It's Been A Long Time...

Wow! I just got back on this thing and realized how long it has been since I wrote anything on here. My life has been extremely crazy lately and by the looks of it, I actually do have a life! That's why I haven't been sitting in front of my keyboard posting thoughts for no one to read. Hmmm. However, I found some time and a new topic to ramble on about so here goes....

Let me first begin this post by laying out some interesting statistics about young people going to college these days.

• 75% of Christian youth leave the church after high school.
• Intellectual skepticism is one of the major reasons they walk away.
• Most Christian students are unequipped to resist rabidly anti-Christian college professors who are intent on converting their students to atheism.
• College professors are five times more likely to identify themselves as atheists than the general public.
• More than half of all college professors view evangelical Christian students unfavorably.
• The “new atheists”—Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens—are writing books and are growing in popularity.
• Anna, a pastor’s daughter, became an agnostic at UNC Chapel Hill.
• Steve, son of a famous Christian, renounced biblical morality at Elon.
• John, a high school worker for Campus Crusade, became an atheist after reading a Richard Dawkins’ book on atheism.

*statistics provided by www.crossexamined.org

These observations are quite informative and interesting to read. It is true that many college campuses are just a bastion of atheism and contain people who challenge the beliefs of Christians. Why are kids leaving the church so rapidly after they face these various intellectual arguments against Christianity? I think Frank Turek, of http://www.crossexamined.org/, has provided these fascinating statistics, but also a great observation about the church.

"Some think church is irrelevant. Others, out on their own for the first time, are attracted by all the world has to offer and put God on the back burner. Yet many leave because they’ve come to doubt Christianity. In fact, intellectual skepticism is a major reason cited by those who have left.

We can lay the blame for much of this on ourselves—that is, on the church. While there are notable exceptions, most American churches over-emphasize emotion and ignore the biblical commands to develop the mind (1 Pet 3:15, 2 Cor. 10:5). In other words, we’re doing a great job performing for our youth with skits, bands and videos, but a terrible job informing them with logic, truth, and a Christian worldview. We’ve failed to recognize that what we win them with we win them to. If we win them with emotion, we win them to emotion.

Now, I don’t want to discount the importance of emotion. If the Bible is true (as we show in the seminar), then God does want us to love Him with all of our hearts. But He also wants us to love Him with our minds (Mt. 22:37). Christians don't get Brownie points for being stupid! We're supposed to know what we believe and why we believe it. And for good reason-- emotion alone is not enough to protect Christian students at college or make them bold witnesses for those they meet. If they arrive at college with nothing more then good sentimental feelings about Christ, they are easy prey for anti-Christian professors and a campus environment intent on undermining their faith. "

I think Frank has nailed it squarely on the head here. The idea that so many churches are producing young people who have no idea what they believe or why they believe it is due to the lack of discipleship. Too many youth ministries cater to the young people and worry more about numbers and entertainment. As long as we can keep them in the church, then that is the main goal. The church, as a whole, has developed a Christianity that is merely based on emotion and a more pragmatic approach of "what works in my life". As long as it helps us get through the tough times and make me feel like God is in love with me, then this Christianity thing is pretty good! John Stott, in a recent book he wrote entitled, Your Mind Matters, makes a key observation when he writes, "Young people tend to be activists, dedicated supporters of a cause, though without always inquiring too closely either whether their cause is a good end to pursue or whether their action is the best means by which to pursue it." (pg. 14). If anyone knows young people or does any type of observing of them, you know this statement is true. They jump on the "environmental bandwagon" and "Can't we all get along" movements without really considering why they believe it or support it.

In the evangelical circles, I believe that this goes back to making "man" the center of the church and the teaching of the Bible. We have lost the idea that we are here to serve the Lord with all of our heart, mind, and soul. He is the one who deserves the glory, honor, and praise. We should be bending, molding, and submitting our wills, thoughts, and actions to God. However, today we think that if we cater to society and change everything that that is really true Christianity. We make God and His Word submit to us, through our desires, thoughts, and the way the world thinks. God doesn't need us. He doesn't need anything at all, but He wants to have a relationship with us because He loves. The belief that God's message should be changed to fit the postmodern mindset is not only blasphemy, but out right "man-centered" evangelism. I think that an omnipotent God can produce a message and gospel powerful enough to change lives and bring reconciliation between Himself and manthroughout time. We do not need to change or manipulate the message to reach a new generation as many in the emerging church are suggesting, such as Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Tony Campolo, and Rob Bell.

Young people are leaving the church because we have offered them something that makes them feel good and just fits into their current thinking. It hasn't changed their life or impacted them because they haven't heard the true gospel. Yesterday I was reading in an issue of Christianity Today a reader wrote in and said that we don't need intellectual responses to skeptics and unbelievers, but rather just tell them about our own personal experience and the wonderful feelings we have about God. Welcome to Mormonism! That is the old mormon view of how they know the Book of Mormon is true. They have felt the "burning in the bosom". Is that really how we know we serve and worship the one, true, and only God? Based on how I feel inside? Yes, great emotions accompany saving faith in Christ, but they are not the foundation upon which our faith stands. It is in knowing the Scriptures first and then knowing what and why we believe based upon the evidence. Our testimony is a powerful witness to unbelievers so they can see what God has done in our lives and how He has changed it. However, everyone who believes in anything has a "testimony". Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, and even Atheists. Our testimony must be an essential part of our witness in order to relate to people and show them the power of the one true, living God. However, we must be prepared in and out of season to provide other answers to questions that they may have. Apologetics will never save anyone, but it does lead a horse to water. It can remove certain barriers for unbelievers before they can humble themselves to the Lord. Should apologetics be used in every instance of evangelism or witnessing? Not necessarily. Our primary source should be the Bible and the message of salvation by grace through faith. However, apologetics is just another weapon in our arsenal when people have true and deep questions about things. We need to be prepared to give an answer as Peter instructs us (1 Peter 3:15). Also, it builds our faith in knowing that we have a firm ground to stand on in our faith and allows young people to know it as well, especially when they face attacks on our campuses.

Churches need to finish the discipleship process or maybe just begin it. It starts with teaching the basic beliefs of Christianity as found in the Bible. Our first source should be a well-grounded disciple in the Bible. Teaching them the truths found in God's word, but then as they mature in Christ, we should explain to them the evidences found through logic, philosphy, science, and theology. Otherwise, we will continue to produce feel-good young people who fall under the pressure of any kind of objection to their faith. Josh McDowell could very well be right. We may be witnessing the appearance of the "Last Christian Generation".

A New Kind of BCS

Okay, so it's been a few days since I have written on here. As promised, I am going to be speaking about the BCS National Championship game. There is much to be said, but I will try to keep it to a minimum here. First of all, I think it's pretty obvious who has the best football conference in America. If you don't think the SEC is the best, then you haven't watched any football this year or you are just in denial. Face it people, the SEC has dominated in recent years. They have the last two National Champions and won more bowl games this year than any other conference. Do I think that LSU is necessarily the best team in the country? No. I think the only way to decide these types of things is on the field. The BCS system is completely moronic and is there really anyone out there right now besides an LSU fan, maybe an OSU fan, and anyone who might receive profit from the BCS system that would honestly say that you like it? I would love to see USC, Georgia, or LSU play again. I think that USC and Georgia would be a better championship game. LSU just won because they played well and OSU was THAT bad! If you couldn't see this coming then you are in denial too. The cupcake scheduling of the Big Ten conference? Pulease! I enjoyed the game because I wanted OSU to get blown out (it did) and I wanted an SEC team to win it (it did). Plus, throw in there the fact that the BCS got exposed for the sham that it really is and you have a recipe for a great night! The only thing that made it a little better were my Kettle Salt and Pepper Chips with some Tostitos Spinach dip.

How does the BCS relate to Christianity and more specifically, the Emerging Church? Well, the superficial similarities are the fact that neither one is the real thing. In the BCS, we didn't have the two best teams playing for the National Championship. We just had the two teams that got voted in somehow and went through the motions of playing out the supposed championship. The emerging church is the same thing. It's not really a Christian church, but it goes by that name and runs through the charade of supposedly being a church. Now, don't get me wrong here. I am not painting everyone that adheres to that movement "not really a christian" or people who may have a leaning in that direction. I am saying that the teachings within it are not Christian, but rather preaching another gospel. If you don't get sucked in by their clever books and cool media, and actually use your brain a little bit, you can see that what they advocate is not really Christianity. Do you need to believe in inerrancy of the Bible or the Virgin Birth to be saved? The short answer is no. Those are no pre-requisites for salvation as laid out in Scripture. However, it is logically inconsistent to try and deny those things and yet claim to have a relationship with Christ. I know "logic" is not popular to emergents, but you can't deny it without using it.

The emergent church is just plain dangerous. It's influence and advocating of Eastern and Catholic mysticism has invaded the Body of Christ. Christians are being swept up in this movement and being carried away from a real and true relationship with Christ. My experience does not constitute or explain my knowledge, but rather my knowledge explains and verifies my experience. Like the BCS, the emergent church presents itself as a form of Christianity, but it is really a false doctrine sweeping the Western church. Like LSU as BCS "national champion", we are left with a Christ who really isn't the real Christ.

Back in 2008!

I know it has been a long time since I have posted anything. No, I didn't give up on this thing or fall off the face of the earth. December was quite the busy month for me. I was out of the country for the first week of the month and then I was on vacation for the rest of it. I had family coming into town all over the place so it was hard for me to take the time to sit down and write on here. I guess you could call it lazy or lack of desire. Either way, that is the reason for my lack of correspondence. I have read a few books since my last post and come up with some new thoughts. I will hopefully be posting those here in the next couple of weeks. I just need to organize my thoughts a bit.

Besides my thoughts on God and this great life He has given to me, I do have some thoughts on another important topic. Tonight is the BCS National Championship game. Of course, this game is only the national championship in name only. Kind of like the emerging church...it's a church in name only. I will be watching the game with my bag of Kettle Salt and Cracked Pepper potato chips and Tostitos Spinach Dip. It should be a good game, mainly due to the fact that both teams (especially Ohio State) has had like a month and a half off. I will post my thoughts on the game, the BCS, and it's parallels to modern Christianity. I know that the anticipation is so high that if you could schedule my post on your TiVo, you would be programming me right now! Hold onto your hat, grab some chips and dip, and don't think about the deeper ramifications of the game...at least not until you read my next post!

East Meets West (or rather influences it)

I am currently reading the book, Passionate Conviction. It is a compilation of various apologetic topics. It is a really good and informative book. As I was reading a chapter on the difference between Jesus and Buddha, I noticed an interesting quote. It reminded me of another quote I had read a while back from a certain "christian" author. Take a look at these two quotes and see if you notice any similarities between the two:

"In 1960, the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich visited Japan, and in conversation with Buddhist scholars in Kyoto, he asked the following question: 'If some historian should make it probable that a man of the name Guatama never lived, what would be the consequence for Buddhism?' The Buddhist scholars responded by saying that the question of the historicity of Guatama Buddha had never been an issue for Buddhism. 'According to the doctrine of Buddhism, the dharma kaya [the body of truth] is eternal, and so it does not depend upon the historicity of Gustama'. Whether Guatama actually said and did what is ascribed to him does not affect the truth of Buddhist teaching, which transcends historical events."

--Netland, Harold. "The East Comes West (or Why Jesus instead of the Buddha?)" in Passionate Conviction. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007), 165.


"What if tomorrow someone digs us definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely poular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first centruy being 'born of a virgin' also refered to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?

What if that spring was seriously questioned? (Note: "spring" is Bell's word for doctirne)

Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?

Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?...But if the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring then it wasn't that strong in the first place, was it?"


--Bell, Rob. Velvet Elvis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 26-27.

Churchill and Christianity

The mantra today among many people in America, especially the young people, is mostly negative toward Christianity. The Christian church today has many flaws in it and definitely could do things differently. However, a main idea among Christians has been to abandon doctrine and theology in favor of just "living like Jesus". All you have to do is read any book by Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, or Donald "I never read the Bible, yet teach people how to be Christian" Miller.

It is interesting to note the similarities between many of today's supposed "hip" Christians in the Emerging Church and the connection with the liberalism of the 19th and 20th centuries. Here is a great example from a novel by Winston Churchill entitled, The Inside of the Cup. As Gary E. Gilley summarizes, "This early 20th Century novel by the American Churchill, tells the story of an up-and-coming minister who almost loses his faith, only to be rescued by a new understanding of the gospel and the church. Sound good? It’s not, because the new gospel embraced was that of liberalism bordering on socialism." Wow, didn't I read this book about a year ago? Oh wait, no that was A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren. Basically the same message. As you read these two excerpts, you can't help but see the extreme similarities between the Emerging Church and classic Christian Liberalism.

"Christianity was not a collection of doctrines, but a mode of life" (p. 418).

"I can see . . .. the beginnings of a blending of all sects, of all religions in the increasing vision of the truth revealed in Jesus Christ, stripped, as you say, of dogma, of fruitless attempts at rational explanation" (p. 470).

What's that saying again? History repeats itself? or maybe it was, those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it? I think I'll just stick with Solomon in admitting that there is nothing new under the sun.

4th and 10

Don't you love it when you ask someone a question and they give you a "no answer" response? Of course, I won't even bother going into the whole problem that a "no answer" is actually an "answer". When I approach one of my professors or pastors with a question about Christianity, I usually hope to find an answer. It's the same with my boss at work, the guy in charge at the store, or when I really approach anyone with a question who is supposed to have an answer. I'm not saying that these people should be omniscient in their field of expertise and know absolutely everything about it. However, the easy questions should have an answer and if they don't have an answer, then I expect them to say something like, "Well, that's a good question. Let me look it up and I will get back to you". Now, I certainly don't expect them to tell me to wait about 5 or 10 years before coming up with an answer. Then, if he still isn't sure, then maybe I should wait another 5 or 10 years. Huh? Well, that's exactly what one pastor and unfortunately prominent author is telling people about the issue of homosexuality.

Now starting at punter, Brian McLaren! No one likes a punter. In football, everyone knows that the offense was unable to get the necessarily yardage available and then must give the ball back to the other team. In laymens terms, they failed. They weren't good enough at that time and couldn't get the job done. The same is true in the academic world when it comes to discussing issues. If you don't know the answer, you just punt. Brian McLaren in the February 7, 2005 issue of Time Magazine said, “Asked at a conference last spring what he thought about gay marriage, Brian McLaren replied, ‘You know what, the thing that breaks my heart is that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.’” Awww, isn't that sensitive of him? What's that age-old addage again...the truth hurts?

In the January 2006 edition of the Leadership Journal, Brian McLaren once again tackles the homosexual issue:

"Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they'll be admittedly provisional. We'll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the "winds of doctrine" blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course."

In proper context, McLaren is talking about a new couple in his church coming up to him and asking him the "homosexual question". I'm not going to dumb-down the issue at stake here because I believe that most biblically-literate Christians know that the Bible is pretty clear on homosexuality. It's a sin and marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. It is really hard for honest, Bible-believing followers of Christ to deny this fact.

On the other hand, this reason is not an excuse to condemn those who are same-sex oriented. We are to love them unconditionally, respect them, and show them the total love of Christ. We are to reach out to them and not turn away from them in disgust. They are just like anyone else who needs the love and grace of Jesus. However, part of loving them is telling them the truth about how God feels about their lifestyle and all sin. By telling them that God loves them and they can continue to live in sin is not really loving them at all. It is selling them a false gospel that is really not "good news" at all. Believing in Christ, repenting of our sins, and following Him involves a change in my sinful life. Not that we are perfect, because we are all sinners. Rather, we move out of a lifestyle of "practicing" sin.

I saw a comic the other day that had two guys sitting at a diner counter. The TV was on with a picture of Barack Obama with the headline, "Democratic Debate". One guy turns to the other and asks, "Why are Democrats so interested in stem-cell research?" The other guy turns to him and says, "Maybe so they can grow themselves a backbone!". The comic was funny, but it made me think about something. Couldn't the same be said today about many pastors and Christian leaders, especially those involved in the Emergent Church? Asking them to answer a question is like trying to pin the proverbial "jell-o to the wall". It's amazing to me that a guy who claims to have a Generous Orthodoxy and the Secret Message of Jesus isn't really sure about most of his answers. He is a walking contradiction and isn't sure we can ever know the truth about something. This begs the question, "Why is he writing books?"

It is sad to see that a person who is writing so many books and having so much influence on young Christians today is so confused about so much. We have the most biblically-illiterate generation today who has lost it's ability to think and reason. Instead of knee-jerk reactions to the extreme opposite end of things, we need reasoned and thoughtful approaches to church and presenting the one, unchangeable truth of the Gospel to a culture that desperately needs something firm on which to hold.

2007 National Conference on Christian Apologetics

This past weekend, I attended the National Conference on Christian Apologetics. This conference is an annual event that I have attended the past few years and is put on by my seminary. It was held on Friday night and all day Saturday. Here are some of my thoughts on the conference.

Overall, I would say the conference was excellent. I am kind of an intellectual nerd so I loved soaking everything up. As an apologetics junky, I found all the talks to be quite interesting and enlightening. On Friday night, I listened to Dr. Erwin Lutzer and Sean McDowell. Dr. Lutzer always does a great job speaking and I enjoyed his talk very much. I really wanted to hear Sean McDowell since I knew he would be addressing doing apologetics to teens. He did a great job and it was fascinating/scary to hear statistics about what young people believe these days. He did a great job presenting the material and kept the audiences interest at the same time. I left after he spoke because I wasn't feeling well. I have been sick for the past week and my head was killing me.

On Saturday, it was an entire day of hearing these speakers. The highlights for me were listening to Chuck Colson, Dinesh D'Souza, Gary Habermas, Mark Mittleberg, and Lee Strobel. Chuck Colson is a fascinating person who does an extremely good job of speaking. He is a throw-back to a different time period, even the way he dresses. I loved it and he hit the nail on the head on some current issues in the church and future of it. Dinesh D'Souza is another interesting speaker. He reminds me a little of Ravi Zacharias (no, not the Indian connection), but the way in which they both speak. I have heard him speak on cd and read some of his stuff, but his speech on atheism and it's attacks today was marvelous.

If you ever want to know a good case for the resurrection of Jesus, then you need to hear Gary Habermas speak on it (or buy one of his books). He is a very interesting speaker, but provides such a compelling case for the resurrection while using most of evidence provided by liberal scholars themselves! Finally, Mark Mittleberg and Lee Strobel are ministry partners and great speakers. Their talks on evangelism and the future of apologetics were interesting as much as challenging. This year was the second time I have heard these three speakers speak and they did an awesome job. In fact, my fiance and I went to hear Lee Strobel speak and met him the next morning at the same church.

Overall, the conference was a great success. The fact that I got in free made it that much more sweeter, but the information was so needed. About 4,000 people attended the conference, but so many more Christians need to hear these topics to prepare themselves for evangelism and the state of Christianity. We don't need to "preach another gospel" in order to reach a post-modern generation. Our gospel is true and powerful enough to speak for itself as long as we know how to handle it. I would encourage anyone to go out and read some of their books. You won't regret it!