The three views we will describe are all held by Evangelical Christians. By Evangelical I mean those who take the claims of Christ seriously; who hold to the orthodox, historic Christian faith; and who believe it is absolutely necessary for every individual to personally believe and commit to the Gospel (Gr. euangellion) that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose bodily from the dead on the third day. There are at least some people in every branch of Christianity who fit this description, and because they take seriously the claims of Christ they want to take seriously the truth of God as Creator. This summary of the three views comes from 60 years of reading and reflection on these matters.
Before we go any further we need to clarify a few terms. Naturalism is the belief that everything that exists can be explained without any reference to the infinite, Personal God. Naturalism (in a philosophical sense) views the existence of God as irrelevant to questions of origins and ignores or minimizes the fact that modern science was born of the Christian world view. Without the belief in a rational Creator Who made a creation that can be rationally understood there would be no modern science. Naturalism, is the term that Christians should be using most of the time when they, instead, use the term evolution. Conservative Christians have developed a bad habit of using the term evolution always in a bad sense when what they mean is naturalism. Evolution, in the sense of change over time, is a useful scientific concept and not at all the same as philosophical naturalism. All naturalists are totally committed to evolutionary explanations alone. All Christian views of origins believe in at least some change over time (evolution).
The first of the three views held by some Evangelical Christians is often called theistic evolution (from the Gr. word for God, theos). But those who hold this view might use terms like evolutionary creation. The scientific organization they have recently formed is called Biologos, from the New Testament Greek words for life (bios) and word (logos). They believe: 1)we should look for natural explanations to physical phenomena because the Creator used natural processes to bring about His Creation; 2) always saying "God did it" about things in the physical realm is an error called "the God of the gaps", because, 3) if and when a natural explanation is found, God is make to look unnecessary; 4) the evidence is (in their view) compelling for the common descent of all life (including people) from previous life forms (in particular they point to studies in genetics); 5) there were two creative acts of God -- the initial act, in which God, in some sense, programmed atoms to produce the universe and life, and the second direct creative act caused one (or more) highly evolved hominid(s) to be a "living soul in the Image of God"; 6) the first eleven chapters of Genesis are more like parables that illustrate truths than they are actual history.
Examples of believers who hold (or have held) some form of this view would be, first, the best known Christian writer of the 20th century, C.S. Lewis. Currently, the best example would be Francis Collins who was in charge of the human genome project in the 1990's. He was the founder of the Biologos organization and wrote the book The Language Of God. Positive comments about this view would include their effort to maintain scientific integrity while recognizing God as Creator. Criticisms of the view primarily have to do with denying the historical nature of the early chapters of Genesis, when Christ and the New Testament writers certainly seem to refer to them as historical. Also, they do not believe in "design" in living things. They believe that God allowed the evolutionary process to run its course and did not interfere or "tinker" with it. They are also charged with being inconsistent. Why admit two creative acts of God and no more? For these reasons this view, although held by nearly all who are theological liberals, is held by a relatively small percentage of Evangelicals.
The second view we shall look at is the polar opposite of the view just described. Advocates of this view use terms like Creationism or Creationist but the more accurate designation would be Young Earth - Flood Geology (abbreviated as YEFG). Although there were many throughout Christian history who believed that the Creation occurred only about four thousand years before Christ, by the 20th century even the most conservative Christians acknowledged that the evidence was overwhelming for the vast age of the earth and the cosmos. But in the 1920's a Seventh Day Adventist writer, J.M. Price, revived the idea of a "young earth" and that the geologic strata and fossils were all formed at the time of Noah's flood. The apparent age of things was not the actual age he argued. He was a persuasive speaker and writer.
In 1942 a group of evangelical Christians formed the professional scientific organization called The American Scientific Affiliation. During the 40's and 50's many of their members reviewed the YEFG theory and concluded that the evidence was overwhelmingly against it. Nevertheless, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris went ahead with the publication of their book The Genesis Flood in 1961 and that book marked the beginning of the modern YEFG movement. This writer bought a first edition of The Genesis Flood, read it through many times, and memorized many passages. He became an early and strong advocate of this view. The movement has grown dramatically in the last 55 years with groups like the Institute For Creation Research and Answers In Genesis spreading the YEFG message. The Creation Museum and the replica of Noah's ark are efforts of those in this movement.
Although the advocates of YEFG would strongly prefer to state their beliefs in their own way, it is fair to say they would go something like this: 1) all creation took place in 144 hours; 2) By adding up the numbers in Genesis ch. 5 and ch. 10 it is concluded that the entire cosmos (not just the earth) is just over 6000 years old; 3) that no animals died before man sinned; 4) that the earth was created before the sun, moon and stars; 5) that there was no rain on the earth until the flood of Noah's time; 6) that animals came to Noah from all regions and climates of the earth and then returned to those regions and climates; 7) that this global flood happened around 2450 BC (in the middle of Egyptian history that goes back to at least 3000 B.C.); 8) that the flood covered the entire planet including the highest mountains; 9) that all, or nearly all, geologic strata and fossils were formed at that time; 10) "observational science" can tell us little if anything about the remote past since knowledge of the distant past can come only through revelation; 11) radiometric dating methods cannot be trusted.
Positive comments about this view are largely centered in one fact and that is their very commendable insistence on the historical nature of the early chapters in Genesis. Surveys indicate that as many as 47% of the U.S. population believe at least some of this view. So, there is a high probability that you, the reader, hold this view. If you do, it is the desire of this writer that you will sense the effort to balance being fair and charitable with the necessity to be honest regarding problems.
To put the criticisms of this view in perspective we need to ask why the following respected Christian authors, Bible scholars, scientists and linguists have not embraced YEFG views:
John Ankerberg, Gleason Archer, Chuck Colson, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Jack Hayford, Walter Kaiser, John Lennox, Paul Little, Nancy Pearcy, Francis Schaeffer, Lee Strobel, Ken Taylor, R.C. Sproul, and James Dobson, (to name only a few).
Among the criticisms of the YEFG view, one of the first would be that advocates of YEFG use anecdotal evidence (called "cherry picking" evidence). Their failure to present fairly and honestly the many and serious objections to their biblical interpretations and scientific claims is another serious concern. It is charged that they fail to clearly distinguish between their interpretation of Scripture and Scripture itself. It is also charged that they impugn the motives of Christians who disagree with them by accusing them of compromising Scripture when, in fact, many of those they have accused have been in the forefront of defending the trustworthiness of Scripture.
Another serious criticism is that scientifically literate young people are being turned away from the Bible altogether by being told that the Bible teaches a six thousand year old universe. These problems, and others, combine to keep this view on the fringes of Evangelical Christianity even though many thousands believe it. The criticisms of YEFG can be summarized in three "D's": Disingenuous in claiming to take the Bible literally (they do not take literally the biblical statements that the earth does not move and that the sun does move); Dishonest (or at the very least, less than candid) in their use of anecdotal evidence; and Divisive in the Body of Christ by the way they speak against those who disagree with them. It is said by their critics that they hold the old fundamentalist anti-science and anti-intellectual attitude. It is believed that if they shifted their emphasis away from the age of the cosmos/earth and flood geology toward the Creator's design in Creation, they would greatly advance Christian unity and win more respect and credibility.
The third view held by some evangelical Christians is sometimes called progressive creation or old earth creation. This view holds: 1) that when all the language of the creation account and all relevant Scriptures are carefully examined, Scripture can be correlated with the conclusions of modern science, including the age of the earth and the universe; 2) we should learn from the mistake that Christians made several centuries ago when they said a "literal" reading of Scripture meant that the sun went around the earth; 3) what God has "written" in the physical universe should be carefully observed to help us correctly interpret Scripture; 4) the flood of Noah's day apparently involved only the region of the world where humans lived, early in human history [earth and land are the same word in Hebrew]; 5) there are sizeable gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 10; 6) it was the death of humans that came from sin, not the death of animals; 7) the "days" of creation were six eras or epochs of time during which God created all things; 8) the comparison of the "days" of creation to "days" of the week is an analogy and not an equality of hours since the seventh "day" (Heb. "yom") had no "evening and morning" and extends to the present; 9) the phrase "morning and evening" indicates a close to one era of creation, an interval of time, and the beginning of another era; 10) humans were directly and uniquely created by God; 11) God planned from eternity to replace this earth with a new Heavens and Earth after redemption was completed.
Positive comments about this view are that it has scientific credibility while treating Genesis as actual history. Most, if not all, of the names listed above, as well as most Evangelical Christians in the sciences, hold to some form of this view. Criticisms come first from those who hold to evolutionary explanations and dislike this view for advocating direct creative acts of God, which they call a "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy. YEFG advocates would say that making the list of names in Genesis 5 & 10 cover around 50,000 years (the apparent time humans have been here) is a stretch. They also call this view "a compromise of biblical truth". In spite of these criticisms, it is accurate to say that this is the mainstream Evangelical view because it is seen as balancing a high view of Scripture with scientific credibility.
We might mention in passing that there is a fourth movement or view called Intelligent Design, but it is held by both Christians and non-Christians since it is not specific about Who the Designer is. Most Christians in that movement would probably agree with old earth creation.
This writer can imagine that you, the reader, are feeling a bit overwhelmed by all this and saying something like, "All I know is, God created all things and that there was some kind of flood in Noah's day, but I do not want to argue about the details!" This writer sympathizes with that feeling because he has spent thousands of hours weighing the merits of these three views and has very gradually modified his own views. An emphasis on the Creator's design and wisdom in His creation and not on "the age of the earth" seems to be the most fruitful and edifying approach. In any event, a huge amount of humility is appropriate for anyone regardless of the view they hold. None of us is infallible in our interpretation of Scripture or our interpretations of scientific data.
Like many other issues, evangelical Christians will never agree totally on these matters. But if we can discuss them calmly and not impugn the motives of those who disagree with us, the Cause of Christ will be the winner.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Saturday, July 30, 2016
IF I HAD BEEN BORN BLACK
If I had been born black at the same time and place where I grew up I would not have been called black, African-American, or any such terms that came into vogue in the late sixties. The most polite people would have called me Negro. The less enlightened would have referred to me as that colored boy, and I can point in old school yearbooks to 2 or 3 who would have called me nigger. I know; I went to high school with them and had to listen to them.
By recalling the experience of the first family of color to move into our rural community I can say that most people would have treated me respectfully. The school bus driver would have given the same talk to every one on the bus that she gave to us the day before the children of that family rode the bus for the first time. I do not recall all her words (I was only about age 10) but she made it clear that if any of us said or did anything to make those children feel unwelcome we would answer to her. I would have been warmly accepted by many other children but in retrospect I can see that the adults would never accept me being too friendly with white girls. That could have meant serious trouble; not like the deep south maybe, but serious none the less.
I would have been accepted in either of the two churches in that town just like I was at school. Any athletic ability at all would have only enhanced my acceptance. But, I am sure that I would never have felt totally a part of life in the community. So, my family would have taken me about 20 miles to the nearest all-black church and to all-black social activities in that city. I could have gone roller skating in that city only on Monday evenings. That evening was for colored people only. All other evenings were for whites only.
I could never have gone to school in Georgia as I did at age 17. If that school had admitted me they would have faced severe reprisals. The burning of one of their campus buildings in the 1950's was thought to have been a warning from some locals to not even think about it. Since that year was so spiritually decisive for me I can only speculate what I would have done next. After graduating from the local public high school I could have gone to Moody Bible Institute just as I did. They were integrated from nearly their founding in 1886. But I would have listened to the Dean of Men tell the assembled male students to date only those of your own race. I would have quickly caught on that dating and marriage is where even the most accepting of white evangelical Christians drew the line in those days, and they drew it with great firmness! They were, in the words of Romans 12:2, conformed to the culture around them and not yet transformed. I would have probably read the poll results in the late 1950's that only about 2 % of Americans were accepting of intermarriage. I look back from today when the percentages are exactly reversed.
In the election of 1960 I would have been impressed that Kennedy contacted Martin Luther King Jr., who was jailed in Birmingham, Alabama, to support him, while Nixon did not. So I would have ignored the pleas of evangelicals to not support a Catholic and I would have supported Kennedy. In the election of 1964 I would have continued my support for the Democratic Party, giving them most, but not all, the credit for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But I would like to think that I would have been intellectually honest enough to see that the Republican, Barry Goldwater, was not a racist, that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act was his fear of expansion of federal power, and that he had promoted equal and fair treatment of all people in his Arizona business. As a Christian I would have felt very good about the fact that the movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. was centered in the churches, built on the truth that all humans are created in the Image of God, and included much prayer. I would have been very proud of the strength and stability of black family life. I would have later wept while watching the government's "War on Poverty" have the unintended consequence of decimating black family life, leading to the current high percentage of black babies born to single moms and the horrendous black on black murder rate.
I would have no doubt supported Hubert Humphrey over Nixon in 1968. He had been passionate about civil rights as early as 1948. Following Rowe v. Wade in 1973 I would have been increasingly troubled by those in the civil rights movement who one by one began to deny the humanity of the unborn child. I can see myself, as a consistent Christian, moving into the company of that 10 to 15 % of black Americans who feel that the Democratic Party has betrayed and repudiated those Christian principles that were the foundation of the civil rights movement. I would be absolutely incensed today that homosexual behavior is equated with skin color and called the "newest civil rights movement". I would see this as one of the most monstrous false analogies in all history and another betrayal of all that the movement for racial equality stood for.
I would today want to emulate men like Howard Jones, who was the first man of color on Billy Graham's team. In his lifetime he and his wife Wanda endured countless insults and slights but stood firm and loving for the cause of Christ above all. Like them I would want to follow the example of Jesus. "When they hurled their insults at him he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly." (I Peter 2:23) I would like to think that I would have the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to be very patient with all my white brothers and sisters who just don't understand what it has been like. I would hope that same power of the Holy Spirit would enable me to convince many other black Americans to rethink their support for some of the politicians to whom they are selling their souls. I would like to think so.
By recalling the experience of the first family of color to move into our rural community I can say that most people would have treated me respectfully. The school bus driver would have given the same talk to every one on the bus that she gave to us the day before the children of that family rode the bus for the first time. I do not recall all her words (I was only about age 10) but she made it clear that if any of us said or did anything to make those children feel unwelcome we would answer to her. I would have been warmly accepted by many other children but in retrospect I can see that the adults would never accept me being too friendly with white girls. That could have meant serious trouble; not like the deep south maybe, but serious none the less.
I would have been accepted in either of the two churches in that town just like I was at school. Any athletic ability at all would have only enhanced my acceptance. But, I am sure that I would never have felt totally a part of life in the community. So, my family would have taken me about 20 miles to the nearest all-black church and to all-black social activities in that city. I could have gone roller skating in that city only on Monday evenings. That evening was for colored people only. All other evenings were for whites only.
I could never have gone to school in Georgia as I did at age 17. If that school had admitted me they would have faced severe reprisals. The burning of one of their campus buildings in the 1950's was thought to have been a warning from some locals to not even think about it. Since that year was so spiritually decisive for me I can only speculate what I would have done next. After graduating from the local public high school I could have gone to Moody Bible Institute just as I did. They were integrated from nearly their founding in 1886. But I would have listened to the Dean of Men tell the assembled male students to date only those of your own race. I would have quickly caught on that dating and marriage is where even the most accepting of white evangelical Christians drew the line in those days, and they drew it with great firmness! They were, in the words of Romans 12:2, conformed to the culture around them and not yet transformed. I would have probably read the poll results in the late 1950's that only about 2 % of Americans were accepting of intermarriage. I look back from today when the percentages are exactly reversed.
In the election of 1960 I would have been impressed that Kennedy contacted Martin Luther King Jr., who was jailed in Birmingham, Alabama, to support him, while Nixon did not. So I would have ignored the pleas of evangelicals to not support a Catholic and I would have supported Kennedy. In the election of 1964 I would have continued my support for the Democratic Party, giving them most, but not all, the credit for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But I would like to think that I would have been intellectually honest enough to see that the Republican, Barry Goldwater, was not a racist, that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act was his fear of expansion of federal power, and that he had promoted equal and fair treatment of all people in his Arizona business. As a Christian I would have felt very good about the fact that the movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. was centered in the churches, built on the truth that all humans are created in the Image of God, and included much prayer. I would have been very proud of the strength and stability of black family life. I would have later wept while watching the government's "War on Poverty" have the unintended consequence of decimating black family life, leading to the current high percentage of black babies born to single moms and the horrendous black on black murder rate.
I would have no doubt supported Hubert Humphrey over Nixon in 1968. He had been passionate about civil rights as early as 1948. Following Rowe v. Wade in 1973 I would have been increasingly troubled by those in the civil rights movement who one by one began to deny the humanity of the unborn child. I can see myself, as a consistent Christian, moving into the company of that 10 to 15 % of black Americans who feel that the Democratic Party has betrayed and repudiated those Christian principles that were the foundation of the civil rights movement. I would be absolutely incensed today that homosexual behavior is equated with skin color and called the "newest civil rights movement". I would see this as one of the most monstrous false analogies in all history and another betrayal of all that the movement for racial equality stood for.
I would today want to emulate men like Howard Jones, who was the first man of color on Billy Graham's team. In his lifetime he and his wife Wanda endured countless insults and slights but stood firm and loving for the cause of Christ above all. Like them I would want to follow the example of Jesus. "When they hurled their insults at him he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly." (I Peter 2:23) I would like to think that I would have the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to be very patient with all my white brothers and sisters who just don't understand what it has been like. I would hope that same power of the Holy Spirit would enable me to convince many other black Americans to rethink their support for some of the politicians to whom they are selling their souls. I would like to think so.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
GOD IS GOING TO DO SOMETHING BIG
Eyewitnesses told me they were some of the last words my brother ever spoke. "God is going to do something big on this trip." Some readers of this blog know that shortly after uttering those words my brother, Donald Eugene Enzor, drowned while trying to rescue two other boys. I have recalled that time because yesterday I heard similar words. "God is about to do the greatest works since the Church began." That is not an exact quote but it comes close. Since they were spoken on a Christian program that interviews people about miracles, visions and prophecies some would dismiss them without hesitation. I, however, am bound by I Thessalonians 5:20 & 21: "Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good."
Since that program tries to exalt Christ and the Scriptures I would be wise to give the Holy Spirit time to witness to my spirit about the accuracy of that prediction. I am inclined to take that prophetic word seriously because it is far superior to the pessimism that Christians are uttering on every hand. Great advances of the Kingdom of God and growth of the Church are happening in China, Muslim lands, sub Sahara Africa, Central America and South America. God's people in those lands have cried out to Him and He is pouring water on thirsty ground. God does not love any less His people in the U.S. who are crying out to Him with right motives.
"Right motives" -- that is it! I doubt that God is impressed with our pleading for changes in America when the hidden motives are for an easier life free of persecution. It is a matter of record that believers in other lands have prayed for "difficult times" for us here in the U.S. Those believers see that as the only way the Church in America will be cleansed and purified. Large segments of the Church here have embrace a "gospel" of comfort and prosperity; pagan standards of music and clothing; and a casual acceptance of just about anything the culture says and does. The most conservative churches are, in their own way, as badly in need of change. Mean spirited criticism of other believers and unnecessary church divisions are just the beginning of their problems.
I am most thankful at this moment for all the Churches that are exceptions to the examples just given. From their ranks rise the prayers with pure motives that God most surely hears; the prayers that may very well lead to the unprecedented move of the Spirit of God that some are predicting.
In just one church in Seoul, South Korea hundreds - yes hundreds - regularly come out at 6:00 a.m. to . . . PRAY. The powerful motivation that propels them is what saints of years past called "the burning heart". The worst thing I could do in a blog like this is to throw ice cold criticisms on American Christians who do not seem to have the "burning heart". As an 11 year old Boy Scout one of the first things I learned and loved to practice was the art and science of fire starting: making dry wood shavings, standing the twigs around the shavings like a teepee, striking the match, and gradually adding larger and larger twigs and branches to the fire teepee. If a fire is nearly out blow gently of the embers.
That is what the wise among us will do with our fellow believers. We will gently and carefully stoke the fires and blow gently on the dying embers. We will not throw the cold water of denunciation on them nor will we try to use too often the blow torch of sharp exhortation. "Stir up that inner fire which God gave you . . . for God has not given us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power and love and a sound mind." (II Tim. 1:6 ff. from Phillips New Testament In Modern English)
I think that Paul added the "no fear" words because he, and (more importantly) the Holy Spirit, knew that in our time some would try to "work up" spiritual enthusiasm and thus the rest of us would be afraid of the whole idea. In many churches the danger of "wild fire" in spiritual things is about as much to be feared as the inhabitants of a cemetery staging a riot! I should much rather have to "rein in" an overly exuberant brother than to ignite fire in total spiritual coldness. So, let's see now, where are the kindling and the matches? Where are the dying embers? But first, "Breathe on me Breath of God".
Since that program tries to exalt Christ and the Scriptures I would be wise to give the Holy Spirit time to witness to my spirit about the accuracy of that prediction. I am inclined to take that prophetic word seriously because it is far superior to the pessimism that Christians are uttering on every hand. Great advances of the Kingdom of God and growth of the Church are happening in China, Muslim lands, sub Sahara Africa, Central America and South America. God's people in those lands have cried out to Him and He is pouring water on thirsty ground. God does not love any less His people in the U.S. who are crying out to Him with right motives.
"Right motives" -- that is it! I doubt that God is impressed with our pleading for changes in America when the hidden motives are for an easier life free of persecution. It is a matter of record that believers in other lands have prayed for "difficult times" for us here in the U.S. Those believers see that as the only way the Church in America will be cleansed and purified. Large segments of the Church here have embrace a "gospel" of comfort and prosperity; pagan standards of music and clothing; and a casual acceptance of just about anything the culture says and does. The most conservative churches are, in their own way, as badly in need of change. Mean spirited criticism of other believers and unnecessary church divisions are just the beginning of their problems.
I am most thankful at this moment for all the Churches that are exceptions to the examples just given. From their ranks rise the prayers with pure motives that God most surely hears; the prayers that may very well lead to the unprecedented move of the Spirit of God that some are predicting.
In just one church in Seoul, South Korea hundreds - yes hundreds - regularly come out at 6:00 a.m. to . . . PRAY. The powerful motivation that propels them is what saints of years past called "the burning heart". The worst thing I could do in a blog like this is to throw ice cold criticisms on American Christians who do not seem to have the "burning heart". As an 11 year old Boy Scout one of the first things I learned and loved to practice was the art and science of fire starting: making dry wood shavings, standing the twigs around the shavings like a teepee, striking the match, and gradually adding larger and larger twigs and branches to the fire teepee. If a fire is nearly out blow gently of the embers.
That is what the wise among us will do with our fellow believers. We will gently and carefully stoke the fires and blow gently on the dying embers. We will not throw the cold water of denunciation on them nor will we try to use too often the blow torch of sharp exhortation. "Stir up that inner fire which God gave you . . . for God has not given us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power and love and a sound mind." (II Tim. 1:6 ff. from Phillips New Testament In Modern English)
I think that Paul added the "no fear" words because he, and (more importantly) the Holy Spirit, knew that in our time some would try to "work up" spiritual enthusiasm and thus the rest of us would be afraid of the whole idea. In many churches the danger of "wild fire" in spiritual things is about as much to be feared as the inhabitants of a cemetery staging a riot! I should much rather have to "rein in" an overly exuberant brother than to ignite fire in total spiritual coldness. So, let's see now, where are the kindling and the matches? Where are the dying embers? But first, "Breathe on me Breath of God".
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
NEVER STOP!
Working. That's what the title refers to. A friend, and once a fellow teacher in the same Christian school, asked me years ago: "What are your retirement plans?" He was referring to the very modest amount of money that would be available when retirement time came. My answer? "To work 'till I die!" I was not joking and I was not being pessimistic. I hate the word "retirement" and I hate the concept. I am watching things like my diet, weight, exercise, etc. with the deeply held desire to being doing useful and productive ministry and actual, physical work as long as God gives me breath. If I suddenly had several million dollars those plans would not change one iota.
There was once a member of the board at the Christian school where I taught for 34 years who liked to show a computer print out that "proved" how well off financially I could have been. According this insurance company projection, if I had deposited $25 per month in a fund with this company from the day I started teaching until age 65 I would have around $1.5 million. That projection may have been very accurate, but the stock market collapse of 2008 would have wiped out a significant part of it. That collapse wiped out much of the modest amount my wife and I did have.
Much or all of our financial loss could have been prevented if a certain person who had said, "someone should be watching your investments for you" would have been "watching" them when it was in his power to do so. But that is a story for another day. All I can do is forgive him as my Heavenly Father has forgiven me.
I have worked at two vocations since I was 14 years old. On the one hand I was a student and then a teacher (as well as teaching/preaching ministry in churches). On the other hand I began to learn a vocation even before my 15th birthday. During the first year I was married I worked with a man who was the master of masters in that vocation. By God's grace I have been able to fulfill the words of Jesus to "Go and make disciples" and the example of the Apostle Paul: "because he was a tentmaker" (Acts 18:3 & II Thess. 3:6-10). The first ministry/vocation has meant the privilege of impacting lives for eternity. The second has been God's way of providing for the needs of my family. I have had the privilege of working on the interior and exterior of many, many fine homes. This month makes 59 years I have been doing it.
As stated earlier, I intend to keep working at both callings and vocations as long as God gives me breath.
On the matter of pay and retirement for those who serve in vocational Christian work, such as a school or a church: what will ruin their lives is not the lack of money. What will ruin them is bitterness toward those whom they believe "owe me more". I have watched individuals destroy themselves with this kind of resentment and bitterness. Ironically, in one instance it was a person for whom God had provided very much. It is a cancer and if someone cannot be content with modest salaries and retirement benefits then they have no business in vocational Christian work. That is one reason I consider my second vocation so important. But God has also provided for my family and me in another way.
Susan and I were 35 years of age before we owned our first home. For nine years before that we lived in three different houses where, instead of rent, I took care of and improved the properties and did other work. When we did buy a home it was very old and very modest. As God supplied extra funds for us we improved that property nearly every year for 36 years. With improvements in buildings and extra land we were able to sell it for more than eight times what we originally paid for it. So God gave us back a substantial part of what had been lost in 2008. That is one of the meanings of the promise in the Book of Joel: "I will restore to you the years that the locusts have eaten".
For years I had offered to build my parents a house on our land so that they could live beside us and we could care for them in their later years. As they approached their 86th birthdays they gave me the go ahead to do just that. With the modest equity from their home and the help of many friends we built a home for them. Susan and I never intended to live in that house but that is what God worked out for us. He sent a neighbor to buy the house and land where we had lived for many years and we moved into this newer home two years ago. There is enough in that story to create another blog.
Financial experts would look at our salaries through the years, at our assets and our overall financial picture and be pessimistic. But they don't know our God and his rich provision for his children. We could not have imagined seven years ago that a church in Ashland would call us to be on their staff in a teaching ministry. But our greatest true wealth is our family: three children, their spouses and seven grandchildren who all know and love the Lord. On Sunday, August 4th 2013, our fiftieth wedding anniversary, I gave the morning message from I Samuel 7:12, "Thus far has the Lord helped us".
God certainly has no plans to stop helping us and I have no plans to quit working and ministering. NEVER STOP!
There was once a member of the board at the Christian school where I taught for 34 years who liked to show a computer print out that "proved" how well off financially I could have been. According this insurance company projection, if I had deposited $25 per month in a fund with this company from the day I started teaching until age 65 I would have around $1.5 million. That projection may have been very accurate, but the stock market collapse of 2008 would have wiped out a significant part of it. That collapse wiped out much of the modest amount my wife and I did have.
Much or all of our financial loss could have been prevented if a certain person who had said, "someone should be watching your investments for you" would have been "watching" them when it was in his power to do so. But that is a story for another day. All I can do is forgive him as my Heavenly Father has forgiven me.
I have worked at two vocations since I was 14 years old. On the one hand I was a student and then a teacher (as well as teaching/preaching ministry in churches). On the other hand I began to learn a vocation even before my 15th birthday. During the first year I was married I worked with a man who was the master of masters in that vocation. By God's grace I have been able to fulfill the words of Jesus to "Go and make disciples" and the example of the Apostle Paul: "because he was a tentmaker" (Acts 18:3 & II Thess. 3:6-10). The first ministry/vocation has meant the privilege of impacting lives for eternity. The second has been God's way of providing for the needs of my family. I have had the privilege of working on the interior and exterior of many, many fine homes. This month makes 59 years I have been doing it.
As stated earlier, I intend to keep working at both callings and vocations as long as God gives me breath.
On the matter of pay and retirement for those who serve in vocational Christian work, such as a school or a church: what will ruin their lives is not the lack of money. What will ruin them is bitterness toward those whom they believe "owe me more". I have watched individuals destroy themselves with this kind of resentment and bitterness. Ironically, in one instance it was a person for whom God had provided very much. It is a cancer and if someone cannot be content with modest salaries and retirement benefits then they have no business in vocational Christian work. That is one reason I consider my second vocation so important. But God has also provided for my family and me in another way.
Susan and I were 35 years of age before we owned our first home. For nine years before that we lived in three different houses where, instead of rent, I took care of and improved the properties and did other work. When we did buy a home it was very old and very modest. As God supplied extra funds for us we improved that property nearly every year for 36 years. With improvements in buildings and extra land we were able to sell it for more than eight times what we originally paid for it. So God gave us back a substantial part of what had been lost in 2008. That is one of the meanings of the promise in the Book of Joel: "I will restore to you the years that the locusts have eaten".
For years I had offered to build my parents a house on our land so that they could live beside us and we could care for them in their later years. As they approached their 86th birthdays they gave me the go ahead to do just that. With the modest equity from their home and the help of many friends we built a home for them. Susan and I never intended to live in that house but that is what God worked out for us. He sent a neighbor to buy the house and land where we had lived for many years and we moved into this newer home two years ago. There is enough in that story to create another blog.
Financial experts would look at our salaries through the years, at our assets and our overall financial picture and be pessimistic. But they don't know our God and his rich provision for his children. We could not have imagined seven years ago that a church in Ashland would call us to be on their staff in a teaching ministry. But our greatest true wealth is our family: three children, their spouses and seven grandchildren who all know and love the Lord. On Sunday, August 4th 2013, our fiftieth wedding anniversary, I gave the morning message from I Samuel 7:12, "Thus far has the Lord helped us".
God certainly has no plans to stop helping us and I have no plans to quit working and ministering. NEVER STOP!
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
UNDERSTAND "OLDER" CHRISTIANS AND "YOUNGER" MUSIC
"Older believers like hymns and younger ones like contemporary praise and worship songs." Give me a dollar for every time something like that has been said and I'll finally have enough money to buy my very own Stineway nine foot concert grand piano; a classic theater organ; and a complete symphony orchestra for back up. But it is an inaccurate statement -- for more than one reason. It reveals a basic misunderstanding of what a hymn actually is. I don't know if the Apostle Paul could 'carry a tune in a bucket' or not but he gave us the defining statement on Christian songs. " . . . as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God." (Col 3:16 -- Note that every "3:16" in the New Testament is significant, not just John's!)
Please be aware of what those terms mean. A "psalm" is Scripture (any Scripture, not just the Psalms) set to music. Examples: A paraphrase of Psalm 90 like "O God, Our Help in Ages Past", often sung on the first Sunday of the new year; the very beautiful "As The Deer", a musical setting of Psalm 42:1; the magnificent "Hallelujah Chorus" from "Messiah"; and many, many others old and new. The first wave of contemporary praise and worship music in the 70's and 80's produced many excellent Scripture songs.
A "hymn" is, by definition, a song addressed to God; descriptive of God in His Being and all He does; and calls people to worship and praise Him. This includes those songs addressed to and about God the Son - the Lord Jesus, and those addressed to the Holy Spirit. You can immediately see that the word "hymn" is misused if it is used to mean something "older" as opposed to "contemporary". If a song is addressed to God it is a "hymn" no matter if it was written yesterday or five hundred years ago. It does not matter if the music for it is some form of rock, jazz, blues, country western, bluegrass, oratorio, motet, or a simple four part harmony. If it centers on God Himself it is a hymn even though the music itself may not "fit" the majesty and glory of God. Instead of saying "the over fifty crowd in our churches prefers hymns we should be saying "they prefer songs with familiar patterns of harmonics and instrumentation". When an older, familiar song is introduced with something like the sound of brushes on snare drums it can easily be equivalent to poking these folks in the eye.
Many, if not most, of the songs that are familiar and loved by the "over fifty crowd" are not hymns at all. They are what Paul called (in the Scripture quoted above) "spiritual songs". These are often referred to by Christian musicians as "Gospel songs". Just as a hymn is defined as being addressed to God, a spiritual (or Gospel) song is addressed to people, usually in the form of a testimony. Look for the pronouns "I", "me", "you" or "we" in these songs of experience and testimony. At the top of the list is the famous "Amazing Grace" ("that saved a wretch like me") Another more recent example would be "He Touched Me". Believers who came of age in the middle years of the twentieth century learned to love "Victory in Jesus" and "He Lives" and scores of similar songs. Being "old" does not make these songs hymns. Most Gospel songs differ from hymns in that the Gospel song usually has a chorus that is sung after each verse. I just went through a song/hymn book published thirty years ago, used in many churches. It has about six hundred songs of which at least two hundred fifty are spiritual or Gospel songs of testimony, exhorting and encouraging one another. The rest were either psalms (Scripture set to music) or hymns. This was a much higher percentage of hymns than a song book published for churches in the 1960's would have had.
Admittedly, in a few instances it was 'splitting hairs' to decide what to call a particular song. If it is addressed to God - Father or Son or Holy Spirit - I (and many others) call it a hymn. This includes all songs that were in the form of prayer to God. I counted a song as a psalm (in the broad sense) if most of the words were either direct quotes or a paraphrase of Scripture.
The Gospel song (what Paul probably meant by 'spiritual songs') came into wide spread use in the late 1800's in the great evangelistic crusades of men like D.L. Moody. These songs were often alarmingly "contemporary" for their day. This came at the same time that liberal theology was taking over the "mainline" churches. Since the Gospel was heard less and less in these churches, other more biblical and evangelical churches embraced the Gospel songs as witnesses to salvation in Christ. Unfortunately, this often meant less and less use of hymns (like "Holy, Holy, Holy") What developed was a form of 'Christian humanism' that centered on the believer's individual experience rather than on God Himself. A reaction against this imbalance set in during the 1970's. A new wave of 'praise and worship' music, set to contemporary sounds, reached its zenith in the 1990's but continues unabated to this day. While many of these contemporary songs are profoundly worshipful there is a danger in that few seem to dwell on the Cross, the Blood of the Lamb and repentance from sin, themes that were strong in the older Gospel songs. It is, however, almost hilarious to realize that most contemporary praise and worship songs are actually hymns while most of the favorite songs of the "over fifty crowd" are often songs other than hymns.
It is often the sound of the newer songs (with excessive and monotonous use of drums and unfamiliar rhythms) and not so much the words that has brought about a division in Evangelical Christianity almost as deep as the old liberal theology produced. I believe the "over fifty crowd" is more than willing to learn contemporary praise and worship songs if they are introduced and employed gradually in sensitive ways. "I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." (I Cor. 14:15)
Wisdom would also tell us that truly blended worship does not simply include the words of songs written years ago but also the familiar harmonics and chord progressions that are integral to those songs. Taking Scripture (like Psalm 150) seriously means employing a variety of instruments, instruments actually played by live human beings. Anything less is not truly blended and biblical worship. For the glory of God, more and more churches are seeing this happen.
Please be aware of what those terms mean. A "psalm" is Scripture (any Scripture, not just the Psalms) set to music. Examples: A paraphrase of Psalm 90 like "O God, Our Help in Ages Past", often sung on the first Sunday of the new year; the very beautiful "As The Deer", a musical setting of Psalm 42:1; the magnificent "Hallelujah Chorus" from "Messiah"; and many, many others old and new. The first wave of contemporary praise and worship music in the 70's and 80's produced many excellent Scripture songs.
A "hymn" is, by definition, a song addressed to God; descriptive of God in His Being and all He does; and calls people to worship and praise Him. This includes those songs addressed to and about God the Son - the Lord Jesus, and those addressed to the Holy Spirit. You can immediately see that the word "hymn" is misused if it is used to mean something "older" as opposed to "contemporary". If a song is addressed to God it is a "hymn" no matter if it was written yesterday or five hundred years ago. It does not matter if the music for it is some form of rock, jazz, blues, country western, bluegrass, oratorio, motet, or a simple four part harmony. If it centers on God Himself it is a hymn even though the music itself may not "fit" the majesty and glory of God. Instead of saying "the over fifty crowd in our churches prefers hymns we should be saying "they prefer songs with familiar patterns of harmonics and instrumentation". When an older, familiar song is introduced with something like the sound of brushes on snare drums it can easily be equivalent to poking these folks in the eye.
Many, if not most, of the songs that are familiar and loved by the "over fifty crowd" are not hymns at all. They are what Paul called (in the Scripture quoted above) "spiritual songs". These are often referred to by Christian musicians as "Gospel songs". Just as a hymn is defined as being addressed to God, a spiritual (or Gospel) song is addressed to people, usually in the form of a testimony. Look for the pronouns "I", "me", "you" or "we" in these songs of experience and testimony. At the top of the list is the famous "Amazing Grace" ("that saved a wretch like me") Another more recent example would be "He Touched Me". Believers who came of age in the middle years of the twentieth century learned to love "Victory in Jesus" and "He Lives" and scores of similar songs. Being "old" does not make these songs hymns. Most Gospel songs differ from hymns in that the Gospel song usually has a chorus that is sung after each verse. I just went through a song/hymn book published thirty years ago, used in many churches. It has about six hundred songs of which at least two hundred fifty are spiritual or Gospel songs of testimony, exhorting and encouraging one another. The rest were either psalms (Scripture set to music) or hymns. This was a much higher percentage of hymns than a song book published for churches in the 1960's would have had.
Admittedly, in a few instances it was 'splitting hairs' to decide what to call a particular song. If it is addressed to God - Father or Son or Holy Spirit - I (and many others) call it a hymn. This includes all songs that were in the form of prayer to God. I counted a song as a psalm (in the broad sense) if most of the words were either direct quotes or a paraphrase of Scripture.
The Gospel song (what Paul probably meant by 'spiritual songs') came into wide spread use in the late 1800's in the great evangelistic crusades of men like D.L. Moody. These songs were often alarmingly "contemporary" for their day. This came at the same time that liberal theology was taking over the "mainline" churches. Since the Gospel was heard less and less in these churches, other more biblical and evangelical churches embraced the Gospel songs as witnesses to salvation in Christ. Unfortunately, this often meant less and less use of hymns (like "Holy, Holy, Holy") What developed was a form of 'Christian humanism' that centered on the believer's individual experience rather than on God Himself. A reaction against this imbalance set in during the 1970's. A new wave of 'praise and worship' music, set to contemporary sounds, reached its zenith in the 1990's but continues unabated to this day. While many of these contemporary songs are profoundly worshipful there is a danger in that few seem to dwell on the Cross, the Blood of the Lamb and repentance from sin, themes that were strong in the older Gospel songs. It is, however, almost hilarious to realize that most contemporary praise and worship songs are actually hymns while most of the favorite songs of the "over fifty crowd" are often songs other than hymns.
It is often the sound of the newer songs (with excessive and monotonous use of drums and unfamiliar rhythms) and not so much the words that has brought about a division in Evangelical Christianity almost as deep as the old liberal theology produced. I believe the "over fifty crowd" is more than willing to learn contemporary praise and worship songs if they are introduced and employed gradually in sensitive ways. "I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." (I Cor. 14:15)
Wisdom would also tell us that truly blended worship does not simply include the words of songs written years ago but also the familiar harmonics and chord progressions that are integral to those songs. Taking Scripture (like Psalm 150) seriously means employing a variety of instruments, instruments actually played by live human beings. Anything less is not truly blended and biblical worship. For the glory of God, more and more churches are seeing this happen.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
TURNING OFF THE DARK
"Bob, I know what the Bible says. I just don't believe it." The conversation took place sixty years ago in a small town in north central Ohio. The quotation was uttered by the pastor of the Methodist church. He said it to my pastor. I mention it because the United Methodist denomination stands at its final crossroads. A vocal minority is pushing for complete acceptance of the "gay-lesbian-bi-trans sexual" agenda. This is the final campaign in this country and throughout Western countries to totally suppress Christianity and drive it "into the closet". At the United Methodist conference this summer the issue will be confronted. Evangelicals may win the day or the conference may "kick the can down the road" and appoint a committee to study it.
Even if biblical/evangelical Methodists (who are many) win this one, the denomination as a whole has been on the road to ruin for at least a century. Knowing that in the 1950's they ordained men who "knew the Bible but did not believe it" I have been surprised that they have not been completely lost to the Cause of Christ long before this. From the 1960's to the 1980's they lost over two million members. Another fatal trend is that many of their churches, like other dead or dying denominations, are no longer led by men. Much of the credit for biblical/evangelical leadership in at least some Methodist churches goes to Asbury College and Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. Without these two schools Methodism would probably be as far gone as the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.
The United Methodist Church is supposed to represent the spiritual legacy of such giants of the faith as John and Charles Wesley, Francis Asbury and Peter Cartwright. That spiritual legacy is far, far larger than most Evangelicals realize and for the last century and a half it has been carried on mostly by other groups and not by the United Methodist denomination. Those groups who have truly carried on the Wesley legacy and spirit of revival include Wesleyan churches, Nazarene, Salvation Army, Evangelical Methodists, and the Christian and Missionary Alliance among others. To appreciate this legacy I urge the reader to obtain the book Nothing To Do But To Save Souls by Robert Coleman. It is only a little over 100 pages but its content is priceless.
Until 1968 the Methodist denomination in the U.S. was called the Methodist Episcopal Church. This was because the Wesley brothers never intended to leave the Anglican (Episcopal) Church of England. In 1968 the Evangelical United Brethren, a smaller denomination in the Wesleyan tradition, merged with the Methodist Episcopal Church to form the United Methodist Church. (One pastor somewhat jokingly told me that some in the United Brethren considered it a "hostile takeover".)
Most of what I have said so far is prelude to these final remarks. The darkness in this land is very deep right now; so deep it leaves many in despondency. The "mainline" denominations, including many Methodist leaders, with their acceptance of the modern humanist world view, have much to answer for in bringing on this darkness. In the 1950's these "mainline" churches (Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Congregational, Episcopal, Lutheran) were literally packed with people Sunday after Sunday. But most of them were giving people neither the Life nor the Light that comes from taking Scripture and the claims of Christ seriously. Thus they have collectively lost millions of members and closed hundreds of churches. On the other hand there are many churches that consider themselves to be biblical/evangelical who also hold responsibility for much of our present darkness. They have been plagued with sectarian and competitive attitudes; Bible study without the Holy Spirit; mean spirited and anti science attacks on materialistic world views; shameful television personalities; and we could easily name more. There is enough blame to go around for both liberals and conservatives.
What I have written up to this point represents, however briefly, a lifetime of reading and thinking on these subjects. I have now reached the point where I am compelled by the Spirit to devote much less time to probing the causes and the depth of this present darkness. Two hundred and fifty years ago John and Charles Wesley fearlessly and at great personal cost proclaimed Him Who is the Light of the World into the midst of an England that was every bit as dark as our present moment. The Light blazed through that darkness producing the Evangelical Revival that resonates to this day. I hope that a future generation will say of me that the same Spirit Who came upon the Wesley brothers also filled me in this dark moment. I am, therefore, fully expecting a breaking forth of Light in the following days that will burn through and soften the hardest of hearts and bring Life like we have not yet seen in our lifetime. I am expecting that which is no less than "beyond all that I can ask or imagine".
"For God, Who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."
Even if biblical/evangelical Methodists (who are many) win this one, the denomination as a whole has been on the road to ruin for at least a century. Knowing that in the 1950's they ordained men who "knew the Bible but did not believe it" I have been surprised that they have not been completely lost to the Cause of Christ long before this. From the 1960's to the 1980's they lost over two million members. Another fatal trend is that many of their churches, like other dead or dying denominations, are no longer led by men. Much of the credit for biblical/evangelical leadership in at least some Methodist churches goes to Asbury College and Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. Without these two schools Methodism would probably be as far gone as the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.
The United Methodist Church is supposed to represent the spiritual legacy of such giants of the faith as John and Charles Wesley, Francis Asbury and Peter Cartwright. That spiritual legacy is far, far larger than most Evangelicals realize and for the last century and a half it has been carried on mostly by other groups and not by the United Methodist denomination. Those groups who have truly carried on the Wesley legacy and spirit of revival include Wesleyan churches, Nazarene, Salvation Army, Evangelical Methodists, and the Christian and Missionary Alliance among others. To appreciate this legacy I urge the reader to obtain the book Nothing To Do But To Save Souls by Robert Coleman. It is only a little over 100 pages but its content is priceless.
Until 1968 the Methodist denomination in the U.S. was called the Methodist Episcopal Church. This was because the Wesley brothers never intended to leave the Anglican (Episcopal) Church of England. In 1968 the Evangelical United Brethren, a smaller denomination in the Wesleyan tradition, merged with the Methodist Episcopal Church to form the United Methodist Church. (One pastor somewhat jokingly told me that some in the United Brethren considered it a "hostile takeover".)
Most of what I have said so far is prelude to these final remarks. The darkness in this land is very deep right now; so deep it leaves many in despondency. The "mainline" denominations, including many Methodist leaders, with their acceptance of the modern humanist world view, have much to answer for in bringing on this darkness. In the 1950's these "mainline" churches (Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Congregational, Episcopal, Lutheran) were literally packed with people Sunday after Sunday. But most of them were giving people neither the Life nor the Light that comes from taking Scripture and the claims of Christ seriously. Thus they have collectively lost millions of members and closed hundreds of churches. On the other hand there are many churches that consider themselves to be biblical/evangelical who also hold responsibility for much of our present darkness. They have been plagued with sectarian and competitive attitudes; Bible study without the Holy Spirit; mean spirited and anti science attacks on materialistic world views; shameful television personalities; and we could easily name more. There is enough blame to go around for both liberals and conservatives.
What I have written up to this point represents, however briefly, a lifetime of reading and thinking on these subjects. I have now reached the point where I am compelled by the Spirit to devote much less time to probing the causes and the depth of this present darkness. Two hundred and fifty years ago John and Charles Wesley fearlessly and at great personal cost proclaimed Him Who is the Light of the World into the midst of an England that was every bit as dark as our present moment. The Light blazed through that darkness producing the Evangelical Revival that resonates to this day. I hope that a future generation will say of me that the same Spirit Who came upon the Wesley brothers also filled me in this dark moment. I am, therefore, fully expecting a breaking forth of Light in the following days that will burn through and soften the hardest of hearts and bring Life like we have not yet seen in our lifetime. I am expecting that which is no less than "beyond all that I can ask or imagine".
"For God, Who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."
Thursday, April 28, 2016
THE DYING LITTLE GIRL AND THE DYING ATHEIST
Part of that title may not be completely true. Sasha Taunton is a teenager and doing well I found out. However, since she has been HIV positive since birth you can see why I called her a dying little girl. Most HIV positive people do not have a long life expectancy. The other half of the title was true five years ago. Christopher Hitchens, a world famous atheist, died in December 2011 after spending hours talking with Sasha. He is, of course, no longer dying. But we are a little ahead of the story.
Let us travel in time to around 330 B.C. and watch the armies of Alexander (The Great) conquer the middle east and much of the Mediterranean world. You may recall that this resulted in Greek culture and language being imposed on all the conquered countries. This would prepare the way for the spread of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The common language of that entire part of the world in the first century A.D. was the Koine (the 'e' is a long 'a') Greek. The books that make up our New Testament were written in this language and one of the three inscriptions on the Cross of Christ was in this language. For the purposes of this true story we are interested in two important words that come to us from that language: atheist and apologetic(s).
The first of those words is formed from the word for God (theos) combined with the Greek letter alpha (a) which indicates "no". The second word (apologetic) is derived from "apologia" which means to "defend". It did not originally mean "I'm sorry". Christians use the word to mean "defending the truth". An "apologist" is a Christian speaker who shows the reasonableness of believing in a Personal, Infinite God and in the claims of Christ, especially His resurrection from the dead. We will need both of those words to tell this story. Now, back to Sasha and Christopher.
Larry Taunton is founder of Fixed Point Foundation, a Christian apologetic ministry which, among other things, sponsors debates between well-known atheists and Christian speakers. Larry and his wife (whose name I wish I knew but could not find) found Sasha while on a missions trip to Russia in 2008. Sasha, as we previously mentioned, was born HIV positive. She was abandoned at birth and passed through three orphanages. She prayed for God to send her a family. He heard her cry. When the Tauntons found her she was in an orphanage that had for a "bathroom" a hole in the ground -- with no paper! Since adopting Sasha the Tauntons have founded Sasha's Hope to send help to orphans like her around the world.
When Larry invited the famed atheist Christopher Hitchens to debate a Christian apologist on the Fixed Point Foundation television broadcast it resulted in Hitchens becoming friends with the Tauntons, especially Sasha, and spending much time with them. This was Hitchens first real contact with Evangelical Christians and he found them to be refreshingly different from the merely nominal "Christianity" he had grown up with in England. In his recent book, The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World's Most Notorious Atheist, Larry Taunton tells in detail how he discussed with Christopher the possibility of becoming a Christian. If you know anything about Hitchens' blasphemous hatred of anything to do with God and Christianity you see how radical it was for him to even discuss conversion. Larry is emphatic that, to the best of his knowledge, Hitchens never did cross over to Christ. Hitchens was dying of esophageal cancer.
He once actually asked Larry, "Why do you think I do not convert?" Larry answered, "You've created a global reputation as an atheist. Your fortune, your reputation is based on it. I can't imagine how hard it would be to admit you were wrong. You created a prison for yourself."
Sasha's impact on Hitchens was huge. He was visibly moved by the love and faith of this little girl. Brilliant apologists could refute him in debates but Sasha won his heart. We can only hope that he crossed over to Christ before dying and escaped his own prison. Larry said, "At the end of the day, the most powerful apologetic is love".
I am confident that you will remember this the next time you are tempted to argue someone to Christ. Instead, be another Sasha.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)