“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Good question. Many people have the same objection and it is very understandable. In fact, one of my favorite teachers, the late Ronald Nash, used to say that if anyone rejects God for anything other than the problem of evil, his rejection is without excuse. However, what the objection above fails to recognize is the other option, “God is able to stop evil but not willing because the evil brings about a greater good of some sort.”

This is very common and finds many parallels in real life, from discipline of children to weight training. If God is the ultimate author of life and in control of all things, you would suspect that evil is allowed for a greater good. In fact, biblical Christianity would affirm that trials, pains, and tragic situations are working together for good for those that love God (Rom. 8:28). Look only to the situation of Joseph and the evil in his life. Sold into slavery, jail from being wrongly accused, hated by his brothers, etc. His perspective is that which we are taught to live by as Christians: [Joseph to his brothers who hated him sold him into slavery] “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” (Gen 50:20)

One thing that we cannot expect is to know why particular evils happen. Sometimes we will, but most of the time we won’t. We, as Christians, trust the Lord, leaving all things in his hands, truly believing he knows what he is doing even in the most difficult and, often, seemingly meaningless tragedies. One of our greatest temptations is to look at situations and evils and interpret them as evidence of God’s absence. Once we do this, we have conceded to the very antinomy of our faith—disbelief.

As I deal with the death of my sister and the disturbing debilitation of my mother, I am tempted to see meaninglessness. I am tempted to say “God cannot be involved.” I am tempted to place God on the stand and say “Until you give an account for this, I will no longer believe in or trust you.” But our faith does not entertain such tribunals. We are not simply those who believe in what Christ did: because of what he did, we trust in him for all things, even when we do not understand them.

Finally, we ground this belief in reality, not blind hope. We understand that if God created the world, acted in history, became incarnate, died on a cross and rose from the grave, then he is true to his word. This is why theology and the solidification of our beliefs is of vital importance. He is in control and he has a reason—a good and righteous reason—for the allowance of evil. We, like Job (who never understood why all the evil befell him) stand with our hands to our mouths (i.e., not accusing God) and trust the One who is more tender, just, and loving than we could ever imagine. We are convinced that the present evils are nothing to be compared to the glory that follows (Rom. 8:18).

I remind myself of this each day when I have to deal with my mother and her pain, the hardest situation that I have ever had to deal with.

I hope this understanding helps you, too.

Send post as PDF to

        

The essays in Contending with Christianity’s Critics contain a number of arguments directed mainly at the New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris). Another essay critiques Bart Ehrman’s views found in his best-selling Misquoting Jesus, which raises questions about the integrity of the New Testament text. (This essay was written by Parchment and Pen blogger Dan Wallace.) Other chapters cover new angles on arguments for God’s existence and difficulties with naturalism, the historical Jesus, and the coherence of Christian doctrine.

Have a look below at the table of contents and the endorsements (by Craig Hazen and J.P. Moreland). A good number of copies have been pre-ordered, and the book should be officially released any day. I hope you’ll find Contending with Christianity’s Critics to be a new and exciting volume to assist you in thinking through your faith as well as winsomely defending it.

Table of Contents

I. The Existence of God
1. William Craig, “Dawkins’ Delusion”
2. James Sinclair, “At Home in the Multiverse? Critiquing the Atheist Many-Worlds Scenario”
3. Victor Reppert, “The Argument from Reason”
4. Michael Murray, “Is Belief in God Hard-Wired?”
5. Mark Linville, “The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism”
6. Greg Ganssle, “Dawkins’ Best Argument Against God’s Existence”

II. The Jesus of History
7. Robert Stein, “Criteria for the Gospels’ Authenticity”
8. Ben Witherington, “Jesus the Seer”
9. Gary Habermas, “The Resurrection of Jesus Timeline”
10. Craig Evans, “How Scholars Fabricate Jesus”
11. Dan Wallace “Misquoting Jesus? Bart Ehrman and the New Testament’s Reliability”
12. Michael J. Wilkins, “Who Did Jesus Think He Was?”

III. The Coherence of Christian Doctrine
13. Charles Taliaferro and Elsa Marty, “The Coherence of Theism”
14. Paul Copan, “Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder? God as Three and One”
15. Paul Copan, “Did God Become a Jew? The Coherence of the Incarnation”
16. Steve Porter, “Dostoyevsky, Woody Allen, and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution”
17. Stewart Goetz, “Hell: Getting What’s Good My Own Way”
18. David Hunt, “What Does God Know? The Problems of Open Theism”

Endorsements:

“What a fantastic idea! Assemble some of the brightest Christian thinkers and scholars and put before them the most difficult questions faced by Christian believers anywhere, and then turn them loose to answer those questions. The result: one of the finest collections of essays answering contemporary challenges to the Christian worldview anywhere in print. I consider this essential reading for anyone who wants to be on the cutting edge of Christian thought and apologetics.”

Craig J. Hazen, Ph.D.
Founder and Director of the Christian Apologetics Program
Biola University
Author of the novel, Five Sacred Crossings

“Contending with Christianity’s Critics is a tour de force. Copan and Craig have brought together an exciting, first-rate group of thinkers, and they have produced an important volume. An important feature of the book is the breadth of its coverage of issues not often addressed in similar works. I am enthusiastic about Contending with Christianity’s Critics.”

JP Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy,
Biola University, and author of The God Question

Send post as PDF to

        

We had lights installed over the bar. I worked on them all day today to get them just right.

Look closely. What do the lights signify?

(Hint: Think of Eastern paintings and something you might find in them)

It is hard…I will be surprised if anyone gets this.

Send post as PDF to

        

36 MSS from Athens have been uploaded to the web site in the past several weeks. The uploads include 30 MSS from the Benaki Museum and six from the National Historical Museum; 17 are continuous-text manuscripts and 19 are lectionaries for a total of nearly 14,000 images. They cover a range in date from the 8th century to the 18th and include five palimpsests.

More will be uploaded in the next few weeks from other sites as well. Many readers of Parchment & Pen support our mission, and we are extremely grateful.

Send post as PDF to

        

Of course, I am not alone. I have heard many women who have either been in my position as a single mother or currently are single and have to go it alone, including parenting and bring up the reference of God as their husband, that He has to fill the void of the missing spouse. In fact, I remember prayers that were offered up on my behalf when my husband passed away, for God to be a husband to me. While I do understand the need to look to God for fulfillment, I do have a problem with this particular reference.

I believe marriage is a most special relationship, designed by God for a man and woman to share the most intimate of earthly relationships – emotionally, spiritually and physically. When God created man, he indicated that it is not good for man to be alone, so he created woman. Now, I do believe that that also has a broader application to humanity in general in that men and women are needed to balance out this thing we call life. But there is also an intimacy shared between husband and wife that I believe are unique to that marital relationship. Consider what Ephesians 5:31 says (cf Genesis 2:24-25), that a man leaves his folks, cleaves to his wife and two become one. This is a mystery, the text says, that is analogous to Christ and His church as stated in Ephesians 5:32. But I don’t think this supports in anyway drawing the analogy of God as husband. And let’s be honest, there are certain aspects of the marital relationship that God cannot fill.

Contrarily, there are characteristics about God and His relationship to His creation that are unique to Him. He is above all else and there is none like Him. He is holy, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, and depends on nothing or no one. Yet, He exercises communicable attributes with His creation: love, wrath, justice and has identified specific relational aspects towards us including,

God as Father

God as Provider

God as Protector

God as Healer

These are characteristics of God that I can look to Him and expect for Him to be. And this is applicable to those He considers His own whether they are married or single. While I can derive these benefits from earthly relationships, only God alone can be truly counted on and fulfill His role according to these attributes, purely and truly. I believe He does desire a particular intimacy with His children, made possible courtesy of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. Through faith and trust in what Christ accomplished, we have direct access and can enjoy His presence of God via God the Holy Spirit. There is sheer delight in this communion. The Westminster Shorter Catechism sums it up aptly. What is the chief end of man? It is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. And enjoy Him we should simply for who He is. But it is not a substitute for a husband. And particularly in His role as Father, I have a hard time drawing an equal role of husband.

But you might be thinking of particular passages that cites God as husband. Yes, the Bible does draw a comparison to God as husband but it is not in the context of a substitution for a marital relationship. Rather, it is always in the context of a covenant relationship between God and His people, namely Israel. This can be seen in Jeremiah 31:32 and also the book of Hosea, where Hosea’s unfaithful wife is likened to an adulterous Israel. The identification of God as husband is not used to show that God serves as a substitute spouse but to draw out the significance of covenant and the picture of what breaking that covenant looks like.

So to use these verses as justification for God as a substitute husband I think misses the point. I understand fully the lure to consider God as such, especially since our tendency is to look to earthly mates to fill internal voids that only God can fill. And let’s face it, there are some who might consider it spiritually immature to have such desires, that one should be so contented that they could possibly do without human companionship. No, God does not appreciate idolatry, something that our earthly relationships can quickly become as we place a higher value and affection on them than our heavenly ones. But I do believe such desires cannot be dismissed and swept under the God as husband rug. Furthermore, I think it is both unwise and Biblically infeasible to consider God husband as a substitute for a spouse. Each relationship has a special place and should not be confused with each other.

It is not easy being alone and desiring an earthly relationship, especially the most intimate form designed by God Himself. The waiting gets wary, the isolation can be numbing and the desires can be overwhelming. In these times, it is prudent and fruitful to place an increasing dependence and delight in God the Father, for who He, what He has done and what He has called us to be. I can call and count on God to be many things but I will reserve the title husband for an earthly one, should that request ever be fulfilled. Hopefully. God willing.

Send post as PDF to

        

What is “spiritual formation”? I am trying to be fair and representative of this but I know that there will be those who feel I have left something out. Nevertheless, here it goes:

“Spiritual formation describes a process or path to spiritual wholeness though a practice of specific disciplines including prayer, meditation, study, fasting, solitude, confession, and worship. The end goal is that the person would be more Christ-like.”

In the last ten years, “spiritual formation” seems to be quite a rave. I took a course called “Spiritual Formation” in seminary. Many well respected colleges and seminaries are even offering masters degrees in spiritual formation. It is nothing new, but the current strand seems to have evolved into some sort of perceived spiritual antibiotic to all sin, malnutrition, and disease. (If you don’t know what I am talking about, just Google it.)

At one time I tried to get in with the spiritual formation thing. At least, I tried to understand it. I am not going to mention any of the gurus in these circles (many of whom I have great respect for and from whom I have learned much), but I do have some things about which I don’t mind taking liberty to be overly offensive.

For me, listening to and reading books of this genre is like listening to an organ. I know, you love the organ. I don’t. I can’t stand it. It drains all the life out of me. I only have enough breath to make it though half a sentence in each song and the sentences are not long. When I read spiritual formation books, it is the same. It takes me half a day to get through a paragraph and the paragraphs are not that long. When I finish the book, I usually think to myself, “That could have been said in about one-one hundredth the space. Did I just lose a week off my life? I would have rather smoked a pack of cigarettes. It would have taken less life away.” Dramatics? No. But I am speaking for myself here.

(Calm down and keep reading.)

It is not that I think this 21st century spiritual formation movement is necessarily wrong, I just don’t jump on that bus. My vehicle simply does not run on that fuel.

Having spoken of this in a rather subjective way, I do think there are some things that can be counter-productive in the spiritual formation movement. No . . . I don’t think that it is “new age.” No . . . I don’t think that it is part of the “one world religion.” No, I don’t think it is demonic! I have actually read many critiques that argue for such. Don’t go there. Those who argue such need to stop, count to ten, spin around thirty times, and take a nap.

There are some red flags to everything (including theological studies!). Let me list some here with regard to spiritual formation movement:

1. It can fail to account for individuality.

This is how, when, and where you need to pray. You need to fast at least once a month. Here is how you should read your Bible. Encouragers of this type often disturb me. Not because they are making me uncomfortable in spiritual laziness, but because they attempt to shape me into someone that I am not. The spiritual formation movement can have a “cookie-cutter” mentality where every individual loses their individuality. When you begin to tell me when and how to pray, confess, fast, read, meditate, and the like, you fail to realize that I am not you.

God created us individually. The community does not function properly until we are functioning within our individuality. You may get up early in the morning and pray with your kids, read your bible, carry Scripture memory cards, and take your vitamins. This is wonderful. But when you begin to overlay your structure on my life, it does not work. We all have to allow others to express their spirituality according to their various strengths and weaknesses. This is simply recognizing the way God made us.

2. It can set one up for unrealistic expectations.

I have seen many people who jump in head first into the spiritual disciplines. They are excited because they have structure. There is an ABC to their spiritual growth. They see that they have not grown because they have not followed the “right” pattern. Before they have even had a chance to test the longevity of their new method in their own lives, they are pressuring others to follow with them.

I always give it a few months. I was there myself at one point. Real life has a way of laughing at our paradigms. Sooner or later most people find that the spiritual life is not produced through the A + B = C path. When this happens— when their expectations are not met—they not only give up on the form, but they get discouraged thinking it is the fault of the principles. In other words, if fasting every third week and practicing the Lectio Divina every morning does not fulfill the hyped expectations, then it is both prayer and self-discipline that has failed, not my legalized structure.

3. It can hinder the spontaneous nature of the Spirit’s movements.

“The wind blows where it wills, so it is with the Spirit of God.” The Holy Spirit is faithful, but does not follow according to our calendars. When we attempt to structure our spiritual life, we can make the mistake of trying to twist the arm of God in our development. We don’t know when or how God’s Spirit is going to move in our lives. We need to make sure that our mentality in spiritual formation does not place an implied path that God must follow. I fear that the mentality of this movement implicitly leans in such a direction.

4. It can be a replacement for trust, belief, and faith.

I think that we can often mistake busyness for belief. In other words, we often think that if we are doing enough stuff, then we must believe in what we are doing. This is not true at all. I have seen far too many people who go through the movements of spiritual disciplines precisely because they cannot find a foothold in their faith. They believe that it can either create belief or at least be a stand-in for it. Belief is the foundation for the action, not the other way around. While many in this movement place a strong emphasis on belief and the discipline of study, I find, as a whole, it serves in a very secondary capacity. This is unfortunate. One of the worst things we can do as Christians is give people an excuse for not examining the reality of their belief. Doing “things” is easy. Following steps and rules is a snap. Belief—true belief—is hard.

In the end, I told the person that I would not be the best person for participating in the development of a spiritual formation curriculum. All that I would wind up doing is creating another version of The Theology Program so that people’s beliefs would be true and strong. This, to me, is the foundation for creating Christ in us.

Talk to God, control your will, stay broken before God, and diligently search for truth. These are the principles. When you do this—however you do this—Christ will be formed in you and others will see Christ in you. I promise. But, realize that there is not one path to Christ in you and God will not be controlled by your structure. If you got this, then call it spiritual formation, Christian discipline, or whatever. In the end, it is the Christian life where he who is at work in you will perfect his work in you. Your spirit will be conformed.

Send post as PDF to

        

For now though it is last call for the apologetics special we have been running.

It ends this weekend!

The Apologetics Program (Special Ends Friday… no Sunday!)

Three new courses on audio CD to help you prepare to defend the

Christian faith. Taught by scholar, author, and Evangelical apologist

Robert Bowman, these courses will be a welcome addition to your

library.

Normal Price: $195

Special Price: $120

Purchase Now

Included:

1. Apologetics I – An Introduction to Apologetics: An introduction

to key issues in defending the faith.

2. Apologetics II – Apologetic Methods: Next, learn about the

different approaches that Christians take to defending the faith.

3. Apologetics III – Understanding Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Here you will learn everything you need to know about the Mormon and

Jehovah’s Witness faith and how to give a gracious answer.

Combine The Theology Program and The Apologetics Program

Get both all sixty sessions of The Theology Program’s and all three

courses in The Apologetics Program at a special discount.

Regular Price: $909

Special Price: $545

Purchase Now

Send post as PDF to

        

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

With the opening of the Credo House, we have taken a considerable step in the life and history of our ministry. As well, with this comes great opportunity to join with us in our mission to reclaim the mind by filling a significant need in the church today – theological discipleship. Our ministry budget has increased as we have taken this step. So many of you have taken this step with us by partnering with us through your financial support; we need many more of you to join us.

If you believe in what we are doing, please consider joining us. It is a great mission that we are on.

Give a one time gift or become a monthly supporter.

We need $25,000 to complete this month in the black. Every donation counts!
To get a .pdf copy of this post or to forward it to someone who might be interested in what we are doing, please provide the appropriate email below.

Send post as PDF to

        

One thing I am going to do throughout this series is something that many of you might be very uncomfortable with. You should not be, but you might. However, if you have studied the history of Christian doctrine and are, like me, standing on the shoulders of giants, you will have no problem with what I am advocating necessitating for this study. I believe that we must look to nature and philosophy in order to understand the nature of God. This means that I believe that extra-biblical information is required, yea demanded, by God himself.

My reasoning is simple. There are certain things that the Bible assumes. In other words, there is an information base that God requires before we can handle the Scriptures and biblical doctrine with integrity. These things are areas that are presupposed. For example, the Bible does not teach anyone how to read. It simply assumes such an ability. The Bible does not define its words. It assumes a knowledge base that is equipped to handle the vocabulary. Epistemologically (the justification of knowing), the Bible does not argue for the the law of non contradiction (i.e. that A cannot equal non-A at the same time and in the same relationship) or that propositions have meaning. It simply assumes that you know that. Theologically, the Bible does not make a case for God’s existence, it simply assumes that there is a sufficient base from which to make such a conclusion. There are other things as well, but these examples should suffice for you to understand and follow. (I hope!)

When it comes to making a case, such as I am going to make, about the “what” or “stuff” of God, I am going to be drawing as much from natural theology as I am from biblical theology—and for this I make no apologies. Natural theology is the theology that comes through nature or general revelation. It is a theology that is rationally based and relies much on philosophical deduction.

For example:

If I did not create myself, I am a contingent being (dependent on something else for my existence)

It is most likely that I did not create myself

Therefore, I am under a necessary and rational compulsion to believe that I am contingent (dependent)

I will be make these type of arguments about the nature of God.

If any of you are skeptical about such an approach, I will gladly adduce Scripture for justification of this methodology.

Paul tells the Romans:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1: 18-20)

Notice a few things here:

1. “Revealed from heaven . . . being understood through what has been made.” This is what can be known about God without the Scriptures. It is God’s revelation through creation and philosophical deduction.

2. “Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men . . .” This tells us that natural revelation is evident to all. This is often referred to as “general revelation” because it has a general audience that is not limited to a particular people, nation, or time.

3. “God has shown it to them.” This tells us it is from God. God is the author of this revelation.

4. “Invisible attributes . . . eternal power and divine nature.” Ahh . . . Here we go. This lets us know that we can understand many of the characteristics of God through natural revelation. His “eternal power” (aidios autou dunamis) has to do with not only ultimate power and ability, but the necessity of its eternality. His divine nature (theiotes) speaks of his divinity, or the nature that divinity necessarily must encompass, including attributes and characteristics.

5. “They have been clearly seen.” The word for “clearly” (kathoratai) is in the present indicative telling us that this is an ongoing occurrence. The word carries the idea of inward perception coming from our reasoning, not simply seeing with the eye. BDAG suggests this translation:”God’s invisible attributes are perceived with the eye of reason in the things that have been made.” In other words, natural revelation is evidently evident!

6. “They are without excuse.” This is very important to understand. The word here for “without excuse” (anapologetous) has a judicial feel to it. Josephus uses the word in the sense of being “without a defense.” Dio Chrysostom uses this to describe Alexander’s aide to Homer saying that he will not let Homer go “undefended.” This verse is telling us that these characteristics of God are so clear that people are left without a defense of any sort for unbelief.

Therefore, when I refer to nature and philosophical rationale concerning the nature of God, if my arguments are sound, those who deny such because they are not explicitly stated or argued in Scripture (if such be the case) are without excuse.

About natural revelation’s voice, the Psalmist writes:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)

In other words, both these passages teach that we are held accountable for hearing through creation the authoritative voice of God.

Here are some implications:

The acknowledgment of the validity of natural theology. Natural theology (the theology derived from natural revelation) becomes a primary source of study in which Christians need to engage more often. While natural theology is not emphasized in many of the more fundamentalist Protestant circles, this has not always been the case for Christianity in general. Great philosophers and theologians of the past have seen the importance letting God’s voice come through creation. Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, Justin Martyr’s God of the Philosophers, Anselm’s “Necessary Being,” Aquinas’ “Five Proofs,” and John Calvin’s “sensus divinitatis all evidence an understanding of the authority of creation’s voice and philosophical deduction. We need to acknowledge this and engage in our study of God’s nature with all the sources of revelation that God has provided. This is why I look to philosophy and you should too.

Send post as PDF to

        

Ten years later, I started working on a second edition (the one with the white cover), not realizing how much effort would be required to pull this off. “True” 2.0 has been significantly expanded (half a dozen or so new chapters) and completely overhauled; I left very few sentences unrevised. The result is, in my estimation, a much stronger, updated book that more effectively cuts through today’s thickening relativistic and pluralistic haze, offering a defense of objective truth and morality as well as of the uniqueness of Christ in the face of the world’s religions. I have posted an study guide online for small-group discussion at my website, www.paulcopan.com.

I hope you’ll help spread the word and put in a good word for the book in places like Amazon.com. To make the job easier, I’ve included the new table of contents as well as endorsements from Lee Strobel, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Josh McDowell, Gary Habermas, Mark Mittelberg, and Kenneth Samples. Thanks to many of you for contributing to the success of the first edition. May God’s Spirit use the second edition as well for the advancement of His kingdom!

Table of Contents:

Introduction

PART I: Absolutely Relative
1. “That’s True for You, But Not for Me.”
2. “So Many People Disagree—Relativism Must Be True.”
3. “You’re Just Using Western Logic.”
4. “Who Are You to Judge Others?”
5. “Christians Are Intolerant of Other Viewpoints!”
6. “What Right Do You Have to Convert Others to Your Views?”
7. “It’s All Just a Matter of Perspective.”
8. “Perception Is Reality.”
9. “That’s Just Your Opinion!”
10. “You Can Choose Whichever Religion You Want.”

PART II: The Absolutism of Moral Relativism
11. “Why Believe in Any Moral Values When They’re So Wildly Different?
12. “Your Values Are Right for You, But Not for Me.”
13. “Who Are You To Impose Your Morality on Others?”
14. “You Can’t Legislate Morality.”
15. “It’s Arrogant To Say Your Values Are Better than Others’.”
16. “Biological Evolution Explains Morality.”
17. “We Can Be Good Without God”: Part I
18. “We Can Be Good Without God”: Part II

PART III: The Exclusivism of Religious Pluralism
19. “All Religions Are Basically the Same.”
20. “All Roads Lead to the Top of the Mountain.”
21. “Christianity Is Arrogant and Imperialistic.”
22. “If You Grew Up in Thailand, You’d Be a Buddhist.”
23. “Mahatma Gandhi Was a Saint If Ever There Was One.”

PART IV: The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ: Myth or Reality?
24. “You Can’t Trust the Gospels. They’re Unreliable.”
25. “Jesus’ Followers Fabricated the Stories and Sayings of Jesus.”
26. “Jesus Is Just Like Any Other Great Religious Leader.”
27. “But Jesus Never Said, ‘I Am God.’”
28. “People Claim JFK and Elvis Are Alive, Too!”

PART V: “No Other Name”: The Question of the Unevangelized
29. “It Doesn’t Matter What You Believe—as Long as You’re Sincere.”
30. “If Jesus Is the Only Way to God, What About Those Who Have Never Heard of Him?”
Response #1: The Agnostic View
31. “If Jesus Is the Only Way …”
Response #2: The Inclusivist or Wider-Hope View
32. “If Jesus Is the Only Way …”
A Response to the Inclusivist/Wider-Hope View
33. “If Jesus Is the Only Way …“
Response #3: The Accessibilist or Middle-Knowledge Perspective

Endorsements for the Second Edition of “True for You, But Not for Me”

“Here are incisive and insightful responses to many of the most common misconceptions about Christianity and faith. I’m thankful for Paul Copan’s uncanny ability to see through popular opinion and focus on answers that make sense.”

Lee Strobel, author, The Case for Christ and The Case for the Real Jesus

“When I first got a copy of the first edition of ‘True for You, But Not for Me,’ I could not put it down. It was a thorough treatment of moral relativism and religious pluralism, and a great read at that. But this revised version is even better! It is significantly revised, expanded and updated. Given the relativism ubiquitous in our culture, this book should be required reading in Christian high schools and colleges. And laypeople and parachurch ministries will profit greatly from its content.”

JP Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, and author of The God Question

“In this engagingly written but intellectually rigorous book, philosopher Paul Copan tackles the challenges posed to Christian belief by the relativism and pluralism which are so widespread in American culture as to be almost assumed. Such assumptions often come to expression in mindlessly repeated one-liners. Copan’s careful exploration of the rational foundations of such slogans will be of great practical help to anyone who finds himself confronted with these challenges to the Christian faith.”

William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, and author of Reasonable Faith

“Paul Copan’s ‘True for You but Not for Me’ is a must-read book for every believer. This fully updated and revised book is one of the best cultural apologetics books written in recent years. Copan equips Christians to know how to stand firm in the faith when non-believers throw out slogans like ‘Who are you to judge others?’ and ‘That’s just your opinion.’ If you want to have a strong foundation of knowing how to take a stand for truth, read this book!”

Josh McDowell, author of More than a Carpenter

“Do you desire to be on the cutting edge of today’s culture wars? In True for You, But Not for Me, philosopher Paul Copan treats us to a new edition of a much-needed text that addresses succinctly those bewitching topics that seem to most concern this present generation. Tackling relativism in its best-known forms, such as moral permissiveness and religious pluralism, Copan repeatedly points out many clearly-recognizable false assumptions. Along the way he deals with numerous hot-button topics such as applying logic to life, intolerance, dogmatism, evangelism, arrogance, and the equality of all religions. Addressing more than two dozen popular slogans from current jargon, this handbook also provides helpful bullet points designed to summarize the most crucial discussions. This delightful volume moves quickly and is crucial reading for those who wish to address the most popular beliefs of an entire generation.”

Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor, Liberty University & Theological Seminary

“Pilate once asked Jesus, ‘What is truth?’ … and here we are two thousand years later, educated, informed — and thoroughly confused about the very same question! In this book Paul Copan brings clear thinking to this critically important subject, and illustrates it in ways that any thoughtful reader can understand and embrace. So read this book; it’s true for everybody!”

Mark Mittelberg, author of Choosing Your Faith … In a World of Spiritual Options, and co-author (with Lee Strobel) of The Unexpected Adventure

“‘True for You, But Not for Me’ is an outstanding book that every thinking Christian needs to read and carefully study. Copan’s reasoning is informed by Scripture and his arguments are consistently clear, concise, cogent, and compelling. Yet his style of communicating evinces a winsome and gracious attitude toward those who have questions and objections regarding historic Christianity. This book will ably equip its reader to engage in effective apologetic evangelism to a culture saturated in relativistic and pluralistic thinking. Paul Copan is my kind of Christian thinker.”

Kenneth Samples, Reasons To Believe, author of A World of Difference

Send post as PDF to

        

Building on this, I have found that the world often does things better than the church. At least they take many things more seriously and don’t think that there is an assumed liberty of tolerance.

However, this all has a lot to do with my theology. I work under the presupposition that culture (including the business world) in-and-of itself is amoral (neither good nor bad). Along with this is the further assumption that culture can and has evidenced the characteristics of God. This comes from the truth that all people, fallen and redeemed, retain God’s image. Whether they realize it or not, all people can and sometimes do give God glory, even if it is against their will. Often times, the glory that the secular culture presents before the Lord is better than that of the church.

Remember when Christ was entering Jerusalem just before the crucifixion and his followers were saying “Blessed is He who comes in the name of God”? The account is worth posting:

Luke 19:37-40 ³⁷ As soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen, ³⁸ shouting: “BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” ³⁹ Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.” ⁴⁰ But Jesus answered, “I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!”

Christ said, if His people do not glorify Him, the rocks will. Christ did not literally mean that the rocks will miraculously receive cognition and the gift of verbal articulation. He was speaking in hyperbole. He meant that if His people don’t glorify Him, then the rocks will. In other words, God will receive His glory. If it does not come from the most likely source (His people), then it will come from the most unlikely source (the rocks). If this does not humble us, I don’t know what will.

How about you? Have you ever been burned by Christian’s in the business world?

Send post as PDF to

        

We should pick up on the blog in the next couple of weeks.

Oh, also, if you want, stop by the Credo House this week. Although we still have a lot to do, it looks great and is ready for a soft opening.

Send post as PDF to

        

More specifically, HUD has been focused on ending chronic homelessness, which comprises approximately 15% of the homeless population roughly.  These are the more severe cases of homelessness – folks that have been continually homeless for at least a year or experienced continual cycles of homelessness (at least 4 episodes in the past 3 years) and suffer from some type of disabling condition, including mental illness and substance abuse.  The idea is that since these are the high end users of emergency services, it is more cost efficient to put them into permanent supportive housing, which provides a team of licensed professionals to address the barriers to independent living.  In other words, stabilize them in housing first, then provide intensive services so they will stay there.  So the person who has lived ensconced in a particular state of existence for an extended period of time will now be moved to a different state of existence and expected to succeed.

I think this is a great theory in concept.  I don’t think anyone reading this post, especially me, wants to see people homeless.  But I had a major philosophical conflict in that I recognize, no matter how attractive you make housing, no matter how much you demonstrate that this would be something beneficial, there will be some, who for whatever reason are more comfortable on the streets.  It’s not that they want to be homeless but they don’t want to be uprooted from a way of living that they have become comfortable with.  The comfort of where they are supersedes the discomfort of being uprooted.  Now some of my professional colleagues might disagree, but information that I have received from front line workers would suggest otherwise, not to mention, the human nature factor.

I cannot but help consider this application pertinent to where we live doctrinally and theologically.  We have learned.  We have studied.  We have drawn conclusions.  We find our nest and settle in.  And it is great, isn’t it, when we draw conclusions about what the Biblical text says and perchance take sides with notable theologians who have gone before us, especially considering the effort they put forth?  Or maybe, we have found comfort in that fact that we have followed no man but instead have relied on our own interpretations of Scripture, guided of course by the Spirit.  Or perhaps we have allowed our particular church denomination or tradition to influence and shape the body of facts we call truth.  Whatever our course of action has been, there is a certain degree of comfort that we can rest it.

I suppose that our comfort has very much to do with our epistomology, how we have come to know and understand what we consider truth.   There has been a determination made on the best avenue to discover what truth is, and we have followed that. And whatever that path is, whether through “academic” study, experience, tradition or a particular hermeneutic (yes everyone has one but not everyone uses the same hermeneutic), following that course can in and of itself, transition us into an ease of understanding.  After a while, we can proudly say that we have arrived at truth.  However, it does beg the question, ‘is it that we have arrived at truth OR that we have satisfied the mechanics of whatever epistomology we have used to arrive at truth?  The latter will certainly not guarantee the former but probably will make us more comfortable about the process.

The truth is that nobody likes tension.  Nobody likes to be uncomfortable and definitely, nobody wants to be wrong.  The guy on the street doesn’t resist moving from his abode because he loves waddling in the mire.  He won’t move because he doesn’t want the tension.   Nor do we.  It is uncomfortable to wrestle with ideas and the internal conflict that ensues when our sense of satisfactory knowledge has been disrupted.  It is far easier to stay in the bed we’ve made than to rip the sheets off and move it; it is far easier to rely on the truth we know than the contradiction we don’t know, or rather, don’t really want to know.  So we set up our fortresses, load the arsenal known as proof-texts, strawmen and maybe even historical data and throw them to protect our fiefdoms of knowledge.

Don’t get me wrong.  I think there are some truths that are absolutely essential to Christianity, truths that have been tested and stamped with the historical seal of approval of which Christianity would not exist without.  I also believe that within the mysteries of God, what He has revealed is meant to be understood (Deuteronomy 29:29), not cumbersome or burdensome and maybe even a little logical.

But it can be arduous to bridge the communication gap between God’s revelation, which is what He has made known and our understanding.  It is no small task to engage in a process of grasping who is God, what has He accomplished, what He has planned and where do we fit into that picture, in a way that acknowledges our abilities to apprehend but denies our prejudices and presuppositions.  There is tension.  There is discomfort.  Often, there are no easy answers.  Yes, the Spirit is involved but so is our fallibility.  This is not an easy place to live because it will always encourage running for cover and resorting to safe and tension free harbors.

So I think where we live doctrinally and theologically has so much to do with the level of resistance we can tolerate.   If we’ve wrapped our arms around conclusions so tightly that no amount of historical or Biblical evidence could sway opinions, especially those that deviate from Christianity’s historical roots, then I fear intended truths might be missed for the sake of ease.  And yes, I do think fear can be involved, fear of losing, fear of failure, fear of humility.  Then where we live can become a prison rather than a place of freedom.  It is no different for that chronically homeless individual who refuses to give up his abode for something better.

But just as the guy on the street must go through the tension of disruption for the greater goal of a warm and safe place of permenency, so must we.  There is a prize at stake of knowing what God has so graciously revealed to that we can know Him, His plan and ourselves better.  We’ll never arrive but must always learn and be willing to be a little disrupted in the process.

Send post as PDF to

        

In this series of posts I am going to write about God. “Wow! That is revolutionary for a theology blog: thanks for being so specific, Michael!” Slow down, you are already wearing me out. We are going to talk about God, but I want to focus on something that I believe is the most neglected aspect of theology proper (the formal doctrine of God) in the church today. This is a serious charge, but I don’t think I am overstating it. We will see . . .

I don’t want to deal with who is God; neither do I want to deal with what God has done. Here, I am going to focus on the “what” of God. What is God? In other words, what, essentially, makes God, God. What characteristics must a being have to be called “God”? Personality? Goodness? Activity in our lives? Power? Grace? Or could God lack these things and still be God in the proper sense? What does God have to be to be God?

This might sound rather unspiritual and beyond our ability when dealing with the ineffable (that which is incapable of being expressed), yet I contend that it is essential and should be among the prolegomena (”first words”) in the study of theology proper. What I mean by this is that if you don’t get this right, all other questions about God will suffer to a great degree. This will in turn affect your view of everything, from Christ to morality, from inspiration to eschatology, and much more.

(Stay with me . . . I will explain as we move forward. One step at a time.)

By the time this study is finished, I believe that we will have discovered that many of our understandings and concepts about God do not really qualify for the title. In other words, some people’s views of God lack essential qualifying properties for God to bear the name “God.” This is prevalent among Christian cults and other world religions.

However, I must preface these strong propositions with a confession: I don’t believe a person must have a perfect concept of God to be in a true relationship with him. This is a matter of discipleship, essential as it may be.

In short, I will be arguing for what is called “Classical Theism,” something that has been under heavy attack the last couple of decades. As usual, I will try to help you understand why those who are straying from the classical theistic tradition are doing so and why I believe they have taken a wrong turn. I will also join them in the challenge of classical theism at one point, so be ready.

Let me start by putting forth three ways that we can think about God. Or better, three points of reference to our theology that guide us in our definition of God.

#1 An ontological point or reference (What is God?). The ontos of something is its essence or “stuff” it is made of. This describes the essential properties that the object must have. For example, the essential characteristics of a chair to qualify for “chairness” is not its color, height, or even what it is made of, but its ability to, with stability, hold an individual while seated. Therefore, it must have a seat. Classical theism believes in many ontological points of reference with regard to God (most of which will be defined and defended soon), e.g., God is eternal, God is transcendent, God is immutable (unchanging), God is simple (exists without reference to time, space, or matter), God is a se. We will continue this in further posts. Hang tight.

#2 An historical point of reference or point of action (What has God done?). This describes what someone has done in history to establish who they are now. With regards to God: God created the world out of nothing, God brought the Israelites out of Egypt to the promise land, God sent His Son to die for the sins of man, Christ rose from the grave, etc.

#3 A personal or relational point of reference (Who is God?). This describes personality characteristics. With regards to God: God is sovereign, God loves the world, God is gracious and forgiving, God is offended by sin, God brings about His will, God provides for His people, God comforts us in times of trouble, etc.

To use me as an example (to further illustrate): you may say you know me; here is your description:

#1 Ontological (What am I?): Michael is a male. He is corporeal (space bound). He is a human being (i.e. I am not a bot!). He exists in time. He has a will of his own. He is conscious of his existence. He is dependent for his physical existence on many things including parents, food, water, and protection from harm. He has a body and spirit, etc.

#2 Historical (What have I done?): Michael became a Christian when he was young. Michael rebelled against God for many years. He got married in 1997. He went to seminary in 1998 at Dallas Theological Seminary and focused on New Testament Studies. He fathered four children. Michael has often contributed to the Parchment and Pen blog. He is currently working on a project called The Credo House, etc.

#3 Personal (Who am I?): Michael wants to be a good father and husband. He loves superheroes because he (secretly – or not so secretly) thinks he is one. He desires a 2010 Camaro that he will never get. He loves to teach theology to educate the church. He has a heart for those who struggle with their faith.

Of these three, in the discussion of God, we are talking about the first. In other words, I don’t believe that anything in #2 or #3 are characteristics that God must have in order to have the title. The first is the “what is God” of this series.

More soon . . .

Send post as PDF to

        

If anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated.

Luther at worms.

Or, better, this one.

Christian Martyrdom

Someone please make these work! Help!

Send post as PDF to

        

Check out the grand opening special.

Send post as PDF to

        

When teaching the class one Sunday (I don’t remember the subject), a certain gentleman raised his hand. I thought it was going to be a question concerning the subject we were on, but it was not. He began to complain to me and to everyone there how much he did not like the way I taught and how, exactly, he thought I should change. I was speechless, embarrassed, humiliated, angry, and hurt.

Looking back all these years I have been able to see his problems more objectively. In fact, I think he was right on in his criticism. Everything he said was true about my teaching style and it did need to change. However, he was also very wrong and he should not have said what he said. While nothing that he said was wrong, he lacked a great deal of wisdom in his tact and approach.

The point of this post is this: Saying the right thing without tact is wrong. This is true of Sunday school or any other venue. We are not only called to say the right things, but to say the right things at the right times in the right ways.

Here are a few things to remember when you are the learner.

You are not the teacher

No matter where you are when you are not the teacher, do not act as if you are. So many times I see people who are looking to spring board off other people’s platform. I have been in classrooms where I know who’s hand not to call on. Some people just take over and want to show the class how much they know. You may have the best intentions when you do this and what you say may be right, but, unless the venue expects this, you are not called by God to teach at that time. I am sorry. That is just the way it is.

If the teacher is wrong, and I mean dead wrong, you are still not called to teach. You are called to respect the teacher and listen. Even if the teacher asks you your opinion, you must be very careful not to dishonor the platform that this person has been given.

You don’t have the respect of the people

You must remember that people have gathered to listen to someone else, not you. No matter how smart you are, people don’t care that much about what you have to say. In fact, attempting to be the teacher will be counter-productive. No matter how learned you are in the subject, your arrogance will turn all the others against you and you will only serve to annoy the audience.

You have to gain an audience with the teacher in other ways

You may feel obligated to correct the teacher, but you have to gain an audience first and you have to do it at the right time. The gentleman who corrected me during that class so long ago did not have my ear. In other words, I did not really know or respect this person and I had no past with him. Under these conditions, he was in no position to correct me. Not because he was not right, but because his words only served to make me self-defensive. It does not matter how persuasive you are, speaking to people without gaining their respect does no good. You must first gain the right to correct. This involves time with the person. It involves much more than corrective criticism, but a history of friendship and respect. If you don’t have this, don’t bother trying to correct during the middle of class or any other time.

Let the venue and culture be your guide

Most teaching venues (pulpit, Sunday school, lectures, presentations, etc.) assume respect to the person who has been placed in the teaching position. Therefore, you are never the teacher. But there are some venues that allow and expect a different type of interaction where you are encouraged to interact in a different way. These venues include some blogs, debates, and forums. This does not mean you have any right to disrespect the teacher or that your meanderings will be more attractive to the audience, but it does mean that your disagreements are already welcomed to some degree. The culture of the venue is your guide. For example, this blog is more open than some to discussion and disagreements. But this does not mean that you will necessarily gain the ear of the readers or the authors. In fact, once you begin to use this blog as a surrogate blog, other readers will be offended and discouraged from reading any more than the main post. You have to be tactful even in these type of venues, but they are more open than others.

For some of you, these points all come easy. You are too timid to expose your thoughts or feelings in public in any way. These points are much harder for those who feel a burden to teach or who are well educated. This is because they will usually have some points of intelligent disagreement. This disagreement intensifies their passion as they, with good intentions, simply want people know the truth as they know it. They also think to themselves that the have an obligation to correct false teaching. Therefore, they often cannot help themselves. But the point I am making in this post is that knowledge without tact is counter-productive – always.

In the end, we need to calm down. Don’t think that you have to correct everyone. Respect others even when they are wrong. Let them be wrong and, yes, let them teach this wrong. You really can’t do anything about it with emotionally motivated actions that lack tact and wisdom.

James 1:19
Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger. (ESV)

Send post as PDF to

        

When we first got married over 35 years ago, this tension was not immediately obvious. I was involved in full-time ministry with Youth for Christ in Orange County, California. During that time, Kay assisted me in ministering to the high school kids of Costa Mesa and Irvine. When I left Youth for Christ, we packed up our trailer, and headed to Dallas Texas, where for the next 10 years I was involved in ThM and PhD study. In 1984, ten years and one month later we left Dallas. We set our sights on the San Francisco Bay area, where I had been hired as Asst. Prof. of Theology at Simpson College. Her life was focused on the home, raising the children. As the children grew and got off to school. It became necessary for her to venture out into the workplace. Feeding four voraciously hungry boys on a professor’s salary became more than a challenge. It became an impossibility (at one point our food bill was regularly larger than our monthly rent!).

As she moved out into the workplace, the tension of the secular versus sacred raised its ugly head. It wasn’t that she objected to working, but if she had to work outside the home, she wanted to be involved in something that counted for the Kingdom, to be in some kind of ministry work. Many, many nights when she would come home, she would share her frustration. She was working in an office for an electrical contracting company and although there were several Christian friends who worked in the office with her it was still a secular job. It wasn’t involved in building the Kingdom. Several years later, she changed jobs. She was now an executive assistant and office manager in a small financial planning firm. But in some cases, this was even worse. She was faced day-to-day with the pursuit of money and felt the tension between God and mammon. About 2 ½ years ago, she changed jobs again. She is working at a small startup company that manufactures a medical device to deal with chronic back pain. Again, it is a secular environment, although in this job she loves the environment and the people, even though she is the only Christian in the office. However, she continued to feel the sacred-secular tension.

As a student of the Reformation, I have been convinced for decades that the sacred-secular tension that my wife feels and that many who have grown up in the evangelical community feel, arises from a misreading of Scripture, and a misunderstanding of the nature of God and his relationship to creation. Beginning in the ancient church there was a wedge driven between the material and the spiritual with a corresponding wedge drawn between the secular and the sacred. During the medieval period, this wedge became a veritable wall. Anyone who was serious about his or her own salvation became a priest, monk or a nun (speaking in broad brushstrokes here). Also during this period the incarnation of Christ and his full participation in the same type of life that we share faded into the background and He became progressively viewed as the divine judge who condemned humanity for its failure to achieve the standard of perfect legal righteousness. (By the way, it was during this period that the we see the rise of Marion devotion as well as the cult of the saints in an attempt to find a sympathetic intercessor who would get the ear of the righteous judge.) This was the issue that tortured Luther—he hated the righteousness of God for it was the basis on which he damned sinful humanity. Ultimately, Luther discovered the true nature of divine righteousness. It was this discovery that kicked off the Reformation.

Luther and the other first generation Reformers went further—much further. They rejected the idea that matter was tainted. The creation had been blessed by the Creator and declared to be “very good.” With this understanding, the sacred-secular dichotomy had been healed. But over the generations the rift appeared again. In the nineteenth century it opened again with a vengeance and infected and still afflicts many evangelicals to this day. (The development here is a bit complex so I won’t get into it now. Suffice it to say that the rise of Liberal Theology with its emphasis on the Social Gospel played a major part here, as did the apocalyptic pre-millennialism that advocated radical separation from the world and dedication to missions and evangelism. Involvement with the world is, after all, like polishing brass on a sinking ship.)

In all this we have lost sight of the nature and implications of the most basic and foundational doctrines of Christianity—the trinity and the incarnation: that God is three eternal persons who live in constant and perfect loving relationship, and that the eternal Son of the Father has joined himself to the totality of human nature, not just for thirty-three years, but for eternity. To stop and reflect, really reflect upon these two truths staggers the mind.

C. Baxter Kruger, in his work The Great Dance, does just this. At one point he reflects:

What are we to make of the fact that as the son of God lived out his sonship, his divine life, he did so as a carpenter? Think of the hours and hours spent in the shop, the years of apprenticeship, the days and months and years hammering and cutting and carving and sanding. What are we to make of the fact that the vast majority of God’s time on earth was spent in such ordinary, mundane activity? Have you ever thought about that? Most of God’s time on Earth was not spent in what people call “full-time ministry.” The incarnate son spent more time making things with his hands than he did preaching.

When you stop to think about it, when the Trinitarian life of God worked its way out in human existence, it was all very ordinary. I am aware of the supernatural things that happened in Jesus. I am aware of the astonishing miracles. But I would hazard a guess that the Son of God, ate more meals than he performed miracles. I know that the incarnate Son healed the sick, but I also know that he made a lot of tables. He had a lot of conversations with regular people, grew up in a family of brothers and sisters and cousins, celebrated birthdays and went to parties.

For at least a moment in history, human laughter, human sharing, human compassion, human love, human fellowship and camaraderie and togetherness were all more than human. For at least a moment of history, carpentry and the delight of making things and helping others, human excellence and the pride and joy of creativity in design and moving from design to completed product, were all more than merely human. They were the living expression of the humanity of God, the living expression of the incarnate Son, living out his divine sonship, the living expression of a man utterly baptized in the Holy Spirit. (62)

Certainly the fact that the Incarnate God worked at a secular and ordinary job, gives the lie to the idea that it is only “the spiritual” that matters. The eternal Son of God, by, through and for whom the entire universe was created, out of love and compassion for His creation, united himself eternally to humanity in its ordinariness and its physicality. This is the basis for meaning in everything we do: the heroic, the “spiritual” and the ordinary. All are important because God himself has, out of his overflowing and gracious love, joined himself to us as human and in the process brought humanity into eternal relationship and participation with God. Peace and joy have come to my wife as she has accepted and embraced participation with God in the ordinary.

Visit Jim’s site.

Send post as PDF to

        

I have been in discussions with a gentleman who reads this blog and, occasionally, will take one of my theology courses. The main topic of discussion is the necessity of theological discourse for the average Christian. Whether it be big words, concepts, or ideas, this gentleman does not think such things are necessary for the Christian life. He prefers the simplicity of loving God and leaving the rest to the theologians. His basic argument is that such things can and often do take away from our ability to live the Christian life due to their “side-tracking” nature.

Let me paraphrase a comment he would typically make:

“Whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, a traducianist or creationist, believe in soul sleep or intermediate bliss, believe in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or memorialism, none of these ultimately makes any difference. In fact, these beliefs serve more to bring about sinful divisiveness than anything else.”

This attitude with regard to theology is not uncommon at all. In fact, it seems that it has a lot of truth to it. It would seem that simplicity in our confession and faith would ultimately bring about the most unity and acceptance as well as provide more energy for the things that really matter. Right?

Well, if you are saying that more knowledge is dangerous, I agree. Knowledge can puff up. Knowledge can provide ground for strong opinions, lack of perspective, and, ultimately, division. But if you are saying that because of the dangers of knowledge it is not worth the risk, I disagree.

Let me give you an illustration that I think provides a sufficient parallel to the current issue. Knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot. Knowledge of what? Well, anything. But most specifically, we could apply this to relationships. When we enter into a relationship with someone, we take risks. Relationships involve us becoming vulnerable. When we allow someone to get to know us, there is always the possibility of misunderstanding, rejection, and a sort of Trojan horse pregnability of our heart. The same is true concerning those with whom we enter a relationship. Knowledge about them is dangerous. Not only for them, as they expose themselves, but for us as we put our own ideals about them on the line. In other words, you may know someone from a distance who you have placed on an idealist pedestal. Once an opportunity comes for you to deepen that relationship, closing the blissful distance, you are entering into dangerous territory. Why? Because now you are opening yourself up to coming to know the real person. All masks will soon come off and then you will have to nuance this relationship based upon your more up-to-date and accurate knowledge of the person. This process is certainly reciprocal and it is risky—it is dangerous—for both parties. While new discoveries will certainly bring about joy and depth in the relationship, they can also bring about a great deal of pain and emotional distancing.

When the fear of relational knowledge becomes so great that people guard themselves against all forms of vulnerability, disorders follow: schizoid personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder (AvPD), social anxiety disorder. Here, people become closed and guarded hoping that this will leave their lives protected, safe, and secure.

While people might rationalize their timidity due to the reality of the dangers that are involved when knowledge is attained, this rationalization is misleading. The avoidance of knowledge causes us to neglect a basic need of humanity—relationships.

I fear that this is often the case when people rationalize their avoidance of theology. Theology is simply coming to understand God at a deeper level. Yes, there are risks, just the same as any relationship. There are risks of misunderstandings, changing your ideals, opening yourself up to criticism, and coming to know both the wonderful and, what might be perceived to be, the not so wonderful things about God. There is also the possibility of division and strife as you defend what you believe to be true. But is this really any different than any other relationship?

What I find is that people have a theological disorder when it comes to truth. They are theologyphobic (theology, “study of God” + phobia, “fear” or veriphobit (veri, “truth” + phobia, “fear”). Really it is simply a rationalization of some sort of a Theology Avoidance Disorder (ThAD). It is saying to God that you are not interested in coming to know about him, his word, or his truth (at least in any detailed way), but you, nevertheless, want to experience all the benefits of the relationship.

Symptoms of Theology Avoidance Disorder:

• Increasing apathy toward theological issues
• Belief that theological discussions are counter-productive since they often cause divisions
• Distancing one’s theology from their relationship with God
• Separating “devotional time” from “study time”
• An increasing antagonism toward labels

But lets continue the illustration. Women, how would you feel if your husband or boyfriend approached you the same way? What if he said, “Listen, I want to have a relationship with you, but I really don’t want to know too much about you. If I do, I may be disillusioned and you may not like me. There are also going to be opinions that I have about you may not be shared by others who know you such as you mom, dad, and brother. Therefore, if we are to have a relationship, let’s keep all knowledge to a simple minimum. I don’t want to know about your past, future plans, or anything that might make me uncomfortable. Nothing divisive. Just give me your name and tell me that you love me. That will be enough.” The answer is simple. You are asking for a superficial relationship that protects your ideals and is “safe.” But the reality is that it is not a relationship at all.

I know that this illustration is simplistic, but it does catch the mood of what I am trying to communicate. Ignorance is bliss, but bliss is not God’s will for us. He is not asking you to be in a minimalistic blissful relationship that is safe. Nothing about knowing our God is safe in that sense. It will often cause confusion, disillusionment, hurt, division, and distance. But isn’t that the truth of all relationships? They also bring about joy, comfort, hope, peace, and unity.

God has invited us to take the risk of coming to know him. He has revealed himself and provided a lot of information about himself. The Bible is filled with knowledge of our God. A little knowledge of him is dangerous . . . so is a lot.

I am not saying that knowledge is all there is to our relationship with God, but it is foundational. The effort to come to know God, even if we come to some wrong conclusions, is an inexpendible part of the process of “doing” the relationship. It is the same in all relationships.

Either way, the adoption of a Theology Avoidance Disorder is not a Christian option.

Send post as PDF to