Atonement Theories

Much of the progressive Christian blogosphere seems to be deeply concerned about atonement theories.  I'm not sure how much of this has to do with the comment of a particular skeptic that the cross of Christ amounted to "cosmic child abuse".   At any rate, "penal substitution", the belief that Christ took the penalty for human sin by acting as a substitute for us has fallen on disfavor.

To some degree, this may be a reaction to the trend of our era toward sound bites.  Since the advent of the four spiritual laws, evangelistic strategies have tended toward trying to explain redemption in a few short bullet points - hardly leaves time for unpacking a lot of theology - and the more prominent atonement theory winds up the only one described.  (More)

Disposable People - Culture Wars

This quote from C.S Lewis often comes to mind when pondering the current state of sexual ethics in this country.  

"…when we say of a lustful man prowling the streets that he wants a woman. Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want.  He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus. How much he cares about the woman as such may be gauged by his attitude to her five minutes after fruition,  One does not keep the carton after one had smoked the cigarettes."

Over the last 50 years, three issues keep coming to the surface in the so-called culture wars, issues which conservative Christians find themselves involved with and as a result, find themselves roundly criticized for poking their noses into "political" affairs.  (Read More)

The Pragmatic Case

It usually does little good to argue about same-sex marriage as a public policy issue using Biblical  arguments, no matter how badly we wish to rebut some of the horrific exegesis that comes from progressive Christians who support this massive and unprecedented subversion of 3400 years of western civilization.

A case must be made that shows how changing the definition of marriage changes society at large in a negative way and why a government should care.  Here are a few thoughts.   (Read More)

Marriage - The Definition is the Issue

I’ll take a stab at the hot button topic of the day.  

Why is it that conservative Christians are opposed to gay marriage in this enlightened post-modern age?

Let me begin by saying it is not that Conservative Christians are opposed to “love”.  I don’t think there is anything anyone would say against two people of the same gender having a certain affection for each other.  It is true that affections can sometimes be unhealthy – even simple friendships and heterosexual romances.  Still the issue isn’t “love” as in a “feeling” two people have for each other.

Christianity is a faith that exalts a set of high moral standards and then tells us that none of us can keep those standards.  It responds to this dilemma with grace – a deep, deep well of forgiveness.  The result is that the moral law of God which none of us keep perfectly ceases to be a source of condemnation, but remains a goal.  We are not always honest, but we strive for honesty.  We are not always faithful, but we strive for fidelity.   The moral standards affirmed in both the Old and New Testament are not a means of salvation but they remain ideals by which we examine ourselves and seek to be better people.  So – the issue is “what are our ideals?” (Read more)

Andy Stanley, Al Mohler and Scot McKnight

We have apparently come to the place where progressive Christians are open to roundly criticize conservatives who simply speak their mind and portray them as judgmental while being increasingly unwilling to speak against others who pass judgment with extreme prejudice.  

Al Mohler raised a question as one part of a discussion about the megachurch phenomena.  The heart of Mohler’s post was that a generation or two ago, it was suggested in “liberal” circles that Christianity needed to change in order to reach people.  But in a short time, those churches jettisoned essential elements of the faith.  While Mohler praised – yes praised – the conservative bent of many  megachurches and megachurch leaders, he said that the temptation would be strong to water down essential truths for the sake of outreach. 

In this context, he referred to a message by Andy Stanley - "When Gracie met Truthy".  Stanley used a sermon  illustration where two men, both having abandoned heterosexual marriage for a same-sex relationship were told they were disqualified from a service role on a “host team” because one was still married to his wife, not yet divorced.  Stanley did directly speak against adultery – since one of the men was still married, and tied that to disqualification from serving in that position.  But Stanley said not a word about the morality of the same-sex relationship itself and whether that might also disqualify someone from the same role.  His silence on the obvious hot-button issue implied to at least some that had both men been divorced while having this same-sex relationship, they could have stayed in their role.  

So adultery was a disqualification while an illicit gay relationship was seemingly not.     (Read more...)

Savage

I feel compelled to respond to a couple of canards from Dan Savage’s classless tirade that caused Christian students to walk out of a presentation that was supposed to decry bullying.  

Much has already been written about the inconsistency of a speaker on the topic of bullying calling those who had the courage to walk out on his ignorant and foul-mouthed nonsense en masse “wimps”.   One wonders why the organizers of a conference for high school students on journalism would invite a guy who used crass and slanderous intimidation to slander Rick Santorum and licked doorknobs while ill in hopes of infecting Gary Bauer to speak as an expert on preventing bullying, but that is another discussion. 

I’ll not delve into issues of tone, the ethics of his presentation, and speculation about what it is that drives this guy.  I’ll just respond to some specific ideas.

The Lie

It is said by Evolutionary Creation advocates that if Young Earth Creationism is true, then God “lied” by making the universe appear old. In fact the “appearance of age” is one explanation some YEC use to explain the apparent age of the universe. The argument YEC makes is that if God were to create a tree, instantaneously, and someone came along moments later, the someone may have no idea the tree was only seconds old, for a “created” tree would appear to be mature. The same logic would apply for the land masses, earth and the universe itself.

But to evolutionists, Theistic Evolutionists and evolutionary creationists, this explanation imputes to God a “lie”, that he would have left clues in the universe that make it appear to be old when it is not, deceiving…well, scientists primarily… who want to assume the age of something very old can be determined by examining its properties.

It is not my purpose here to defend a particular age for the cosmos. As a conservative Christian, I am not committed to a particular age of the most distant star, or of the necessity of a precise 24 hour day in the creation of planets or land masses, but I am committed to the historicity of Adam and his fall into sin as recorded in the Genesis account. What concerns me here is logic, for this is a curious and horribly inconsistent charge made by EC advocates against YEC.

If find it stunning that EC advocates suggest that

A) God “LIED” if the universe is young when it appears to be old,

B) But there is apparently nothing deceitful about an “inspired” text that indicates absolutely nothing about the alleged irrefutable truth of common descent!

The utter absurdity of that inconsistency ought to be enough to cause any serious reader of scripture to doubt whether EC is the least bit honest with the text of scripture.

What is the greater lie?

Is it the lie latent in a subtle set of clues allegedly buried in inferences made by a few highly specialized technicians; conclusions measured in the long slow decay of radio-isotopes or measurements of the speed of light, each revealed only through sophisticated scientific methods based on philosophical assumptions about the nature of the physical universe?

Or is the greater lie laid out in common human language in story form which explicitly and repeatedly claims that human beings are descended from a single pair whose rebellion is the cause of all death and suffering?

It is often asserted by these sophisticated academics that God revealed the Genesis story to earlier pre-scientific peoples because they would not have been sophisticated enough to comprehend common descent. Really?

Were the men who lived in the age that built the pyramids really so incapable of higher level thinking that a story of creation which simply suggested all living beings came from earlier creatures would have been incomprehensible to them? Is it more credible that instead God reveals to them a story that all humans descended from a single pair?