What Worldview Can Hold You Up?

What Worldview Can Hold You Up?

By Rick Carver

“I don’t believe in a god that lets young children starve to death or allows people to contract horrible diseases for no apparent reason.  I just can’t accept a god like that.”

That is a response I received while in a dialogue with someone who rejected the Christian worldview because he surmised that a loving God would not allow such things to happen.  In fact this is a major obstacle for many people.  How can we assert that God loves and cares for humanity when we see such injustice and suffering in the world?  Shouldn’t He stop all the wrong in the world today?  Belief in the God of the Bible would be easier to take if we did not claim that He loved us, right?

Sometimes the answers to such difficult questions are actually staring us right in the face.  Yet we do not perceive them; we are too often blinded to the realities that we already take for granted.  The objection presented above makes a few assumptions that are worth a closer look.  Let’s consider a couple.

First assumption: God shouldn’t behave that way, if He actually exists.

Why not? 

I would certainly agree that suffering children and starving people are terrible outcomes and that humanity should seek to alleviate such trials.  But why would both of us assume that these sorts of things are “wrong” and “should” be alleviated?  Where does our sense of justice and benevolence come from?  Does it simply come from within us?  Consider this - anyone invoking the words ought orshould, is assuming a moral standard of some kind.

Our assumptions regarding right and wrong can’t spring out of a vacuum.  But the person I spoke with rejected the notion of God in favor of an atheistic worldviewexactly because of a moral standard that he perceived God to have violated, supposing that He actually existed.  Since the proposition of a loving God was contrary to his sense of justice in God’s creation, he concludes that God could not exist (or at least is not worthy of our allegiance).  At this point he overlooks a critical issue.

What is his alternative philosophy?  Atheism?

Atheism cannot account for the existence of justice or any objective moral standard, and yet this person comes to the idea that suffering children was something that God should not permit?  Think about it.  He has to borrow from a theistic worldview (in this case Christianity) in order to refute it.  If we are merely cosmic accidents with no ultimate purpose in life then the suggestion that any injustice is objectively wrong is baseless.  The irony here is that his option to embrace an atheistic worldview makes no sense given his own convictions regarding justice, right and wrong.  In light the existence of our sense of justice and equity, we actually have a strong argument for the existence of God.  His atheistic worldview is the one that makes no sense and consequently is not true.

Before a person rejects Christianity on the basis of suffering and evil in the world, he or she would do well to consider what worldview will be adopted in its place.  We cannot live or reason without a basic set of presuppositions that make up a worldview.  The question is, “Which worldview?”

Second assumption:  That there is no answer to the question “Why?”

It is likely that most people, who reject the Christian worldview on the basis of suffering and evil in the world, will never get to the point of seriously considering that there is a Biblical answer for why these things exist in the first place.  That’s too bad because Christianity makes the most sense of what we see.

The Bible teaches us that humanity is caught up in what is called “The Fall.”  All people, who were intended to reflect God’s own nature (righteous, just, good, etc), have been damaged through sin and are now incapable of bearing the true Image of God (Imago Dei).  We still understand goodness and justice, but are not capable of being what we know we should be.  This is what it means to be sinful and ultimately guilty before God having violated His moral law.  Incidentally, this underscores the need for human accountability in governmental affairs.

It could be said then that God doesn’t allow starvation…we do.  God doesn’t allow war…we do.  In fact the doctrine of the Fall of Man presents the case that the order of the cosmos itself was affected negatively so that now we must endure what we could call Natural Evil such as decay, calamity (earthquakes, tsunamis, etc), birth defects and such.  The Law of Entropy (order tends toward disorder) is also understood to be a product of the Fall.   As Daryl Witmer would say, “The world is temporarily out of order.”

The Bible also teaches that God will not let this sinful order of things persist forever.  He will one day set things right.  We look forward to that Day with great anticipation.

So, where will you stand?

A person may reject our Christian hope of redemption and deliverance from sin through Jesus Christ.  He or she may reject our worldview because things like an invisible God, the Fall of Man and a risen Savior seem too hard to believe.  But I must ask, “What worldview can hold you up if Christianity is rejected?”  Does an atheistic worldview make more sense than Christianity?  The answer is simple, “No.” 

So the issue becomes one of willingness to accept the truth, not that the truth of Christianity is actually rational.  Now we get to the “rub.”  A person cannot accept the cross of Christ and remain guiltless in his or her own mind.  Reason is not the most significant factor in the rejection of the Christian worldview; it is often just a “smokescreen.” 

Isn’t it comforting to know that the God of the Bible is loving, forgiving and proved it by stepping into our world to make right what we could not do ourselves? 

Yes, the world is full of brokenness and evil.  But these things actually point us to the answer to the very problems we face.  Let us not grow weary in the contention for the Truth of the Gospel in the world today.  We have the “best news” in town.  Take every opportunity to share it.

Rick Carver is the Associate Director for the AIIA Institute

Where Do Laws Come From?

Where do laws come from?

The secular humanistic idea is that laws are conventions of man.  That means that societies have created laws to the extent that they survive better with them than without them.  Is that true?  Are laws simply something society “made up” for survival? 

If laws are based in human pragmatics, what would stop a society from rescinding them when it became inconvenient?  That’s simple…nothing.  If Positive Law (man-made) is all there is, then there is no law that reflects anything other than the whimsical disposition of the individual, or group, that is in power at the time — and that can change.

No one would deny that man can make law.  But is Positive Law all there is?  This brings us to a discussion of ethics and ultimately morals.

First let’s look at the difference between ethics and morals.  An ethic is what we could consider to be a standard of what is right and good.  In contrast to ethics, morals are the behavior a people display over against a given ethical standard.  To quote R.C. Sproul loosely, “Morals are what are, ethics are what ought to be.”  Often ethics and morals are seen to be synonymous but this distinction is worth mentioning.

Do our mores come from the laws that society gives us or do our laws actually reflect some other ethical standard we already have?  Is it possible for objective morals to actually exist in a secular humanistic construct?  If objective moral values do exist, whose morals are they?

Secular Humanism is expressly atheistic.  Any atheistic worldview will find it impossible to account for anything that is a non-material reality because of its commitment to what is called materialism.  Materialism, or the conviction that matter is all that exists, is a nonnegotiable component of any atheistic worldview.  In contrast to a Christian worldview, which espouses a supernatural philosophy, humanism is committed to a natural one.  This leaves the Secular Humanist relegated to natural explanations for the existence of logic, reason, information, and even ethics.  For the humanist, ethics are simply the natural product of the inclinations of humans - the result of chemical processes in the brain.  This means that law is ultimately something that people have brought forth from the natural inclinations of their collective will.

Is that the only explanation for the existence of morality and ultimately law itself?  Has law come from random electrical impulses of the brain?

No.  The Christian worldview has tremendous explanatory power when dealing in the arena of ethics, morals and ultimately law.  Christians believe that our ethical standards reflect the very nature of God revealed in creation and the Bible.  For the Christian the matter of good law versus bad law is resolved in how God created the world to function and what He revealed in Scripture to be right and wrong.

First let’s consider what is called Natural Law. 

According to Dr. J. Budziszewski, Natural Law is, “that which we cannot, not know.”  Man is given the ability to recognize what is right and wrong from God Himself.  We have the innate ability to perceive that murder, torture, cruelty, thievery and such are immoral and ultimately wrong.  This ability is affirmed in the words of Romans 2:15, “the work of the law written on their hearts.”

I remember a story that Greg Koukl tells regarding a college student who was being taught that objective morals don’t really exist.  The student came to him for advice and Koukl recommended that the student “steal her stereo.”  Of course, it is a funny story, but it illustrates a certain truth.  Even those who do not “believe” in an objective moral standard will appeal to some standard when an injustice is dealt to them.  The truth is, people really do believe in moral standards and this becomes evident when they are wronged themselves.  Furthermore, a person who actually doesn’t believe in an objective moral standards and then acts in accord with his beliefs can be said to be a menace to society not being governed by an ethical standard beyond his own desires.  This is the basis for sociopathic behavior. 

The way we are made reflects the moral attributes of the nature of God.  It is first Natural Law that gives us a basis for determining what is right and wrong.

Secondly we must consider what is called Biblical Law.  This is the law that is revealed in the Scripture.  God has revealed in His holy book a standard for living that goes beyond the innate understanding of the human heart.  The Ten Commandments are clear enough for an average person to understand and they come from the very nature of God.  God’s commands are not capricious and cannot change.  They are rather a reflection of His eternal nature and His intention that people bear His image rightly.

So where do laws come from, God or man?  Which claim is more reasonable given what we know about the world around us?

Of course, people create laws but laws that are based in Natural Law and Biblical Law can be said to be “good” while laws that are contrary to Natural Law and Biblical Law can be said to be “bad.”  Who would think kindly of a law being passed that suggested all dark skinned people should serve light skinned people?  What worldview has been responsible for the abolition of the slave trade in the west?  What would make us assume that the enslavement of another person against his will was actually wrong?  Some laws are trivial in nature but the essence of a law can always be traced to some moral definition of right and wrong.  The real question is whose moral definition? 

For the Secular Humanist, the only barometer for measuring the “good” of a law is found in how well it works.  There is no objective moral standard for the atheist to look to when making law.  There is no basis for an atheist to reject slavery of another human other than the law written on his heart and that which the Creator has revealed to us. The existence of objective moral standards reveals the existence of the God of those morals.  Thus our ethical standards are not conventions of human ingenuity but the values derived from a Holy God.

We must finally conclude that the concept of law and the standard by which we judge law ultimately come from God Himself.  

PR

Old Universe or Young Universe?

I have been doing some reading lately about cosmology.  Cosmology is essentially the study of the universe's origin.  There is a debate within Christian circles that has been heating up lately as to whether the universe, and consequently the earth, is old (about 15 billion years) or young (6-10 thousand years).  

Now right off I want to make clear that this is probably not the single most important issue, at least on the surface.  It is not essential for a believer in Jesus Christ to hold to a young universe or old universe model in order to be rescued from his or her sinful state.  Simply, an abiding faith in Jesus' sacrifice and saving power is sufficient to deliver a soul from spiritual death.  

So what's the big deal?  Should it really matter if the universe is young or old?

Perhaps not from a strictly soteriological perspective (having to do with salvation) but the issue touches on more than just salvation.  Specifically, the subject of Biblical authority is at issue.  If the Genesis account of a 6 day creation is just a metaphor and not a literal record, why does the text indicate with such emphasis that each day was comprised of "evening and morning?"  Of course this could  be taken as a figurative indication of the beginning and cessation of a given time period, but what would lead us to consider it to be such?  Would we take the text to be figurative if modern scientific conjecture was not indicating that the universe was in fact billions of years old?  I don't think so.

If the Genesis record of creation is a metaphor would we begin to suggest that the miracles of the Exodus or even the miracles of Christ are just a metaphor for some spiritual lesson?  Or worse, manmade stories?  What about Noah's flood?  

For what it's worth, both young and old universe proponents have compelling evidence and physical difficulties with regard to their view of the age of the universe.  This, in effect, brings me to what I really want to talk about, namely the presuppositions that tend to guide those engaged in these contests.

Presuppositions are what we believe before we engage a given topic.  One could simply break down the word: pre (before) supposition (belief) simply means to believe beforehand.  Said differently, a presupposition is what we take for granted to be true.  Any worldview is built upon a set of presuppositions so it would be silly to assert that a person should be devoid of them.  But is there a set of presuppositions that we should hold to as believers in the God of the Bible?

Why does a Christian believe that God created the heavens and the earth?  That's easy!  The Bible says so and he believes the Bible.  Why does a Christian believe that Jesus died for the sins of mankind?  Similarly, the bible clearly testifies that He did.  So why would a Christian believe that the universe is billions of years old?  Because the Bible says so?  No, the Bible gives no straight forward indication that the universe is old.  In fact, the Bible would seem to indicate that the universe and the earth are both quite young.  A plain reading of the text of the creation record would seem to indicate that a week was set apart for the supernatural act of making the universe "out of nothing."  The genealogies of the Bible would support a "young" creation. 

Why are so many Christians (some I have a great deal of respect for) asserting that the universe and the earth are billions of years old?  Is it because of a firm conviction that the Bible is the Word of God?  No, it's not the Bible that they get this information from; rather scientific assertions are driving the agenda.  Scientists have been asserting that the evidence indicates a universe that is billions of years old and consequently an old earth too.  

Now I have a question: Do those scientists have a firm conviction that the Bible is the Word of God?  Don't get me wrong, I know there are God fearing scientists who believe that the universe is old.  That isn't my point.  My question probes for the underlying philosophy that governs the interpretation of the evidence that scientists see.  What worldview is dictating the terms of interpretation?  What are the presuppositions that are the underpinning of the interpretation of the evidence that we see?

Evidence is neutral.  Presuppositions are not neutral and everyone has them.  Right or wrong we all have an intellectual set of assumptions that we bring to any forensic evaluation.  There are basically two different kinds of science.  One is what we could call observable or experiential science.  It deals with what we see and it's pretty straight forward.  We draw conclusions based on what we can verify through repeated experimentation.  The other kind is what we could call investigative or forensic science.  This is more the work of a detective who is trying to figure out what happened when observation is impossible.  In forensic science personal assumptions play a very large role in the interpretation of the evidence presented.  Cosmology is largely an investigative science.

A person who is committed to a philosophy called "Naturalism" would be someone who believes that the material universe is all there is.  Such a person would disregard the Biblical record of creation at the outset because of a pre-commitment to his guiding philosophy - Naturalism.  It would matter very little if a committed naturalist was looking at compelling evidence for a young creation because his worldview would cause him to interpret the data in harmony with what he or she already believed.  The same can be said of the proponent of a "young" creation as well.  Both parties would see evidence through different lenses and come to a different conclusion.

I once read that a respected Christian apologist commented on the observed supernova of 1987 saying that it is proof that the universe is billions of years old (primarily because of light speed constraints and the great distance of the supernova).  He went on to say that it would be deceptive of God to allow a supernova to appear to happen if the universe was in fact only a few thousand years old.  God would have had to create the "appearance" of a dying star without the star actually existing, because the light would take much longer to reach earth than the young earth creation record would allow for.

I puzzled over this comment for a while.  

What if God actually told us how and when creation took place?  Would He still be deceptive?  How could God be said to be deceptive if He simply told us what He did?  It seems to me the issue is whether we have the faith to believe Him or not.  Must a person conclude that the universe is billions of years old?  What is the reason for this "necessity?"  Is it the "evidence?"

I would submit that it is not the evidence that is doing the speaking as much as the commitment to naturalistic philosophy that is guiding many scientists.  Naturalism is essentially an atheistic philosophy.  Why would a committed Christian adopt an atheistic guiding philosophy?  Peer pressure?  I'm not sure, but it seems that this issue of young or old universe is not going away anytime soon.  Am I just an uneducated odd-ball for believing the Genesis record of special creation to have taken place in a literal 6 days?   I don't think so.

There is a lot of evidence for a young universe.  Comets, lack of certain kinds of supernovae, moon dust, red shift, uniform galactic distribution and a host of data can certainly affirm a young universe.  It really depends on how you choose to view the evidence, and that has everything to do with the presuppositions you start your investigation with.  Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?  Do you think it's possible that God could have created the "Heavens and the Earth" in just 6 days?  Would an atheistic assumption be sufficient to make you doubt what God said?

Perhaps more of us should try seeing the universe through the lens of Biblical authority.   The evidence for the special creation of all things is compelling.  You just have to be willing to see it.

Rick Carver is the Associate Director for the AIIA Institute

Contact us at aiiainstitute.org

Critical Thinking and the Contemporary Christian

So what comes to mind with you hear the term "critical thinking"?  Does your mind conjure images of a scowling face and an irritated disposition?  The term just sounds contentious, doesn't it?

Well, critical thinking and a contentious, hard to please attitude are not synonymous.  In fact they are quite different.  Among other things Christians are instructed to avoid being contentious (Titus 3:9).  On the other hand critical thinking is actually encouraged in Scripture.

What is critical thinking?

First we need to settle that critical thinking is "thinking" or simply put, reasoning.  Perhaps in the wake of the Reformation and the battle cry, "Sola Fide" (By Faith Alone), Christians have begun to accept an inaccurate disparity (inequality) between faith and knowledge.  A lot can happen in 500 years.  In the minds of many today, faith is totally separate from knowledge or reason.  Of course they are different, and identifiable, but are they totally separable?

In a lecture at the Edinburgh Science Festival, Richard Dawkins, a respected evolutionary biologist, has said that, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."  Such a comment embodies a sentiment that faith and knowledge, or perhaps more accurately, faith and reason, are unrelated and even incompatible.  This sentiment is severely distorted and Dawkins' assertion is patently false.  Let's think about this.

First, take a look at the word faith.  What is it?  When we say, "faith in God", we are not saying the same thing as if we were speaking of the Christian "faith".  The word "faith" can have different meanings relating to its context.  This may seem insignificant, but it is not.  "Having faith in God", is essentially the same as saying, "having trust in God".  If we boil it down, faith, in this sense, is simply trust or confidence.

Why would a person trust someone else?  Are there limits to that trust?  Are there conscious reasons to trust or to distrust someone?  These questions illuminate the major point here.  We choose to trust, or not to trust, based on information that we have processed through our minds.  In other words, the reasoning process is the basis for our choices to trust anything or anyone.  Have you ever seen a person who exhibited absolutely zero trust in anything?  Such a person would either be unconscious, undeveloped or dead.  Everyone who chooses to trust or distrust does so for a reason.  Whether those reasons are good ones or not is another question.  And how would we test those reasons for trusting in someone or something?  We would begin the reasoning process or more to the point, engage critical thought.


I'm not suggesting that every act of confidence or faith is a conscious one.  Often our choices are unconscious and habitual.  But unlike the animal kingdom we can determine to act contrary to our natural inclinations by virtue of our will.  Consider that a banker may choose to loan money to a person against his initial reaction!  Again, he would not do this arbitrarily for he would need to investigate the situation to see if circumstances warrant such a risk.  Good bankers make good decisions and they arrive at those decisions through the process of critical thought.  Conversely, bankers who did not investigate an application, would be subject to much poorer outcomes. Similarly, we execute trust in others for real and conscious reasons. Critical thinking is simply the process of determining what is true, what is false, what is good and what is bad.  Our choices are based on what we perceive to be true and how we desire to respond to that truth.  It must also be stated that some people simply do not want to trust God and choose to disbelieve in Him.  This has nothing to do with the truth of God's existence and is relegated to the assertion of the will of a person.  Though people will attempt to misrepresent the facts in order to justify their decisions along this line, a critical investigation of the evidence will bring a great deal of illumination to the subject.

Thinking and feeling are not the same.  There is a difficulty when people begin to accept a redefinition of the word faith to infer a feeling.  A person could exhibit faith or trust for a variety of reasons, personal inclination being one of those reasons.  I'm sure to some extent, that "blind faith" does exist, but it is not good, it is not necessary and it should be rejected by Christians today as the basis for their faith in God.  A person who believes in God because he feels like it, will likely cease to believe when he feels the inclination to give up.  The statistics accumulated regarding the so called "deconversion" rates seem to support this notion.  A choice to trust, motivated solely by personal feelings, is not based on sound judgment and is shaky at best.  How many human relationships have crumbled because of this sort of thing?  Faith is a type of commitment to what is perceived to be true.  It is a consciously placed trust for reasons that have been discerned; the better the reasons, the stronger the platform for faith.

I must offer a brief word regarding the mystery of the Holy Spirit and the sovereign grace of God.  It must be understood that the Bible does teach that God is the initiator in the regeneration (born-again) process of the believer.  It is God who gives the ability to believe or have faith (Eph 2:8-9).  Nevertheless, this does not entail that a person loses his will or his ability to discern, reason, think critically, investigate or what have you.  It only means that God is the giver of life and once given, the recipients become the ones who live that life.  Yes the mystery of the Spirit's work is present in enabling faith. This ought not to take anything away from our being the persons who execute that faith.  We were created to be, thinking, reasoning individuals whose faith is based in sound judgment.

Why are so many falling away from the faith today?  A trite answer here will not do.  I will offer that many today are not being taught to think critically about the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the historic and scientific witnesses to those claims.  Few even bother to test those claims to see if they are true.  The result has been a redefined "faith" that is based on an experience, relationship or some criteria other than the Truth that proclaims itself ontologically (by virtue of itself).

The Bible commends the Bereans for being "more fair-minded" (Acts 17).  Why were they considered thus?  Because they investigated the Apostle Paul's gospel message to see if it was true.  What they felt about his message was secondary to what was true, and they sought to determine what really was true.  They began to critically examine the message of the gospel against the Scriptures.  They began thinking critically about the gospel to determine if it was true or not.

While there may be Christians today who have a "blind" faith in God, the Bible in no way commends this.  On the contrary, God speaking to his people through the prophet, Isaiah says, "Come let us reason together." (Isa. 1:18).  Critical thought is a gift from God and is what informs our decision to place faith in the Son of God.  Richard Dawkins is terribly mistaken.  Faith in Christ is first reasonable, and then it is personal.  If anyone should doubt this, he need only check out the facts.  Many who have who have set out to objectively prove Christianity false, have come face to face with the Truth, only to offer their lives to God in a sacred trust that He is, in fact, who He revealed Himself to be.

The time has come for contemporary Christians to take up the mantle of critical thought once again.  Perhaps we will again see a stamina among believers that ultimately provides the greatest testimony to the truth we can offer--our lives given in obedience to the King of Glory, expressly because of the informed faith that we have in Him.

So let me ask you, "Why are you a Christian?"

Is it because your friends are?  Is it because you grew up a "Christian"?  Is it because you have a great church?  Is it because you simply feel inclined to be one?

Or is it because you are convinced that His claims are true and that He is in fact, the Lord...your Lord, and because of this, you have chosen to serve Him?

Which is the surer foundation?  No doubt the latter one is but in order to be convinced that He is who He claims to be, you will need more than a blind, mechanistic trust.  You will need to think it through.  Are the reasons you do trust Him, good reasons?  Will they stand a time of testing?

So, what do think?  Why do you believe?

PR

Is Water Dowsing Safe or Dangerous?

Water dowsing, also known as “Water Witching” or “Divining” is an interesting method in which persons use a variety of tools, such as twigs, hanging medallions, or even cut off coat hangers, in order to find water underground.

The process is very mysterious. A person walks around the yard carrying an apparatus and when it moves a particular way, the determination is that the water is beneath them. In certain cases, the dowser can predict the depth of the water. Is this real? Is it spiritual or just some physical thing that is not yet explained? The answers are mixed and it depends on whom you are asking.

It would be difficult to separate the influences of spiritual interpretation from the tradition of dowsing. Even the terms mentioned above would seem to indicate a spiritual inclination. Does the Bible address this issue? Well it does give strict warnings against the pagan practice of divination (see Hosea 4:12; Deut 18:9-10) and Hosea seems to speak of the use of divination rods that could be similar to that of a dowsing rod. The question that needs to be answered is, “Is water dowsing divination?” Again, the answers vary. Some say, “No.” and others would suggest that it is.

Why does it work? A committed naturalist may seek explanation along the lines of quantum mechanics, specifically a theory called the “entanglement theory” in which particles “communicate” at a subatomic level. This theory is thought to unlock the mystery of the dowser’s thoughts being a part of the process of finding the article being sought. Then you have those given to New Age thought that will plunge headlong into spiritual explanations for the phenomenon and even open themselves to the occult.

Water dowsing seems quite harmless and many Christians utilize this phenomenon for innocuous purposes like finding water lines or digging wells. Is it permissible for the believer to dowse for water or is it something to be avoided at all costs? This subject takes us to areas of controversy such as the use of meditation or hypnotism. Should the Christian avoid these practices as well? Why or why not?

Perhaps this is a good time to reflect on the true liberty of the Christian. Romans chapter 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 deal with issues of controversy. Romans 14:5 says, of the decision to partake or abstain, “let each be fully convinced in his own mind.” This is good medicine here. The believer is ultimately free from the bondage of sin. Though we inevitably trifle with sin in the course of life (and I am in no way suggesting we should make light of it) we are truly free in Christ’s atonement for us. 1 Corinthians 8:4 says, “We know that an idol is nothing and that there is no other God but one.” The atonement of Christ will not be trumped by some kind of idol. Nevertheless, the Christian is admonished to take the weaker brother into consideration and not become a cause for his or her stumbling. With the principles mentioned in these passages in mind, let’s consider the following thoughts.

Why does dowsing work? We simply don’t know conclusively.

As a believer am I free to utilize this phenomenon? If you are persuaded that it is spiritual in nature, no you should avoid it. You would be violating your own conscience and the precepts found in Scripture that warn us away from engaging any spiritual activity other than the worship of God alone. If it seems to you a phenomenon that has physical explanations, I am not aware of any specific prohibition in Scripture for water dowsing.

One final note: I am only addressing the phenomenon of the water dowsing apparatus. It is my understanding that some dowsers in history were able to inquire of the divining rod to lead them to any number of different things such as buried treasure or to certain individuals. To utilize any tool in this way would be tantamount to inquiring of an Ouija Board and cannot be sanctioned for a Christian. Such a practice fits squarely with the Biblical definition of divination/sorcery and is nothing less than an aspect of the occult. Scripture strictly forbids this.

As for water dowsing, I can only echo what the Bible says, “Let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.”(Rom 14:13).

PR

Handling Challenges to Faith

I was holding a conversation with someone when this person said, "I'm having some struggles with my faith." I've been told similar things over the years and the words weren't particularly shocking to me. Anyone who has taken the mantle of the Christian worldview to heart will inevitably find himself or herself at a crisis point in the course of their Christian walk.

"What are you struggling with particularly?" I asked. Thus began the process of unpacking the difficulties.

What is faith? Essentially it is confidence or trust. The Christian faith is not just a category of belief but it is a qualitative response to the message that Jesus of Nazareth is both Savior and coming King. The implications of such a proposition carry great weight. How we respond to the presentation of this truth claim, known as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, will define our character and what is deemed to be our "faith", or lack thereof. A significant change in lifestyle can be said to be an indicator of "great faith" in the Gospel. Conversely, little or no change in lifestyle can be construed to imply weak faith, or worse, none at all. We must remember that faith will always have an object. We cannot simply have faith or trust, we must trust someone or something, and that for something.

What is sure is that our lifestyle is an indicator of what we do or do not "believe" in. If we believe that there will be no consequence for a particular behavior and we are inclined to engage in it, it is highly unlikely that we would refrain for no reason in particular. However, if we believe a certain behavior will result in a negative consequence, i.e. driving 30 mph over the speed limit, we will be less likely to engage such a behavior.

The reason? It's simple...we believe, or have faith, that such an action may result in a negative consequence, and we would rather avoid the consequence than engage the behavior. As the "odds" of a negative consequence or the significance of the penalty increase, the likelihood of our engaging such behavior wanes. Most people will avoid driving at speeds exceeding 30 mph over the speed limit in a thickly settled area because of the severity of the penalty for getting caught or the consequence of an error in judgment, no matter how much they enjoy speeding.

Faith in the moral realm is no different.

What would cause a person to hold to a moral code? Asked another way, what would allow a person to continue in an "immoral" state? Who gets to define what "moral" really is? Why should we conform to that standard of morality?

To say that we believe in God is not to say all that much, really. To claim to have "faith" in God's existence is, for many, a given. The evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming to the person who is of the disposition to see it. Even the Bible suggests that to "believe in one God" is not a virtue in and of itself because, "even the demons believe, and tremble" (Ja. 2:19). When a Christian says that he believes or has faith in God, what is he saying? Is he simply stating that God is there? No, not at all. Obviously Christians affirm God's existence, but we are saying a lot more than, "I believe He exists."

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a message of accountability and deliverance. Mankind is accountable to God for sinful behavior (as defined over against the nature of God) and is offered deliverance from the ultimate consequence of sin through the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth. If someone says that he believes the Gospel, he indicates that he agrees with it's entailments. God is good, man is fallen and in need. God loves and deliver's those who will trust in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, from the coming judgment. Believers are consequently "saved" from inevitable perdition and empowered to live a moral life (as defined by God) by the Holy Spirit.
So when a person says, "I'm struggling with my faith." what is he or she really saying? Is he saying, "I'm not sure that God really exists anymore."? Is she saying, "I"m struggling with my commitment to the entailments of the Gospel."? It could be either. I'll suggest that a good dose of Christian apologetics is in order at this point.

1. On the existence of God.

There are manifold arguments that offer powerful evidence for the existence of God. The Cosmological, Teleological, Moral, Transcendent and Ontological arguments are sufficient places to objectively, rationally answer the question of the existence of God. A person who is disposed to receive the possibility of the existence of a Creator will find more than ample justification for such a belief.

A Christian who wrestles with this question, will find valid reasons from philosophy, biology, cosmology, history, geography and other disciplines to believe in the God of the Bible. Once having satisfied the question of the likelihood of the existence of God, this person can move on to embrace the remainder of the Christian worldview, his faith being grounded in objective reality as it is perceived. It is not "blind" faith that a Christian possesses, but an informed faith.

At this point we can move on to the other possibility; struggling with the commitment to the Gospel.

2. The entailments of the existence of God.

This is a place where many will find themselves struggling with their "faith" and has more to do with the desire to believe than simply being able to believe.

Have you ever placed a bag of chips on your desk and tried to eat only one or two? There is something about that salty flavor that can draw a person back for handful after handful. Like so may Hollywood villains have cajoled, "It is futile to resist."

The Christian worldview purports that humans are fallen and susceptible to temptation and sin. Even with the presence of the Holy Spirit's enabling power, an individual retains the ability to choose whom to yield to. The Christian may yield to the temptation to sin or to the commitment to please God, which often will run counter to his or her immediate desires. It is at these crisis points that doubt can become a major issue.

Humans have been called the "great rationalizers". I believe this is true. When placed in a predicament where we want something that we shouldn't have, we will often explain away the reasons against the wisdom for such an indulgence. This is human frailty that we must all beware! It is frequently at this point of temptation that the challenges to the existence of God, or the true nature of God, may be entertained by the Christian; but not necessarily for objective reasons. Christians may entertain "doubts" regarding God simply for the legitimizing of an immoral indulgence, relationship or whatever would run contrary to what is supposed to indicate a healthy relationship with God.

Ignorance will not help in this case. We cannot "feel" our way free from such a point of conflict, even though that is the course many will take. A privatized Christianity is often the result as the Christian seeks to live in a state of contradiction justifying both a relationship with God and the engagement of an immoral activity. The answer in such a case is, again, a good ol' defense of the truth.

"What are you struggling with, specifically? Do you believe that God is there? Do you believe that Jesus is the Savior? Do you believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God?" These questions can narrow the struggle down to a specific that can be answered. It must be noted that, "I'm struggling with my faith." can be a broad statement simply indicating a spiritual struggle. A very real battle that every committed believer will realize at some time.

"What do I do when I find myself in such a crisis situation?" Answer: Objectify the situation.

Ask yourself what is really real? What do you really believe? Do you believe the Bible is true? Are you familiar with the reasons TO believe it? Do you believe that Jesus really came, died and rose from the dead? Are you familiar with the evidence FOR those claims. Find where the weakness of faith is and answer it directly. Leaving doubt undefined can allow a seemingly insurmountable obstacle for the one struggling with faith. By seeking to define in particular the nature of our "faith challenge" we will often find that we do not struggle with the basic propositions of Christianity. It may just be with our desire to commit to the entailments of the Gospel i.e. living a moral life that pleases God. Our reflection on the truths of the Christian worldview can be a great source of strength in overcoming these sorts of challenges.

As an example of what I am saying:

Consider a person who is tempted to engage an immoral act in secret such as adultery or thievery. His (or her) conscience as a believer, will not allow him to continue in this behavior "guilt free" because of the presence of God's Spirit; God sees and this person knows it. Because he cannot live in such a conflicted state, he will have a need to relieve the pressure somehow. The temptation to disbelieve in the presence of God, or in human accountability to God can become appealing to the person who desires to retain his profligate behavior. By ruling out a genuine disbelief in God an honest person can truly "get down to business" with this kind of challenge to their faith. "If God really does see and I really am accountable, I have some good reasons to refrain from licentious behavior. My faith, or confidence, is bolstered, not weakened."

When we take the "giant" of doubt down to a specific definition, we can begin to see an obstacle that really isn't so big at all. What the person may be left with is simply the raw battle with the flesh and with the help of the Holy Spirit, see it for what it is. Triumph over doubt and faithlessness is within reach! It is much easier to master our temptations when we have the confidence that the revealed truth of the Gospel is really true. There are good, objective reasons to overcome challenges to faith.

The truth will always be liberating to the one who wants to be set free. Faith in the God of the Bible will result in a display of confidence in the claims of God . The faith one places in Jesus Christ is reasonable and the struggle to maintain a morally right relationship with God is legitimized by the evidence we see and the witness of the Spirit within.

It cannot be overstated that Christian Apologetics is for the church today. I wonder, if more Christians were exposed to the many objective reasons FOR our faith, would more of us prevail against the normal temptations and "struggles with the faith" than do?

I can only believe that it would be so.

What is Christianity?

I teach a group of people, at my home, what the Christian worldview is. In our part of the world (the west) the Christian worldview is a topic that is not understood nearly as well as one would think. The average Christian that I might have a social interchange with would most likely, not be able to give a working definition of the Christian worldview. Why, I wonder?

I recently led a study with the following question, "What is Christianity?" The answers were varied. Some said a religion, some proposed that it was a social structure, others suggested a moral framework for personal scruples, and yet others, a relationship. Why the variety?

In a way all of the answers were right, but does that really help us nail it down? Can we offer a concise answer to the question, "What is Christianity?" I think so. With the advent of postmodern thought, we need clarity now more than ever.

I find it interesting how the definitions of certain words have changed over time. We have seen the need for revisions in the Bible exactly because of these changes in the English language.
Because we are looking for a working definition of Christianity, we will need to know the answer to at least a couple of other questions.

1. What is Christianity comprised of? Answer: Simple...Christians.

Fair enough. Now lets explore the next most logical question. What is a Christian? The answer is easy, right? A Christ follower. Where do we see this? Where did the name come from?

Turning to the book of Acts in the New Testament, we can readily put our hands on the origin of the term. We read in chapter 11 that Barnabas was teaching a group of people in Antioch. He left for Tarsus to find Paul (Saul) and bring him to Antioch to help instructing the people who were being added to the Lord.

In verse 26 specifically we see that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. This is the origin of the term, Christian. Incidentally, it was given by those who were not in fact, followers of Christ. So the second question I would ask is this....

2. What is a Christian? Answer: A disciple of Jesus Christ.

This isn't too tough. But we aren't through, now we need to define yet another term. You guessed it...disciple.

3. What is a disciple?

I can give the clinical answer, and it would be helpful to a point, but we need to have a working definition. Most of the definitions given in Websters are clearly out of a Christian perspective i.e. "one of the 12 followers of Jesus" or "a member of Disciples of Christ" and don't quite hit the mark we need for some practical understanding.

To better understand the answer to question # 3 we need to see that the term disciple has two clear implications. This will help us a lot.

First implication: A disciple has a master.

To suggest a disciple exists apart from the influence of a master, it to deconstruct the term. Disciples have masters (or teachers). Furthermore, the disciple is in the process of becoming like his master. This brings me to the second implication of the term disciple.

Second implication: A disciple must be in need of change.

To suggest a person can become a disciple and at the same time disavow the necessity of a change is to engage in a contradiction of terms. Such a one could not actually be a disciple. He would either be a master or teacher in his own right or a non adherent.

Now we start to really get into it. The following assertions may seem unnecessarily controversial to you, but just consider what I present in light of what we know to be true.

If you remove either component set forth as an implication of discipleship (the presence of a master or the need for the disciple to change) you no longer have a disciple. To do so is to have effectively altered the definition of the term disciple. To abrogate either component and at the same time lay claim to the term disciple is to adopt the term "disciple" illegitimately.

Here it comes.

Because Christian is a term given only to denote a disciple of Jesus, the suggestion that a person can be a Christian apart from having both, Jesus as his Lord/Master and the need to be changed into the likeness of Jesus the Master, is necessary false. I'll say it again this way. A person who does not have at the same time, Christ as Lord and the self perceived need to change, is not a Christian.

I must insist that a person who claims to be a Christian and yet is not a disciple of Jesus, is a necessary contradiction. You cannot be a true Christian and avoid being a disciple. To suggest someone can be, is to redefine the name Christian. Now if we begin to redefine our terms, I guess we can make Christians to be whatever we want them to be. It must be pressed that Christian is an objective term with an objective meaning. Hijacking the definition will not change the essential truth behind the name.

So what is Christianity?

Well, to be sure, it is made up of Christians/Disciples of Jesus Christ. Are we getting closer to a clear understanding of what Christianity is? I think so. Consider the Great Commission given by the Lord Himself in Matthew 28:19. Jesus said to, "Go and make disciples". He also said, "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you".

The first Christians were not told to "go make churches" or to "go get professions". They were clearly told to make disciples (Christians) with the understanding that they would instruct them in something. This is what Paul and Barnabas were doing in Antioch (and spending a good amount of time at it, too).

I suggest that what they were teaching in Antioch was in fact, Christianity. The Christian way of life. You don't need a year to teach someone that Christ died for them. You do need time to adopt a new worldview.

While Christianity is certainly a religion, it is not only that. Christianity is a worldview. Christianity is the adopted perspective that a disciple of Jesus Christ is taught to have, in the context of his relationship with his Lord. To reduce the term Christianity to merely address the existence of a social structure, is to extricate the demand for conformity to Christ inherent in the term. The implications of this action are bearing catastrophic consequences in the west today.

Today a person can be considered to be a "Christian" and yet at the same time feel free to personally assimilate a secular worldview without any serious warning coming from the church at large. In virtually every poll and study conducted, the "Christian" has essentially the same value system as the secular world around him. How can this be if a Christian is a disciple who is being taught to conform to the nature of his Lord? Do we begin to suggest that the Lord's values are congruent with those of the world? Certainly not (see 1 John 2:15).

Chuck Colson says, "The church's singular failure in recent decades has been the failure to see Christianity as a life system or worldview, that governs every area of existence. ~ How Now Shall We Live?

I think he's nailed it. Christianity is a worldview born out of a genuine relationship, specifically, the relationship between the Master and his disciple.

Are you a Christian? I hope so. If you are, you are in relationship with your Lord (and mine). He has accepted you by His own love and sacrifice. Now you are to learn His ways and adopt them for your own. Are you doing that?

If not, how is it you claim the name Christian? What will you do with the proposal of Christianity? Don't let anyone steal your opportunity to truly be a Christian/Disciple for that is exactly what the Lord is seeking. Don't let the Liar redefine the terms Christian and Christianity for you. Changing the meaning of the term will not change the truth that they were intended to address.

Consider Paul's stated objective in Romans 1:5, "...through whom [Jesus Christ] we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name..." and again in Romans 16:26, "now [the gospel] has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made know to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith."

Some will think I am bringing a "works" gospel. This is no such thing. What I am contending for is the truth of what Christianity is, and thus, the definition of a Christian. To be sure we have grace in the atonement and are given grace where we fail. But to obfuscate the clear objective of the church (to make disciples) is quite frankly...evil.

PR