rebel against God and attempted to create a life without Him. Suffering became ubiquitous in the Bible. Today, even unbelievers are obsessed with figuring out the relationship, if any, between God and suffering. This ongoing preoccupation reveals that humanity has always considered going beyond the natural world for answers. Unfortunately, it’s cultural to blame God for everything that goes wrong. Where is God? The hiddenness of God is false to those who have walked with Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24). The divide is bridged by the grace of God. “Children of God” are not born naturally. They are born-again spiritually by grace. As John’s prologue says, “But to all who did receive him, . . . he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12).

Throughout the ages, the “new person” (2 Cor. 5:17-18) has provided believers with strength to withstand all the vicissitudes of life. Even though life will surprise us in unpleasant ways, we can nevertheless experience inner peace unlike anything else this world affords. As Jesus promised, “Peace I leave with you. . . . Not as the world gives do I give to you” (John 14:27). Anyone who has experienced His peace will agree that there is nothing like it, and that it can sustain during difficult times. “And the peace of God,” Paul also attested, “which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philip. 4:7).

Our well-meaning friends, relatives, and fellow believers can become flummoxed during our times of suffering and not know how to contribute. Job’s three friends will surely pop up, with attempts at useful commentary. But like Job, suffering leads many believers to deep introspection with God in trying to make sense of the ordeal. We should acknowledge that what we are going through has happened before to others, it’s also happening now, and in the future will happen again. It’s not unique to us. Life in this broken world is inescapably destined to experience suffering. Such is the ultimate lesson of Job.

However, we should avoid Job’s subtle self-deprecations: “Let the day perish on which I was born, and the night that said, ‘A man is conceived’” (Job 3:3). Even so, ‘why me’ questions are normal but usually don’t provide any ultimate answers. They seem to torment more than alleviate any suffering. Sometimes the cynical will point to a particular lifestyle or behavior that brought about the suffering. This doesn’t help much. Jesus sought reconciliation and not condemnation, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world . . . “ (Jn. 3:17). By grace, our relationship with Christ will remain meaningful in spite of why, how, or what has stricken us.

It’s also necessary to learn that as Christians we should never begrudge those who are doing well physically and spiritually, when we are not. Remember that we are to “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep” (Rom. 12:12). The consciousness of His grace in us is what will provide strength to fulfill the challenging commandment to continue to love God and neighbor (Mk. 12:30-31).

We “have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:5). That taste of “goodness” makes us appreciate that we belong to Him, regardless of our current tribulations. Of course, it is much easier to appreciate God when things are going well, but sorrow is an unavoidable part of life in a broken world. In Christ, and with His inner peace, we will discover the necessary strength and wisdom for an inevitable time of difficulty. We should appreciate that our eternal relationship with the Lord began when we accepted His grace (Rom. 8:18).

*Published by Christianpost.com

A cultural misunderstanding of Christian faith is that it’s boring. Secularism excites by emphasizing reason, science, and free-thought, that is, free from any theistic influences. Humanity’s experience of reality is described and explained with inspiration for the unnecessariness of God. Culture finds this fascinating and establishes trends that are unnerving even for devout Christians. Thus an intellectually rigorous discernment of secularism is necessary for continued confidence in “the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Believers require a fresh realization that Christian faith does provide existential and intellectual fulfillment, and makes reality intelligible. Secularism should be criticized for its self-entitled interpretations of reality, and its dubious propositions for humanity.

Alluding to the saying of the late Carl Sagan, it’s often said among the intelligentsia that, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Quoting a pithy saying of famous scientists, however, is not interchangeable with well documented knowledge. “Extraordinary evidence” has become a game for the secular narrative, as it’s applied unilaterally to Christian faith. God creating the universe ex nihilo, and the resurrection of Christ, are beliefs framed as unsatisfiable outside of Scripture. The beliefs may be true, but the secular mind requires them to be placed under a microscope and confirmatory data to emerge. That’s how unreasonable secular thought is becoming in its demands on Christian faith. Secular beliefs are not questioned so rigorously. They are accepted gratuitously and by trust in authority figures.

For example, everyone acknowledges that the natural world appears designed. Yet secularism adamantly refuses to acknowledge that the specified complexity and fine-tuning confirmed by microscopic and telescopic observations are suggesting actual design. Such acknowledgement would be a game changer, and so it’s mortally contested by secularism. Secular thought is scaffolded on the belief that the world assembled on its own by natural laws, and evolutionary theory is the “holy grail.”

In Enlightenment Now, Steven Pinker seeks to refresh humanity by appreciating the ideas of The Enlightenment for today, and onward for a brighter future. Pinker writes, “I will first lay out a framework for understanding the human condition informed by modern science – who we are, where we came from, what our challenges are, and how we can meet them.”1 Pinker’s questions are paramount and the answers affect subsequent claims. His task is noble, but much is self-entitled by a selective interpretation of “modern science.” Some readers are grimacing now, believing that it’s not such a big deal. After all, it’s the ideas that count. Critical thought, however, should not allow special pleas, especially when a world-view makes “extraordinary claims” in answering Pinker’s foregoing questions.

Modern science has observed specified complexity but mainstream science has not explained how it assembled naturally. Yet secular culture carries on as if it were scientific truth. Thankfully, some scientists have the courage to speak up. Michael Behe says outrightly:

No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any science journal whatsoever. . . . If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished. Despite comparing sequences, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.2

Secular thinkers respond with a stack of published material as proof for a natural explanation of specified complexity, but like Behe I have yet to read anything that explains “how complex structures came to be.” Regardless, evolutionary theory remains non-negotiable for secular thought.

Dissent is frowned upon. It’s often met with histrionics and ridicule, which can be intimidating. A highly respected contemporary philosopher, an open-minded atheist, has described it as “browbeating.” Thomas Nagel wrote:

It is prima facie highly improbable that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. . . . I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten. . . . It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis. . . . And if physical science . . . leaves us necessarily in the dark about consciousness, that shows that it cannot provide the basic form of intelligibility for this world.3

It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis. Consequently, Nagel suggests fairly that “it cannot provide the basic form of intelligibility for this world.” So why doesn’t secular thought negotiate its views? Educated people and professors have confessed to me privately that evolutionary theory doesn’t make sense. They nevertheless do not see any harm in going along with it, and have advised me to do likewise so as not to appear anti-science. Isn’t that tantamount to checking our brains at the door? Aren’t we to exercise critical thinking? Isn’t science supposed to go wherever the evidence leads? Nagel is correct that “almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten,” Christians too.

When engaging with secular thought, we should not accept gratuitously the intellectual hocus-pocus that interprets scientific data with the aid of artistic illustrations. Explanations should be based on experiment, clear sequencing, falsification, and intelligible demonstrations. Beware that questioning may encounter voice raising, condescension, name calling, and a “browbeating.” The exquisite designs everyone observes are not merely apparent. They are actual and “irreducibly complex,” a nettlesome phenomenon for the secular agenda.

We were intended and purposed to be in relationship with our Maker. A genuine encounter with God’s grace is the beginning of an exciting journey. For those who believe the cultural trend that Christian faith is boring, I invite them to taste “the Bread of Life.” I would encourage them to experience God’s Logos as the source of humanity’s consciousness and ability to reason. Let’s not allow culture to rest conveniently in the assumptions and dogmas of secularism. People should be encouraged to exercise independent thinking and decide for themselves. They may discover how powerfully real are the words of Christ, “You must be born again” (John 3:7). As was penned in that great hymn that remains relevant, “Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound . . . I was once blind but now I see.”

1 Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress (Penguin Books: New York, 2019), 5-6.

2 A Mousetrap for Darwin (Discovery Institute Press: Seattle, 2020), 30-31. Italics on how are mine.

3 Mind & Cosmos: Why the Material Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (Oxford University Press: New York, 2012), 6, 7, 11, 53.