Censorship is Alive and Well in the Newsroom

This morning, the Los Angeles Times carried a front-page story about a controversial political battle that was fueled by an undercover video. But it wasn't the undercover video of a Planned Parenthood senior official discussing how Planned Parenthood is involved in harvesting and selling baby organs. Instead, the editors at the Times gave 1,028 words and premium front page status to the coverage of some middle-aged men chasing other away from their favorite surfing spot.1 Even after two full days of triggering an avalanche social media outrage which prompted both federal and state officials to begin investigating the abortion organization, coverage of Planned Parenthood's hideous practices is nowhere to be found in the Times.

Of course the LAT is not the only media outlet that purports itself to be a news organization but is censoring this story. Mollie Hemingway over at the Federalist has been monitoring media outlets for years on their selective bias against stories that bring the horror of abortion to light. Today, she wrote about the paltry media coverage of the Planned Parenthood scandal from most of the major media organizations. In her article, she shows just how slow these outlets were to cover the story, how few of them gave any mention to it at all, and how most who did, did so in order to help the PR push of Planned Parenthood, even to the point of copying their talking points verbatim!2

Watchdog of Justice, Who Keeps Their Eye on You?

None of this was unexpected. Two years ago, the Kermit Gosnell case checked off absolutely every requirement a news outlet would look for to warrant full coverage and smashing ratings, yet is was conspicuously absent from nearly all of them. Now, the harvesting of baby organs story is again being censored. Why? Because the idea of dispassionately reporting the news isn't the overriding value for those who claim to run news organizations anymore. It isn't even ratings, although ratings matter. It's simply ideology. Ideology is king and one cannot put forth a story that may break a scandal against something like abortion.

To underscore the pint, just as the fetal organ story was breaking, my friend Sean McDowell released a short YouTube clip where he tells of his almost interview on CNN. The organization called Sean because they were looking for an opposing voice on the topic of transgenderism. He recounts the producer asking him for his specific position on transgenderism.3 Sean replied, "My position is this is a complicated issue. We need to have compassion, we need to follow the science, and we need to settle this issue carefully." The producer them paused a moment, looked a Sean and said "You know, you're much too compassionate. My director will get upset if I have you call into this show!" upon finding out that CNN contacted the Southern Baptists to try and find a person who would state on-air that transgenderism "is wrong, sinful, and you're going to Hell!" McDowell refused to do so and so CNN turned to someone from ChurchMilitant.com to be the radical voice the so-called objective news show could carve apart like a sacrificial cow to make themselves look balanced an sane. No one can call this objective reporting and still be considered sane.

It's been obvious for years that "reality" television is nothing of the kind. They are formulated, staged, scripted, and edited to get the biggest reaction out of the audience possible. The newsroom is the next reality television. They are simply no longer trustworthy. It's no surprise that Pew Research just reported more people are getting their news from Facebook and Twitter than watching it on television or reading a newspaper or magazine. 4

Mainstream television and print journalism has died. Edmund Burke's Fourth Estate no longer exists; we only see the estate sale with ideologues pawing through its previously grand hallways and closets, selling both its duty and its good name for ten cents on the dollar.

References

1. Therolf, Garrett. "'Gang Mentality' of Middle-age Surfers Keeps Outsiders off Palos Verdes Estates Waves." The Los Angeles Times. 16 July 2015, morning ed., A1. Print.
2. Hemingway, Mollie Zeiger. "The Bad, Worse, & Ugly: Media Coverage of Planned Parenthood's Organ Harvesting Scandal." The Federalist. The Federalist, 16 July 2015. Web. 16 July 2015. http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/16/the-bad-worse-ugly-media-coverage-of-planned-parenthoods-organ-harvesting-scandal/.
3. McDowell, Sean. "Lessons from a CNN Interview." YouTube. YouTube, 14 July 2015. Web. 16 July 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Rs2bu6f8E.
4. Barthel, Michael, Elisa Shearer, Jeffrey Gottfried, and Amy Mitchell. "The Evolving Role of News on Twitter and Facebook." Pew Research Centers Journalism Project. Pew Research Centers, 14 July 2015. Web. 16 July 2015. http://www.journalism.org/2015/07/14/the-evolving-role-of-news-on-twitter-and-facebook/.
Image courtesy Publik15 and licensed via the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) license.

Archaeology and the Bible (podcast)

The Bible is unique among sacred texts in that it is set against a historical backdrop. Do recent archaeological discoveries validate or discredit the Biblical accounts? Listen to this complete series as Lenny explores the relationship between the Bible and archaeology and shows why the Bible can be considered reliable historically.

• Archaeology and the Bible (Part 1)
• Archaeology and the Bible (Part 2)
• Archaeology and the Bible (Part 3)
• Archaeology and the Bible (Part 4)

 To subscribe to Come Reason's podcast, click here.

Planned Parenthood is Selling Body Parts. Here's What You Can Do.

The plot of Michael Crichton's 1978 film Coma turns on a surgical resident who uncovers a private medical facility that induces comas in healthy, young patients in order to sell their organs on the black market. After the film's release, one reviewer cautioned "See it and worry" but Dennis Schwartz dismissed the film as "more entertaining than credible."

Yet, today the story is breaking that Planned Parenthood has been selling the organs of aborted babies on the black market for some time and they've even captured top Planned Parenthood staff negotiating a deal and explaining how they do it. Live Action News just released the hidden camera footage (embedded at the bottom of this post) along with the story of Planned Parenthood Federation Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola talking with two undercover reporters about how to order children's hearts, livers, legs, or other parts they desire.1

The video is gruesome. It shows the actual web-based order form that allows customers to select gestational age, the type of tissue you would like, the quantity, and shipping options, like these are automobile parts and not organs of a human being who must be killed for them to be harvested.

The undercover meeting with Nutacola is no easier to watch. There, she explains how they will alter their method of aborting the child in order to preserve whatever parts are requested by their customers. One undercover reporter asked, "How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what's expected or what we need?" Nutacola cooly responds:

It makes a huge difference. I'd say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they'll know where they're putting their forceps...

We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it's not vertex.

You may have missed the meaning of Nucatola's last statement about changing the presentation. She is stating that she will turn the baby in utero from a head-down position to a breech position of feet first in order to make the mother dilate more as the abortion progresses and the baby's head won't need to be crushed. That's the textbook definition of partial-birth abortion which is illegal under federal law. Of course so is the buying and selling of human fetal tissue. 2

What You Can Do About It

This is all horrifying and many will be shocked. Others will say, "What did you expect? The abortion industry has many gruesome stories." However, I think this particular case, given the high-level involvement and the clearly illegal nature of the acts affords us a unique opportunity.

1. Ask Your Elected officials to Revoke all Planned Parenthoood Government Funding
The level of corruption within Planned Parenthood is s patently obvious from the video. There, even PPFA President and CEO Cecile Richards is caught praising Nucatola after the reporter told here "We do fetal collection and she's been very helpful with figuring out who to talk to." It would take a fool to believe that Richards doesn't know what's going on especially when Planned Parenthood's lawyers are providing council on how to handle this from an organization's legal liability perspective.

Listen, Planned Parenthood, according to their own reports, received $524 million last year from various government grants.3 Given the horrific nature of these crimes, every person needs to call their elected official and demand the suspension of all grants to Planned Parenthood programs, no matter what their purpose, until this case can be properly investigated. The money stops now.

If you think this is a long shot, think again. It took only 24 days of public outcry over the Confederate battle flag to force the state of South Carolina to remove it from their capitol. Twenty four days for a change to happen that had no direct factor in the killing of those nine church members. Certainly something this terrible warrants investigation and given both houses of congress are currently controlled by Republicans who are less sympathetic to Planned Parenthood, now is the time to act.

2. Spread the Word.
I anticipate the major media outlets will ignore this story like they ignored the Gosnell trial. But if enough people make enough noise, they won't be able to turn away. If the House of Representatives debates pulling all funding for PPFA, the media will cover it. Therefore, we need to spread the word. Tweet about this. Share this story and share the video with everyone you know. Keep up the pressure. Challenge people to watch it. Don't let up. Make it news too big to ignore. If you are more outraged by a Confederate flag than this, you're a monster.

3. Pray
Lastly, let's pray that God will use this discovery to dismantle Planned Parenthood. PPFQA is the #1 abortion provider in the United States. They are based on the racist beliefs of Margaret Sanger and were formed as an avenue to practice eugenics. 4 Pray that God will open people's eyes and we can put an end to this bloody chapter in America's history.

In his review of the movie Coma, Schwartz believed that the film's premise wasn't creditable. Perhaps he may be right; the patients in the film simply weren't young enough. As the video shows, reborn babies are much easier to harvest and dismember for parts. See it and worry.

References

1."BREAKING: Planned Parenthood director caught on tape selling aborted ‘baby parts'" Live Action News. Live Action, Inc. 14 July 2015. Web http://liveactionnews.org/breaking-planned-parenthood-director-caught-on-tape-selling-aborted-baby-parts/
2. Prohibitions Regarding Human Fetal Tissue, §§ 6A-289g-2-289g-2 (2003). Web. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/289g-2
3. 2013-2014 Annual Report. Planned Paerenthood Federation of America. 2014. Page 21. Web. http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/annual_report_final_proof_12.16.14_/0
4. Grossu, Arina. "Margaret Sanger, Racist Eugenicist Extraordinaire." Washington Times. The Washington Times, 5 May 2014. Web. 14 July 2015. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eugenicist/.
Image courtesy drsuparna [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Want to Draw Closer to God? Use a Map!

In book four of Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis tells of having a conversation with an old air force officer who believed in God, but felt that the theologies we teach somehow diminish his reality. The officer proclaims, "I know there's a God. I've felt Him: out alone in the desert at night: the tremendous mystery. And that's just why I don't believe all your neat little dogmas and formulas about Him."1

This "all I need is Jesus" concept has only grown since Lewis' writing that story, and I can understand why. For those that have been delivered from a life of misery or the effects of addition, the real changing presence of the Gospel is powerful and moving. Theology seems to be about somehow deconstructing God, making him more distant than He is experientially. Lewis agreed with that assessment, yet he cautioned against abandoning learning theology simply because it is less experientially powerful than the direct witness of the Spirit. He used the analogy of an Englishman learning about the Atlantic Ocean by walking along the beach. Surely this experience, too, has a feel that informs the man in a far more powerful way than seeing the ocean drawn upon a map. Yet, the map is important. Lewis explains:

The map is admittedly only coloured paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single isolated glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together.

In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.

Now, Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But that map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God—experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map.2

A Map to God's Character

I like Lewis' analogy. The study of theology is perhaps drier than the experiential aspects of the Christian life, but it informs us about God as he is, not simply the small sliver we experience. Further, when difficulties come into our lives, we can refer back to our learning of who God is and how he works and have confidence in his character. We grow in our devotion to him as we grow in our understanding of him.

The writer to the Hebrews rebuked those Christians for not moving beyond the pure milk of the word. He expected them to mature in their relationship with God as Christians. He wanted them to deal with more complex theological ideas than "repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:1-2, ESV). Those are all important foundations of the gospel, but there is so much more to learn.

If we wish to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, we need to learn more about his essential nature and his character. We need a map to guide us on our journey in understanding him better. We will need to be shown those hidden treasures that can build us up as believers. After all, what lover doesn't want to know everything he can about his beloved?

References

1. Lewis, C. S. "Mere Christianity." The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002. 127-128 Print.
2. Lewis, 128.

How to Reach Students with Apologetics (radio interview)

Recently, Lenny was a featured guest on the Urban Theologian radio show, which broadcasts in the greater Phoenix area. Urban Theologian has been bringing stellar interviews by noted apologists; previous shows recently featured Dr. J.P. Moreland, Dr. Paul Meier, and Dr. Paul Nelson among others.

In this interview, Lenny comments on the need for apologetics in student ministry, how Christians can effectively reach out on college campuses, and how to shift the conversation on ideas like teaching about sex. You can listen to the entire interview below or visit the show's web site at http://urbantheologianradio.com/ 

Learning about Sexual Purity from A Christmas Story

Everyone loves the holiday movie A Christmas Story. It's become a family favorite in my house. It can also be useful as an illustration when talking about difficult issues such as sexual purity with your children. Check out this short video that helps kids understand a little of what they may lose by becoming sexually promiscuous.

A Culture Demanding We Carry Their Donkey

Our society is changing more rapidly than anyone imagined. One of the primary drivers of this change is the ongoing demand that no one be offended. Christians who hold to certain religious principles are being fined and silenced because their refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Apple banned historically accurate Civil War games from their app store because it featured the Confederate battle flag. Even in college campuses, the supposed haven for the free exchange of ideas, is rotted with demands for only inoffensive speech, equality of experience,  and relative morality.

The whole thing reminds me of a story I was told as a child. Aesop and his fables are not as well-known today, but he made certain truths more accessible to young minds. This story of the Miller, his son, and the donkey seems particularly fitting in our modern "offend no one" climate:

A Miller and his son were driving their Ass to a neighboring fair to sell him. They had not gone far when they met with a troop of women collected round a well, talking and laughing. "Look there," cried one of them, "did you ever see such fellows, to be trudging along the road on foot when they might ride?"

The old man hearing this, quickly made his son mount the Ass, and continued to walk along merrily by his side. Presently they came up to a group of old men in earnest debate. "There," said one of them, "it proves what I was a-saying. What respect is shown to old age in these days? Do you see that idle lad riding while his old father has to walk? Get down, you young scapegrace, and let the old man rest his weary limbs."

Upon this the old man made his son dismount, and got up himself. In this manner they had not proceeded far when they met a company of women and children: "Why, you lazy old fellow," cried several tongues at once, "how can you ride upon the beast, while that poor little lad there can hardly keep pace by the side of you?"

The good-natured Miller immediately took up his son behind him. They had now almost reached the town. "Pray, honest friend," said a citizen, "is that Ass your own?'

"Yes," replied the old man.

"O, one would not have thought so," said the other, "by the way you load him. Why, you two fellows are better able to carry the poor beast than he you."

"Anything to please you," said the old man; "we can but try." So, alighting with his son, they tied the legs of the Ass together and with the help of a pole endeavored to carry him on their shoulders over a bridge near the entrance to the town. This entertaining sight brought the people in crowds to laugh at it, till the Ass, not liking the noise nor the strange handling that he was subject to, broke the cords that bound him and, tumbling off the pole, fell into the river.

Upon this, the old man, vexed and ashamed, made the best of his way home again, convinced that by endeavoring to please everybody he had pleased nobody, and lost his Ass in the bargain.1

Right now, we’re a society that, in straining to never offend, is carrying the donkey on our shoulders. It has already cost us the natural understanding of marriage. What will it cost us next?

References

1. "The Miller, His Sone, and Their Ass." Aesop's Fables. 16 April 2012.Web. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Miller,_His_Son,_and_Their_Ass

Living in a Post-Pagan Culture

We in the West are living in a post-Christian culture. Europe has been overtly secular for many years, but given the high percentage of the population in the U.S. who believe in God, identify with a specific Christian faith and state religion is very important to them. Yet, the recent Pew survey showed that mainstream Christianity has been losing adherents, especially with the Millennial generation.1

Even prior to the Pew survey, the influence of Christian beliefs had been clearly waning as we saw less and less evidence of the Christian worldview impacting the important moral questions of our day. Instead of the God of the Bible and his moral standard, most Americans hold to God as someone you pray to in order to escape trouble but doesn't require anything from you. It's akin to what researchers Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton labeled Moral Therapeutic Deism.2 The recent battles that Christians have had to fight in not servicing homosexual unions to maintain their religious integrity offers a clear sign that the country had left its Christian underpinnings. There should be no doubt that American—the last hold-out in the West—has become post-Christian.

What are we trading Christianity for?

Of course, believers have lamented how a society built upon and existing because of a Christian worldview would now jettison its foundational principles for something that is not clearly defined. Most of the culture is moving to a feelings-based system of judgment.

Take a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times. Reader E.J. Parker was opining on whether the Los Angeles should change the name of Robert E. Lee school and wrote, "For me, the deciding point is this: Were I an African American, how would I feel as a parent, sending my child to a school named for the great hero for the Confederacy?" That's the deciding point? Feelings? Yet, in all those lawsuits against Christian bakers, photographers, and wedding coordinators who wouldn't service a homosexual ceremony (and even a complaint against Christians who would), feelings are the impetus and the deciding factor.

So, what is in store for Western society now? Are we to slide back into paganism? No, that won't happen. A feelings-based society is further removed from Paganism than it is from a Christian society. C.S. Lewis explains:

For [those in a post-Christian society] neglect not only the law of Christ but even the Law of Nature as known by the Pagans. For now they do not blush at adultery, treachery, perjury, theft and the other crimes which I will not say Christian Doctors, but the pagans and the barbarous have themselves denounced.

They err who say "the world is turning pagan again." Would that it were! The truth is that we are falling into a much worse state.

"Post Christian man" is not the same as "pre-Christian man." He is as far removed as virgin is from widow: there is nothing in common except the want of a spouse: but there is a great difference between a spouse-to-come and a spouse lost.3

Lewis is exactly right here. Christianity provided the grounding for the equality of all men; it is unintelligible in paganism. The New Secularists who place all their emphasis on the feelings of others have taken that Christian idea and warped it to mean all people should be equally unoffended. The new concept only vaguely resembles Christian morality, but it is completely foreign to pagan Rome of Greece, where the conqueror is lauded as the supreme example of humanity.

The West has divorced itself from Christianity. Our society is now is selling off all those things that remind us of the relationship. But if Christianity built the house, bought the furniture, and created the traditions, what will our lives look like once all those things are gone? We cannot look to the pagan past as we have buried that husband long ago. This brave new world is unknown, and perhaps those who advocate for it should show a bit more caution before every bit of shelter is lost.

References

1. "America's Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow." Rep. Pew Research Center, Washington D.C., 15 May 2015. Web. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/.
2. Smith, Christian. "On "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" as U.S. Teenagers' Actual, Tacit, De Facto Religious Faith." Religion and Youth. Ed. Sylvia Collins-Mayo and Pink Dandelion. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2010. 46-57. Print.
3. Lewis, C. S., Wayne Martindale, and Jerry Root. The Quotable Lewis. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1989. 482. Print.
Image courtesy Zoomar and licensed via the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) license.

Is It OK for God to Kill and Torture People?

One of the things I enjoy most when watching debates is the Q&A time afterwards. It allows people to ask questions that may not have been directly addressed in a debate format. In my 2012 debate against Richard Carrier, we also hosted a Q&A time. Questions for each participant were alternated and the participant was given two minutes for a reply with a one minute rebuttal from the opponent. This seemed fair and would allow more audience member to ask questions. Of course, the format is also limiting, as a recent article that criticized one of my responses shows.

In the Q&A, I was asked, "You stated that you believe torture to be wrong in every situation, correct?" I corrected the questioner that my claim in the debate was torturing babies for fun is wrong in all situations. In the debate I had used this illustration to show that all moral values are objective. The questioner responded, "Given that, your Bible-God tortures babies if you're of the predestination camp. Why do you admire a god that does things you would despise in a man?"

The question is obviously a loaded one. As I immediately said in my reply, to assume that God tortures babies is a false assumption. There are many issues with it, but let's take them one at a time.

God Does Not Torture People in Hell

The idea of Hell is painted as God torturing people. That's a misunderstanding of Hell itself. To understand Hell, one must first understand God. God is the source of all goodness and perfection. James 1:17 tells us "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." That means all the pleasure and goodness we experience ultimately has its source in Him. When a person rejects God and His provision for atonement, God will not force himself upon that individual.

After a person dies his soul must reside somewhere. So God will, for lack of a better word, quarantine him in a place where he's separated from God's relational presence. But in so doing, the person is also separated from God's good gifts. Thus the restlessness and anguish experienced by those in Hell are a direct result of their separation from God. Hell is symbolized as a place of eternal fire, but theologians don't hold to that as a literal description.

For those that are interested, you can read a more extensive answer in this 1997 article posted at the Come Reason site. God is not like some gleeful Dungeon-Master placing people on the rack or in an Iron Maiden. He is not executing tortures. He separates those who themselves have chosen to separate themselves from him. The consequences of that separation are what become agonizing.

God Does Not Send Babies to Hell

Notice that the questioner asked specifically about babies in his question. He qualified his claim with "if you're of the predestination camp." I believe the questioner was trying to point to the view of certain people who hold to a specific Calvinist theology. Such a theological position certainly isn't reflective of all of Christendom. It isn't even held by the majority of Christians. To universally impugn a belief in God for the position of a minority is grossly unfair. It isn't my position, either. I don't believe God sends those who die as babies to Hell. I argue that in this article,, so I won't take the time here.

Is the Author of Life Allowed to Take Life?

Most of my response to the questioner focused on whether God should be allowed to take a life, such as the life of a child. I had thought death was the focus of his objection. I therefore argued that God, as the author of life could also take life. I said, "The idea of giving life and taking life, if you're the creator of life it's in your purview to do so." At the end of my response, he clarified that he was talking about Hell, not simply death. My time had run out, but I was able to repeat I don't believe his premise is true.

When I say God is the creator of life, I don't mean only that God created specific lives. I mean God is the one who created that thing that animates living beings, the vita if you will. Science fiction stories often talk about this as a "life-force." Job 12:10 declares in God's hands "is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind."

Atheist blogger James Kirk Wall saw the debate exchange and challenged my answer. He asked "I'm [my dog] Frankie's owner. Now, just because I'm Frankie's owner does that mean I can be cruel or harmful to Frankie? Would it be OK since I'm his owner for me to torture the poor guy? ... What if I created Frankie; what if I created him in a test tube in some laboratory? Would that then make it OK? And of course, the answer is ‘no.'"1 (One wonders how consistent Wall's position on this topic is when we turn from dogs to abortion.)

But this analogy is incorrect. While we may be able to use IVF or even clone dogs in a lab, we do not have the power to bestow life. No one can take a bunch of non-living material and make something that's alive. That was one of the six points I argued in the main debate. As the giver of life itself, it is well within God's authority to take life as well. And as I sought to argue, God may have morally sufficient reasons to take a life at a particular time.

The scratched car analogy I used was perhaps clumsy. It wasn't referring to a person, but to life itself. Life is the car that God owns. Unfortunately, when I better understood the questioner's objection was focused on the agonies of hell, I had run out of time. Still, it should be clear that God doesn't "own" people. That's why people go to Hell; they can of their own free will reject him. But he does have the power over life and death and it is properly his to use as he sees fit.

References

1. Wall, James Kirk. "Is It OK for God to Kill and Torture People? Lenny Esposito vs. Dr. Richard Carrier." Chicago Now. Chicago Now, 21 June 2015. Web. 08 July 2015. http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/2015/06/is-it-ok-for-god-to-kill-and-torture-people-lenny-esposito-vs-dr-richard-carrier/.

Misunderstanding God's Complexity

This summer, Disney/Pixar released the movie Inside Out. It's a great animated portrayal of the inner workings of 12 year old Riley's mind. In the film, the mind is an ever-expanding land of complexity, where emotions are personified, one's train of thought is an actual train, and memories are discrete balls stored in rows upon rows of shelves, catalogued and available for retrieval and playback.

The movie was a lot of fun to watch but it shouldn't be taken too literally. Most people understand that they don't have real little people in their heads causing feelings of joy, sadness, fear, anger, and disgust. While Riley is capable of displaying each of these emotions, they are not discrete entities, but aspects of a single mind.

The film falters in not showing how the person Riley chooses to interpret and govern her emotional inputs. A person acting on pure emotion would be unintelligible; they would be nothing more than an animal. There's something governing her understanding of herself and her feelings. Rationality, reason, and self-understanding are also parts of Riley the film doesn't show. Emotions cannot be responsible for virtue. It is the person of Riley who is responsible for these things. Emotions are not building blocks of the mind. They emanate from the mind, they don't comprise it.

I bring this up because I want to highlight a mistake in thinking that many atheists make in assuming God is a complex being. As I explained yesterday, some atheists hold the design argument to be something along the lines of the complex nature of the universe argues for a creator. They raise the objection that if the complexity of the universe points to God, then God—who is infinitely more complex than the universe itself—must also have a creator. In my last post, I highlighted two ways this kind of thinking runs awry. But the biggest problem with the objection is it simply mischaracterizes God.

God is a Not a Constituent Being

The primary breakdown in the atheist's argument is the claim that God must be somehow more complex than his creation. Such an assumption is unnecessary and it runs counter to the concept of God that Christians have held for nearly two millennia. Christian theology has held that God is ultimately a simple being, one unable to be divided or separated into parts.

The word simple may be used to mean "easy to understand." In other contexts it can also mean ignorant or uninformed. But philosophers use the term simple to mean something that is a total unity; it implies there is no way to break the essence of God into "building blocks" that together comprise who he is. A car is a complex machine that can be broken down into sub sections (drivetrain, electrical, suspension, braking system, etc.). These systems can be broken down further into parts. The parts are made of specific materials, and the materials are made from elements, the elements from molecules, and so it goes.

Augustine grounds the unchangeableness of God to his simplicity. In City of God XI, 10 he writes, "There is, accordingly, a good which is alone simple, and therefore alone unchangeable, and this is God. By this Good have all others been created, but not simple, and therefore not unchangeable."1  Here, Augustine sets out the argument that anything that can be broken down into smaller parts like the car implies it is contingent. God is a spirit, a divine mind with a unique nature. He cannot be divided "God parts" so-to-speak.

God cannot be subdivided this way. The divine mind is a single entity, not something composed of building blocks. Just as our human minds are single entities capable of developing complex emotions, ideas, and thoughts, so God can be the source of a complex creation.

References

1. Translated by Marcus Dods. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm.
Image © 2015 Disney/Pixar.

Must the Creator Have a Reason for His Existence?

This morning I had a quick discussion with a person who was trying to argue that the complexity of the universe is evidence against the existence of God. He claimed that if a Christian was to argue that the complexity of the universe points to God's existence, then as God is infinitely more complex than the universe (his actual term was "complex to infinity"), it makes it even more probable that God was created. He wrote, "less complex things have a far better chance of being eternal than an almighty god."

Such an objection isn't uncommon among atheists. I've seen it frequently myself. As with a lot of retorts, this objection looks sound upon first glance. However, there are at least three rather large mistakes in reasoning in his assertion, they are important for Christians to recognize.

Not Everything That Exists Must Be Created

The first problem is one I've dealt with quite a bit. The questioner assumes that if one claims the universe has some kind of cause for its existence, then in order to be consistent, it's fair to ask what was God's cause? But the assumption itself is wrong. Christianity has never taught that whatever exists must have a cause. That would lead to a fallacy condition known as an infinite regress. For example, if one assumes the argument "because the universe exists, it requires a creator which is God," then the next step would be to ask what brought God into existence. Based on the premise, the answer must be some kind of "God-creator." But of course, the following question is "What created the God-creator?" The premise forces one to answer "A God-creator Creator?" The conversation would devolve into an endless series of "but what create THAT?" with no resolution in sight.

This is why Christians don't argue "Whatever exists must have a creator." Christianity holds that whatever begins to exist must has some kind of cause for its existence. That's a far more reasonable claim.

It Isn't Necessary to Explain the Explanation

The second problem in this objection is much like the first. To assume that in order to believe something one must explain all aspects of its existence is to ultimately appeal to an infinite regress. For example, in our discussion above, my interlocutor asked, "How would you know anything is created let alone by a specific entity?" Such a question struck me as odd. Most people have no problem identifying most things that are a product of intelligence versus those that are a product of nature. Archaeologists make their trade on such distinctions. Even when initial appearances are deceptive (like the face on Mars), identifying the hallmarks of intelligence are for the most part intuitive.

There are certain times one may question whether a structure was caused by natural processes or an intelligence. In those instances, the proponent of a particular view can offer reasons for his position. But if you must give reasons for your reasons, and then reasons for those reasons, you are again caught in an infinite regress. Something like a watch is clearly the product of an intelligent mind. One doesn't need to supply reasons for that conclusion; it's obvious to all but the most obstinate skeptic. When I responded my interlocutor, I simply asked him if he can tell that a watch found in the dirt is designed. He didn't seem happy to answer this question.

Tomorrow I will take up the last problem in the argument that a complex creation like the universe requires an even more complex God to be created. For now, realize that not every explanation needs an explanation of its own. To believe so is a mistake in thinking.

Top Five Apologetics Blog Posts for June 2015

There was a lot to talk/write about in June with the Supreme Court's redefinition of marraige, the recent attack on churchgoers in Charleston, among other headlines. Last month's top five posts reflect those concerns as articles associated with the events made the top five. In fact, the top two articles nudged their way into the top five most popular of all time!

It was a record-breaking month at the blog as we surpassed 30,000 pageviews for the first time, helped by a couple of articles on atheism. Here are the top five apologetics blog posts for June.

1. Responding to Atheist Critiques of Christian Hypocrisy
2. Secularism isn't a Neutral Position
3. How Do We Defend Christian Values to Non-Christian Audiences?
4. Why God Doesn't Reduce the Evil in the World?
5. The Events in Charleston Contradict the New Atheists

Talking God at Starbucks (video)

Christians sometimes struggle to find ways to witness to others. Asking good questions is one of the best ways to open up real conversations with people while still not offending them. Here, Lenny recounts a short conversation at a Starbucks to illustrate how effective questions are at starting God conversations.

Why Christian Opposition to Obergefell is Not Pushing a Theocracy

Last Friday's Supreme Court decision that forced all fifty states to recognize same sex unions as legal marriage continues to ripple through our culture. So many people on all sides of the issue are confused about just how far the decision impacts them, their faith, and their lives.

My friend Mike Licona reposted a question concerning how the Supreme Court's ruling affects Christians and why we are so upset. He recounts:

Chris Armer commented on my earlier post. He asked whether I believe a Christian might be able to look at the issue of same sex marriage in a manner similar to religious liberty; that a Christian could be against the act but for the freedom to do that act. For example, one might disagree with Islam but support a Muslim's right to worship freely in the U.S.1

I also saw a meme circulating on the Internet that asks, "You're upset because you want your religious laws to be the law of the land. Do you know who else wants that? ISIS." Are these charges fair? I don't think so. While it is true that my religious belief informs my opposition to Obergefell, it is not the only factor involved. In fact, I think there are at least three separate but interrelated offenses that the Obergefell decision violated and it's important to understand the distinctions between them.

1.The Obergefell Decision Contradicts Christian Theology

The Obergefell decision offends Christians because of their theological understanding of marriage. Marriage is described in the Bible as the joining of a man and a woman where "they two shall become one flesh" (Matt 19:5, Gen. 2:24). Such a phrase denotes a physical joining of two people together—in other words sexual relations. Biblical marriage is conjugal; and of everything is working as intended, the two will literally become one flesh in producing a child.

Because homosexual sexual relationships are forbidden in the Bible, Christians see the Obergefell decision as antithetical to biblical values. They are right in this. The objection above, though, holds in this instance. There are many other human acts that are not illegal but are anti-biblical. Take the ever more common occurrence of two people living together out of wedlock. Should the government outlaw these relationships, too? Of course not. We are, as Licona rightly noted, not a theocracy and Christianity has never been about coerced morality.

Still, Christians are part of the governmental authority and from this position alone they have a right to keep immoral actions from becoming sanctioned. Christians have every right to protest and try to vote down laws making recreational use of marijuana legal, for example. The United States is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, thus Christian views should count as part of that process. This is not a push of theocracy; it is giving a voice to a significant portion of the U.S. constituency. It is the outworking of a representative democracy. The ISIS comparison fails in this respect.

However, my complaint against Obergefell is not simply theological. There are at least two other spheres the decision affected, and those are important to recognize as well.

2.The Obergefell Decision Denies the Democratic Process

While Christians are not trying to impose a theocracy upon the nation, they are also upset because the decision really violates the established process of representative government we agreed to in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The dissenting Justices clearly saw this decision as a Constitutional tragedy. Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening. ... Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.2

Justice Thomas characterized the decision even more starkly:

The Court's decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a 'liberty' that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect.3

Alito and Scalia spoke in similarly harsh terms. It is a fact that when the question of defining marriage was put to a vote, natural marriage was winning handily. Thirty of the fifty states passed Constitutional amendments reserving marriage to one man and one woman by an average margin of 68%.4 Only the state of Minnesota's vote in 2012 failed to gain a majority of the votes required to pass the amendment. In most of these states, the vote was struck down by judges, usurping the will of the electorate.

Of course it is not always true that the majority has a correct view of the rights of others. The history of slavery in our country shows this. However, it is also not true that Supreme Court decisions are always a corrective as the Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, and Roe v. Wade decisions also show. Righteous indignation at a court that decides a case because of personal ideology instead of the limited power the Constitution affords the Federal government should be applauded.

As Scalia commented, "Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."5 The United States was never to be an Oligarchy. Christians, who were winning democratically in the majority of states, had their voice and the opportunity of democracy stripped from them through judiciary fiat.

3.The Obergefell Decision Ignores Natural Law

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Obergefell decision is wrong because it violates the basis of marriage that may be found in natural law itself. Natural Law has been recognized as the foundation of our entire system of government since Jefferson penned his famous words in the Declaration of Independence. Just as one can look to the nature of human beings to know all are of equal worth, so one may look to nature to understand that marriage transcends government sanction. Marriage has a biological component of producing children and this makes the institution different than either societal creations or societal conventions.6

Our government may not be a theocracy, but it must recognize natural law to be considered just. Marriage is the only institution in human history that has been recognized as the proper institution for producing and rearing children. We do not allow children to be produced in government hatcheries. We do not encourage parents to abandon their children to government agencies. We encourage children to be brought up in stable homes and we expect biological parents to shoulder the responsibility of rearing their children. That's what deadbeat dad laws are all about.

Nature dictates that every child has a biological mother and a biological father. Every. Single. One. Because of this, there is a responsibility the parents bear when creating a new life. Codifying homosexual unions either denies the child's right to a legally recognized mother and father or it separates the child from the parents completely, assuming biology has no bearing at all on what constitutes a parent.

The Obergefell decision degrades marriage by diminishing it from its recognized role across societies as the primary institution for creating and rearing children. It purposely cleaves the procreative aspect of marriage since there is no way any homosexual union could ever produce a child. This is a clear and compelling difference between natural marriage and homosexual unions. The nature of the two unions is different. As Francis J. Beckwith explains:

The argument against same-sex marriage is based on the nature of human persons as gendered beings who have a purpose that is derived from that nature. That is to say, male-gendered human persons are meant for coupling with female-gendered human persons, even if their coupling does not result in procreation. This argument is not based on a human person's current function, ability, or desire, each of which could be inconsistent with how human persons ought to be by nature. For example, a person who is blind is lacking something physically, though he or she is still a human person who by nature ought to be seeing. In the same way, a sterile, aged, or willingly childless person is still a gendered human person whose purpose for marital union (if he or she does not have the gift of celibacy) can be consummated only by one-flesh communion with someone of the opposite gender. This remains true even if he or she has desires that are contrary to what he or she ought to desire by nature.7

Martin Luther King, in his famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" explained the difference between a just and an unjust law:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. 8

If the Obergefell decision shows that it is neither rooted in eternal law nor natural law, then it should be opposed on grounds that the law has no basis for being just. Christians can dismiss the charge we are trying to establish a theocracy as unfounded. The grievance against this decision is grounded in a more fundamental premise than that.

References

1. Licona, Michael. "Chris Armer commented on my earlier post." Facebook. Facebook, 1 July 2015. 03 July 2015. https://www.facebook.com/michael.licona/posts/817911368292791?pnref=story.
2. Soergel, Andrew. "9 Need-to-Know Quotes From the Obergefell v. Hodges Opinions." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 26 June 2015. Web. 03 July 2015. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/26/9-need-to-know-quotes-from-the-Obergefell-v-hodges-opinions.
3. Soergel, 2015.
4. See the statistics provided at "List of Former U.S. State Constitutional Amendments Banning Same-sex Unions by Type." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 2 July 2015. Web. 03 July 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type.
5. Soergel, 2015.
6. For the distinctions of each of these, see "Can Governments Define Marriage?" at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvECw-SDIducb0l-fzxfvHA
7. Beckwith, Francis J. "Wedding Bell Blues: Understanding the Same-Sex Marriage Debate." Christian Research Institute. Christian Research Institute, 22 Apr. 2009. Web. 03 July 2015. http://www.equip.org/article/wedding-bell-blues-understanding-the-same-sex-marriage-debate/.
8. Esposito, Lenny. "Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail." Come Reason's Apologetics Notes. Come Reason Ministries, 17 Jan. 2011. Web. 03 July 2015. http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2011/01/martin-luther-kings-letter-from.html.

How Did the Early Christians Influence Their Culture?

Christians are wondering how to deal with the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling forcing all fifty states to recognize homosexual unions as marriage. The decision was lauded by those on the left as the last word on the question. Corporations changed their social media icons to include the homosexual rainbow colors. Government agencies like the Department of Education and the White House showed their unabridged support for the decision. Many people saw themselves ostracized or compared to bigots or ISIS because of their Christian views, even from friends and family members.

The fallout from this court case clearly shows that Christianity is now an outsider faith. For those in the West, it is a position Christians hadn't experienced since prior to Constantine's ascension in Rome. We aren't used to such a position, but we can look to the actions of those who lived in even greater peril for to understand how to hold fast to our faith and still significantly impact a pagan society.

Learning from the Early Christians

The early church was also an outsider faith, viewed with suspicion and denounced in its first two hundred years, too. But even with life-threatening persecution, the early church not only grew, but changed minds and hearts. Christianity's critics originally condemned the faith as a dangerous superstition causing sedition. Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan in AD 112 discussing the Christian problem, reporting "whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished."1

But near the end of the century, views of Christianity began to change. Galen of Pergamon was an influential Roman physician and philosopher. He described Christianity not as a superstition, but as a philosophy. He explains:

Most people are unable to follow any demonstrative argument consecutively; hence they need parables, and benefit from them just as we now see the people called Christians drawing their faith from parables and miracles, and yet sometimes acting in the same way as those who practice philosophy. For their contempt of death and of its sequel is patent to us every day, and likewise their restraint in cohabitation. For they include not only men but also women refrain from cohabitating all through their lives; and they also number individuals who, in self-discipline and self-control in matters of food and drink, and in their keen pursuit of justice, have attained a pitch not inferior to that of genuine philosophers. 2

According to Robert Wilken, such a characterization is significant. By speaking of Christianity as a philosophy, he gave the faith legitimacy not for regarding abstract ideas, but also of a guiding force for living. Wilken writes, "Philosophy in Galen's day had become less a way of thinking than a way of living. Although philosophers were the inheritors of intellectual traditions that dealt with great metaphysical issues… they had gone into the streets of the cities to address the populace and to offer men and women advice on how to live."3

Living Out Your Values

When we read Galen's account of Christians, we see that it is the impact of Christianity on the changed lives of the Christians. They no longer would cohabit, they would exercise self-discipline and self-control, and they sought justice for the wrongdoings they saw in their day. Wilken himself identifies this as the significant factor in seeing Christianity more positively. "What led him to call it a philosophy was the success Christians had in leading men and women to a life of virtue."4

Christians today need to follow the model of these early believers. We need to begin by exercising our self-discipline and self-control in our own lives. That's a difficult task. We must make hard judgments in our entertainment choices. We must respect marriage and hold those in our churches to the high standard that the Bible lays out for it. As Christians we should be different from the society and it should show.

It is the integrity of the early Christians in their personal lives that gave their arguments a gravity they wouldn't otherwise have. While I understand the outrage so many believers have shown for the Obergefell decision, our first step in making a difference in our society is to make a difference in our own lives. Perhaps then our arguments may become more persuasive with our critics.

References

1. Pliny, Letters 10.96-97. Accessed at http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html
2. Wilken, Robert Louis. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven: Yale UP, 1984. Print. 79.
3. Wilken, 1984.
4. Wilken, 1984.
Image courtesy Nick Thompson and licensed via the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) License

WALL-E, Morality, and Men Without Chests

In the 2008 Pixar film WALL-E, humans are not the hero. The movie portrays people as very advanced technologically: they can create space ships that house the population of the planet. They can build robots that will function autonomously for hundreds of years. They have floating chairs and auto-changing clothes. Work seems to be passé.

Even with accomplishing the things that we toady dream about, the film doesn't want you to think humans are in a better position. It wants you to realize that they've traded an important part of their humanity for their comfort and convenience. They've lost the idea that work, exercise, struggle, and the natural order are part of the human condition. In the consumerist culture of WALL-E, humans' drive to satisfy every desire has made their bellies so fat they can no longer stand on their feet.

Our Growing Bellies and Shrinking Chests

It should be no surprise that the comment on humanity in WALL-E wasn't about the distant future, but about our culture today. We're the ones who are driven so much by our desires that we've grown fat and forsaken the richness that denial of pleasure offers human beings, and that fatness is not only physical. We've let out appetites overwhelm us on questions of morality, too.

The fatness of our bellies was famously noted by C.S. Lewis in his short book The Abolition of Man. Lewis, drawing from Plato, extends the idea. Human beings have two centers of motivation: his reasoning and his appetites. We can come to a decision that X is the right thing to do by weighing the pros and cons, and looking at the consequences of the outcome, not only for ourselves but for others and for society in general. This is reasoning, or being ruled by the head.

The other source of motivation is our appetites. Appetites and desires are universal, but they really don't require much thought. You feel them and seek to satisfy them. Appetites are pictured to be ruled by the belly, that is the stomach and genitals. They are not constrained to only sexual or gastronomic satisfaction, though. Desire to get the "next new thing" or the desire to avoid work, like in WALL-E would qualify.

If we were to be ruled by only our appetites, we are no better off than animals. It is our head, our ability to reason and curb appetites that make us civilized. But how do we do this, when our appetites are so powerful within us? Lewis says we have traditionally allowed the head to rule over the belly through the chest. He explains the chest is the center of magnanimity. It is:

emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment — these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.1

We are in the World of WALL-E Right Now

Our culture has given itself over completely to its appetites. Individuality has trumped reason. We are told that sex doesn't matter in marriage, the only institution recognized as the appropriate to rear children. We're told that biology has nothing to do with gender although it has everything to do with sexual orientation. We care more about finding self-fulfillment in whatever our desires may be than we do to upholding the time-tested pillars that uphold society for all. Owen Strachan believes the Obergefell ruling demonstrates this: "Our self-obsessed society has made good on its orientation. We now care more about personal feelings and rights we deemed are owed to us than we do about duties to God, family, country, and community."2

Because we no longer value magnanimity (does anyone even know what the word means today?), the belly has his way and becomes more and more engorged. We are, as Lewis claimed, Men without Chests. But it also makes us men without feet and men without a natural home. We are adrift on a craft built entirely of comfort and we've forgotten how to walk. The problem is, sooner or later we are going to fall out of our lounge chairs and we won't be able to get up again.

References

1. Lewis, C. S. "The Abolition of Man." The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002. Print. 704.
2. Strachan, Owen. "5 Implications of the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Decision." ThoughtLife. Patheos, 26 June 2015. Web. 30 June 2015. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2015/06/5-implications-of-the-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision/.

How Not to Get Mad When Talking with Non-Believers

The recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to recognize same sex unions across the country has changed our nation. Corporations and government institutions that had previously provided an appearance of neutrality displayed their applause by adopting a rainbow colored version of their logos on social media and their web sites. The White House became the Rainbow House both virtually and in reality for an evening. Of course, many people followed suit and also cheered for the decision.

I believe that the Supreme Court decision will cause more discussions about the nature and definition of marriage, not less. Like many contentious issues of our day, this will cause emotions to rise, quickly devolving disagreements into exchanges that are more venomous and less Christianly. I was speaking with one online friend who told me how difficult it had been for him in such exchanges. He admitted, "I worked so hard to show [their] flawed thinking but they refused to see their error. I know I'm not ready for debate because I get too angry."

It is difficult to engage others when passions are high. It is harder when the other side has produced a rather consistent campaign of name-calling ("bigot, hater!") that slander you instead of wrestling with your arguments. But just as we are told homosexual practice is wrong, we are also commanded to love our enemies.

How do we do this? We must look at others and see them the way Jesus did. The Woman at the Well was a bit arrogant with Jesus. She was flippant in their exchange, even though she was the one who had a problem with morality and keeping a husband! Yet, Jesus didn't yell at her, he loved her but stood firm in his conviction.

Dallas Willard explains this approach:

We must see the soul and the person in its ruined condition, with its malformed and dysfunctional mind, feelings, body, and social relations, before we can understand that it must be delivered and reformed and how that can be done. One of the greatest obstacles to effective spiritual formation in Christ today is simple failure to understand and acknowledge the reality of the human situation as it affects Christians and nonChristians alike. We must start from where we really are. And here we recall that all people undergo a process of spiritual formation. Their spirit is formed, and with it their whole being. As I said earlier, spiritual formation is not something just for especially religious people. No one escapes. The most hardened criminal as well as the most devout of human beings have had a spiritual formation. They have become a certain kind of person. You have had a spiritual formation and I have had one, and it is still ongoing. It is like education: everyone gets one—a good one or a bad one. We reemphasize that those are fortunate or blessed who are able to find or are given a path of life that forms their spirit and inner world in a way that is good.1

Jesus saw the woman at the well as someone who didn't know about the things of God. In talking with her, Jesus was able to lead her to repentance. Whenever I engage others online or in person, I've found it better to see people as deceived. They're deceived by the world, by the Devil and by themselves. Like a young child, they are simply regurgitating a lie they want to believe. That's the beginning of compassion.

References

1. Willard, Dallas. Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ. Colorado Springs: Navpress. 2002. 45.
Image courtesy Jessica Flavin [CC BY 2.0].

How to Debate Same-Sex Marriage After SCOTUS

This afternoon, I had a mini debate on Twitter with a gentleman about same-sex marriage. I wanted to reproduce it because it was a good and respectful dialogue; these are the kinds of conversations that help clarify Christian beliefs and positions to those who may not be familiar with all the reasons why so many are deeply concerned about the SCOTUS decision to redefine marriage.

To set up the conversation, I had tweeted an article entitled, Labeling peaceful proponents of traditional marriage “religious extremists” is as misleading as it is mean-spirited. That lead to Chip's first comment:

ChipSalonna: Labeling it "traditional marriage" is as funny as it is misleading. http://t.co/7qEomYUJlm

Comereason: No. Marriage has been traditionally recognized as one thing for all of human civilization...
However, I use the term natural marriage because there a biological component involved as well.

ChipSalonna: Riiiight. Ever hear of Mormons? Or Muslims? Or Solomon?

Comereason: Yes, I have. So?
Can I ask you a question? How many wives did a Mormon or a Muslim or Solomon need to take before he was considered married?

ChipSalonna: After the first wife, how many more wives did a Mormon or Muslim have to take before they weren't considered married anymore?

Comereason: You make my point. The reference to traditional marriage is not a reference to NUMBER, but to the TYPE of union. 1 man, 1 woman..
2,000 years of western civilization is enough to claim something is tradition(al). Still, natural marriage a better descriptor.

ChipSalonna: So, you're ok with polygamy/polyamory? I find it hard to imagine that's true but I can't wait to see where this goes.

Comereason: No, I'm not Ok with it. It is a deviant form of marriage, a distortion of the ideal. But it is a kind of marriage.

ChipSalonna: "Deviant". But "traditional". At least polygamy has THAT going for it.

Comereason: None of this is relevant to whether the union of two people of the same sex should be called a marriage.

ChipSalonna: See my other tweet w/link to Wikipedia.

Comereason: It's easy to Google things and Wikipedia is notoriously inept at being factual in hot button issues.
For example, Rome had marriage laws spelled out in the patria potestas, but those laws did not apply in same sex issues.
I agree that Greece, China, and even parts of India today have homosexual relationships. No one called it marriage, though.

ChipSalonna: As you wish. We call it "marriage" now.

Comereason: Do you have a Social Security number?

ChipSalonna: Rhetorical. What's your point?

Comereason: How many Social Security numbers should each person in the U.S. have?

ChipSalonna: [Waiting...]

Comereason: The IRS reports that there are many thousands of people who are issued multiple SS#'s. It doesn't make any of those NOT a SS#.
Further, you SHOULD only have ONE. But they are all real SS#s. What you are trying to argue is that because there have been...
...multiple SS#s in the past, its OK to call a driver's license a SS#. Both are identification, both issued by the govt.
There are so many similarities, who cares about the little differences?

ChipSalonna: I get the point with your analogy. And I've already accepted that you view 1MnW as "deviant" but "traditional". The *big*...
...difference is that we're talking people &their feelings & freedoms, not numbers or pieces of paper. I assume that...
...ultimately you view SSM as bad b/c God says so. So, here's a hypothetical for you. If God came to you and said "Hey,...
...Lenny, the Bible had a few mistakes with the homo stuff. It's really ok for them to get married." Would you continue to...
...make the "secular" arguments you're making now?

Comereason: You're absolutely right that this isn't about pieces of paper but about people. We can agree on that.
My argument isn't just procedural. I'm concerned about the people involved. Do you know why Govt got involved w/marriage at all?
Or (to be more specific) why they continue to be involved?

ChipSalonna: I'll come back to your question. But would you abandon your arguments given God's "retraction"?

Comereason: Actually, the Bible really doesn't say anything about same sex unions. If we were discussing a purely civil contract...
...such as CA's civil unions, I wouldn't be fighting it--and I didn't when it was passed. Marriage is different, though.

ChipSalonna: So, you consider your arguments to be *purely* secular? You don't trace any anti-SSM thoughts back to God? Truly curious here.

Comereason: No. I believe all truth is God's truth and he designed the world to run a certain way. We get a clearer picture from the Bible.
But I believe I have arguments that can be accepted even if one doesn't hold to the Bible as a moral principle....
... Marriage has a consistent basis across all cultures and all faiths. Thus I can offer secular arguments.

ChipSalonna: Ok, so in my hypothetical, if God "clarified" the issue, you'd have to say your secular arguments were somehow wrong. Yes?
(Not a trap. Just getting a clear picture.)

Comereason: I don't doubt your sincerity. I'm just trying to understand. I have a hard time seeing how that would be possible, though...
Human beings are created in a specific way. God would be saying something that argues against his created order.
The only institution that all of humanity has recognized as proper to creating and rearing children is the family. That's it.
The primary reason Govt gets involved is for the welfare of the child. That's why deadbeat dad laws are on the books....
The Govt recognizes marriages because it then knows who he responsible parents are for the child, unless otherwise stated.

ChipSalonna: Except that you said biblical teaching isn't clear on the marriage issue.

Comereason: I said God didn't explicitly say "no same sex unions." The Bible is clear on sexual activity between those of the same sex.

ChipSalonna: So, it seems to matter little (from a secular point of view) whether we're talking about civil unions, marriage or shacking up.

Comereason: I don't gamble and I don't drink but I'm not pressing for prohibition.
I don't condone shacking up, but there should be no law against it.
There's a difference between tolerating an action and changing the definition of an existing institution.

ChipSalonna: I meant civil unions, marriage or shacking up w.r.t SSC.

Comereason: Right. All of those are in a different category from marriage.
But it hurts kids. It takes two people to create them, yet they're denied the right to have even a chance at a mom & dad.

ChipSalonna: Gotta run. It's been fun. I'm sure we can have Round 2 later.

Comereason: I really appreciate the respectful tone, Chip! That's why I'm willing to converse. Thanks for that.

I want to again thank Chip Salonna for his respect and genuine sincerity in trying to at least understand my positon. he is to be complimented for being a gentleman.

What About Slavery in the Bible? (video)

"Why would a God of love allow the Israelites to won slaves, even giving them laws on ownership?" It seems to be a common objection by some who seek to demonstrate that the Bible is incoherent. However, as Lenny explains in this short video, the concept of slave in the Ancient Near East wasn't the same thing as it was in the pre-Civil War south. It was much broader, including serfdom and share-cropping type relationships.