a paradigm for the journey

When you place your kids on a school bus, you take for granted that the bus driver is trustworthy and will get your children to school. When you eat at a restaurant, you assume that the cook is not out to poison you. When you are experiencing a blind spot and another driver assists you across a busy intersection, you presume without proof that he or she is well-meaning. Though there times when your expectations may be inaccurate, generally speaking you accept them. You operate, in other words, in accordance with certain assumptions or presuppositions. It happens all of the time, probably more often than you realize. Not only is this the way we do many things, but it is unavoidable and normally helpful. Until a presupposition is invalidated, we accept it as true. Through experience, our best assumptions are confirmed and our worst ones discarded.

In order to appreciate any approach, it is important to understand some of the ideas, the presuppositions, that guide such efforts. Though I hope that my assumptions are substantiated through what I say, do, and write, others must decide whether this is in fact the case, that is, whether my presuppositions are indeed reasonable and worthy of additional exploration. Among other factors, these are some of the ideas that help pave the way.

• When it comes to knowledge claims, it is important to acknowledge the tension between knowing and not knowing.

The human condition is marked by knowledge and ignorance. Some things defy us, and other things are fairly clear. What’s more, this knowing and not knowing penetrate one another. Thus, while we know many things, we know nothing with flawless precision. Likewise, we are often ignorant, but often our ignorance is not absolute, and even when we acknowledge it, we still recognize that we know at least one thing, namely, that we are ignorant. Knowledge and ignorance work in tandem, each playing a role in our quest to make sense of life, the world, and faith. To approach faith with only one of these features leads to imbalance. On the one hand, if we assume, as many do, that we can have arrive at something approaching perfect knowledge, we close ourselves off from future discovery and yield to arrogance. On the other hand, if we assume, as many do, that we cannot know anything of substance, we likewise succumb to a pompous attitude and block the path to new insights. Of course the exact proportion of what we can and cannot know will vary, and it is difficult to decipher where the quest for knowledge reaches an impasse and mystery begins. But our lack of precision does not eliminate the reality and importance of these components. Whatever else is true, the quest to grasp truth must be viewed through this prism, and we should expect to understand certain things about ourselves and the world, while remaining humble and open to change.

• As human beings, we are built for faith.

What I mean by this is that we must, of necessity, act in a manner that requires that we trust. Our trust may be in other people, things that we’ve received from others, previous experience, or a host of other things. But, in any case, we are forced to believe, to assume, to take for granted, the trustworthiness of many things. As mentioned above, when we place our children on a bus, eat food at a restaurant, trust a stranger to direct us through a dangerous intersection, or many other things, we are in effect placing our trust in another. This does not mean that all of our faith commitments are valid, for often they are not. Nor does it entail a naive acceptance of whatever it is that tickles one’s fancy. Indeed, there are many occasions in which additional information, research, and experience cause us to change our views. The point we mustn’t miss, though, is that we accept many things by faith. This is an inevitable part of the way we are built as human beings. While many factors influence our faith decisions, the decisions themselves are neither inappropriate nor anti-intellectual. We are all believers; the key issues are what we believe and whether or not our beliefs are reasonable, realistic, and sensible.

• Since everything is ultimately filtered through the human interpreter, it is important to recognize what is wrong and right with us.

As human experience tells us, humanity can be described in favorable and unfavorable terms. In fact it is not simply that we can locate examples of good bad around us but that all of us are inherently inclined to both positive and negative elements of character. Thus, our thoughts, beliefs, and actions are a combination of excellence and that which is deplorable. To describe human beings in totally negative terms is to ignore or minimize those traits that demonstrate nobility. To emphasize merely the better features is to neglect the reality that our motives and actions are often questionable or even despicable. Both grandeur and depravity characterize all men and women, being part and parcel of what it means to be human in our world. This tells us that our ability to interpret, to understand, to locate truth, is both possible but hampered. We are intellectually, morally, and spiritually handicapped by our foolish disposition. Likewise, we are emboldened and hopeful due to our honorable tendencies. If we are going to account for these very human traits, we must proceed with a combination of confidence and humility. What’s more, we might also seek the assistance of others, knowing that they, too, are a strange combination of the same attributes. Perhaps, as well, we will look to the ultimate “Other” as we seek answers, direction, and wisdom.

• It is essential to pursue not only truth but also goodness and wisdom.

One of the inherent dangers when discussing spiritual things is neglecting to see that life is more than a debate to determine whose theory is right. While we cannot escape the issue of truth, truth’s goal, if you will, includes the pursuit of goodness and wisdom. Of course the best proponents of any view realize that the accurate assessment of truth ought to produce concomitant changes in thinking and behavior. Unfortunately, however–and due, in great part to the previously discussed “dark features” of humanity–we all too often miss the point and neglect to display the wisdom we espouse. A better approach, I think, is to recognize the need not only for correct ideas and properly demonstrated claims, essential as these are, but also for living with discernment, integrity, inspiration, and authenticity. Indeed, ultimately, these cannot be separated, for just as life is an embodiment of our cherished beliefs, so our viewpoints undergird and promote right living. The thing to understand here is that all worthy pursuits are inextricably linked to the worthy expression of their highest ideals. Truth leads to goodness and wisdom, even as goodness and wisdom prompt the search for truth and provide the lense through which truth is more readily received.

• The pursuit of ultimate reality or truth is a personal venture.

By this I mean that it involves people, namely human beings and, if you accept the possibility of a greater reality, a divine person. Without elaborating on such issues as an the orthodox commitment to a plural Godhead (i.e., the trinity or triunity of God), it is enough to say that a Christian conception of truth involves the person(s) of God. And, in Christian parlance, this points us in the direction of the person Jesus. If the narratives about Jesus are even remotely accurate and if his claims are examined carefully, it’s hard to avoid the implications. The way he handled himself, the manner in which he responded to unfair attacks, the words he spoke, the deeds he performed, the encouragement and forgiveness he offered, and the claim that he conquered our worst foe–all of these indicate that there is something special about Jesus. To put it plainly, there is something unique about this carpenter's son. If nothing else made sense about a Christian worldview, Jesus alone would compel us to consider him. And he, of course, is a person, a person whom we can investigate and, if he is the one he claimed to be, a person we can seek. If I might paraphrase, he put it this way: “Seek Me, and you will find me.” The point here is not to compare and contrast Jesus with other religious figures, though that is certainly a worthy endeavor. And I recognize, of course, that not all will accept my suppositions. But that’s not the point. Though I commend him to you, my primary intent is to show that there just might be a personal side to this apologetic agenda. Truth is an idea, a concept, a viewpoint, but it is also a person. It might be a good idea, in other words, when looking for truth, to be open to the possibility that there is another (divine) person in the room with us, a person we might seek.

Conclusion

These are among the thoughts that influence my thinking and guide much of what I say, do, and write. These ideas–and others could be added–help form the basis for much of what flows forth from me. I believe they are consistent with a Christian worldview and allow for a perspective that broadly matches the world in which we live. That is, they reflect the notion that we are divine image makers, marred by rebellion, searching for both what is right and what works, yearning for the transcendent, for One in whom we can place our trust and for whom we can live our lives. While admitting my own shortcomings and blind spots, these ideas are one person's effort to facilitate this pursuit and satisfy this yearning.

the sheer complexity of things (additional thoughts on ID)

In a reply to comments made on the previous post on ID, I scribbled down a few things that (with a couple of minor changes) I would like to reproduce here.

When it come to the notion of intelligent design and in light of the sheer complexity of many living things (which Darwin himself was willing to admit on certain occasions), I am somewhat astounded that many Darwinists are so quick to dismiss this complexity or else dogmatically characterize it as merely “apparent.” It simultaneously amuses and saddens me that we can so easily re-frame that which gives every appearance of design, in order to, I suppose, take God out of the equation.

On a related note, which is consistent with my broadly Christian worldview and, I think, fits life as most of us know it, it is my opinion that for a theory, idea, or body of facts, to be received, it must be accessible to most people. To the degree that something is truly relevant to know, it ought to make sense to common folks.

Now, please don’t misunderstand. I am not talking about taking polls to decide truth or basing our claims on political correctness. God forbid! Nor am I denying that non-experts can know a truth sufficiently, while experts know it at a deeper level. I’m simply saying that one does not have to be an expert in everything to understand the truth. While experts do indeed have a greater understanding about certain matters, we can learn a lot from non-experts, as well. Sometimes, however, elitists promulgate the idea that people should embrace their views simply on the basis of trust; that is, we can trust the experts to lead us down the right path. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to still utilize and appreciate expertise but never in such a way that the experts become the scientific version of the Pharisees (i.e., the self-proclaimed religious experts of Jesus’ day). Some Darwinists, and some Christians, as well, seem to miss this point. The important thing to convey here is my belief that if something is worth believing, and if God has placed both truth and truth-detectors (i.e., us) here, somehow the public at large will be able to grasp it. Part of the reason why people accept belief in God (and see his imprint) is due to the fact that this makes perfect sense of numerous aspects of the world in which we live. This human tendency should not be dismissed, for–in its best form–it may prove to be an outworking of an impulse that is consistent with reality. Of course the research must continue, and the facts must be interpreted honestly. But if we are all philosophically driven, as I believe we are, this seemingly (only apparent?) intuitive awareness of a divine imprint may be something worth considering.

In saying all this, I am not at all arguing against continued research and debate. Nor am I embracing every statement made by an ID expert simply because it fits my theory. All I’m saying is that some of the attempts to create a scenario in which incredibly complex features of human beings were supposedly created by blind chance and without any help from an information provider, seems a stretch. Most people know this intuitively. Thus, whatever the outcome of ID in history, I truly find it hard to imagine that this amazingly complex universe in which we live just happened to be. This is one of my general presuppositions. I may be wrong, and I am reasonably open to altering my assumptions. Still, these are my views, and I hold them with a measure of confidence. Indeed, I think it is reasonable, defensible, and legitimately appealing to do so.

Note: I should mention here that science is not my area of expertise, per se. I’ve operated in this realm on many occasions, but my personal focus has been in areas of theology, philosophy, postmodern studies, apologetics, and related fields. This emphasis has both influenced my approach to ID (and everything else), even as my research has (I believe) helped shape my views. In my opinion, current opinions (what we currently maintain) and openness to discovery (new insights, etc.) must be held in tension. I’m not sure if I do this, but it is my intent. :-)

intelligent design

Intelligent Design (ID)–it’s in the news and on the minds of many. But, as the recent Dover case demonstrates, there are still many misconceptions about the concept of design, and there is strong political opposition, often governed by fear, to the teaching of design within secular educational institutions.

A part of the problem, I think, is that some are skeptical about the motives of those involved in the Intelligent Design movement, thinking that ID is nothing more than a dressed up version of creationism. Thus, or so the thinking goes, ID advocates are trying to sneak religion in the back door and foist their views on an unsuspecting public. Of course there will always be individuals who attach themselves to various views, and not all of these are the most desirable folks to have in your camp. But politicians, of all people, should know this is the case and should not judge the merits of a view on its worst (and, sometimes, craziest) proponents. What truly matters here is that ID is not at all a religious phenomenon in the traditional sense of the word. Though you will obviously find a variety of different religious beliefs among ID adherents, ID itself arises from an examination of the evidence. Indeed, it is truly preposterous to accuse ID advocates of some type of hidden religious agenda. The overwhelming majority of the those in the ID movement are driven by academic motives and a desire to simply follow the truth wherever it leads. The research that has been conducted at a variety of levels is impressive and represents a genuine challenge to the status quo. Indeed, the credentials and the research conducted would never have been questioned had the views proposed been more in line with the dominant view on origins.

What has taken place is nothing short of a rhetorical campaign designed by Darwinists (and not by chance) to create in the mind of the public a view that is a caricature of the truth. There has been an onslaught of unsubstantiated claims and an ongoing effort to present ID and its proponents in the worst light possible. So, you keep on repeating the same phrases (“Those ID advocates are just creationists in scientific garb.”), you continue to make overstatements concerning your own views (“Everyone who knows anything realizes that Darwinian evolution is the only reasonable view.”), and you frame the debate in such a way that ID proponents appear opposed to ongoing research.

The true story of ID is quite different than what is often promulgated in certain circles. Not only are many of the researchers individuals of the highest integrity, not only have they continued to produce a body of work that is substantial, well-documented, and scientifically viable, but there certain general features of ID that challenge the reigning paradigm and may lead to a revolution of sorts in origins research. For instance, ID has produced substantial evidence of irreducible complexity, the idea that biological systems at the microscopic level are so intricately constructed and so interdependent (all the parts working together are necessary in order for the system to actually function) that there is no current (or conceivable?) Darwinian pathway that might have produced such design. Likewise, there is no real mechanism that has been tested and proven that can account for life’s origin and the production of self-replicating systems, which are needed if evolution is to continue. Also, there is a clear absence of many transitional forms. If you plan on going from, say, A to Z, you would expect to find a lot of B’s, C’s and so forth in the geological record, but this is not at all what we see. Then, there is the inability of natural selection to explain some of the more complex aspects of biological change. While natural selection does indeed play a role in micro-evolution, it seems ill equipped to account for the extremely grand examples of design and change.

But why, I ask myself, the need to misrepresent? Why the near dread of anything that challenges the current theory? Why the frantic desire to maintain a Darwinian-only approach? You would think that the mere mention of design will send our institutions into some sort of dark age and that the design inference will spell the ruin of millions. These reactions are, of course, preposterous and not at all an accurate assessment of potential ID inclusion. Even so, this is not the real issue, for is it not the evidence, the best we can see it and interpret it, that should lead the way? Does not the truth form the basis of our theories?

For some reason a truly reasonable and greatly substantiated grouping of discoveries and inferences are disallowed, and I don’t get it. I have my own theories, of course, but I’m also taken aback by the sheer ignorance, hypocrisy, arrogance, and fury that has dominated far too much of the current discussion.

To be honest, I don’t think we should be overly concerned about which view wins the day. So long as we’re being intellectually honest, I really don’t care, frankly, which view is correct or most likely true. If natural selection plus chance plus time can explain everything about our universe, so be it. If Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to make sense of the world in which we live, that’s okay. If, on the other hand, other forces are evident and if new theories are more consistent with the data, that ought to be fine, as well. Let the truth have its sway.

It seems to me that the propaganda originating in certain circles has proved intellectually debilitating, and rhetoric has blocked the path to academic inquiry and creative scientific investigation. Indeed, if ID is even remotely accurate, when and where, exactly, should we give it a voice? If not in a science classroom, then where? If in a philosophy class, will those opposed to ID also stand against the promulgation of ID in that context, too? And, even if it is allowed to flourish within some non-scientific framework, are we okay with allowing ID theorists to present their case, which is largely scientific, within a classroom that is not a science classroom? While I am strongly in favor of holistic education (with various ideas affecting the teaching of any particular subject), I find it strange that the scientific-based findings of ID would be allowed anywhere except a science classroom. The absurdities continue to abound, and few seem even willing to consider the ramifications.

Then, of course, there is the broader issue at stake. Are we actually willing to allow for the possibility that a body of knowledge exists in the world, something that is based in solid and ongoing research, that is simply not allowed to be discussed? How can truths exist and not be taken up and discussed by the dispensers of truth? Furthermore, do we actually believe that today’s students, those who are already quite adept at discussing various topics that would make many of their parents blush, will be damaged by an open discussion about the possibility of intelligent design? This, once again, is foolishness. Indeed, I think that nearly every young (and old) person is creative and resilient enough to consider varying theories and allow for the examination of competing thoughts. Is that not, in great measure, what education is about? Would it not be a travesty–especially if grounded in misinformation and irrational fear–to ignore whatever insights are available about a subject as grand and relevant as origins?

[Note: the Issue here is not actually evolution, per se, Many ID proponents clearly believe in evolution and are willing--at certain points--to accept some of what Darwin taught. The problem they have, however, is that Darwinian evolution does not explain many of the more profound features of human origins and decent.]

exploring the spiritual (or looking for God): Does it make any sense?

There are obviously various responses when it comes to matters of faith. Some discount spiritual things entirely, either ignoring or else rejecting (even attacking) all truth claims, while others assume their perspective is the right one. But across the spectrum, it seems we are all spiritually inclined. From atheists to agnostics, from traditional religious adherents to advocates of new-age spirituality, there is this impulse within us to seek “the Other.”

But is this impulse valid? Indeed, what is it about us that fits this assumption, that we are indeed spiritual creatures longing for something more. What follows are some general observations about human beings that point, I think, in a spiritual direction. These are not the only things that matter, but they do matter. These are some (not all of the) important things that hint at a core of spirituality all around and within us.

□ As already mentioned there seems to be an innate sense within all of us to reach out and beyond ourselves. There is among most (if not all) human beings a search for the transcendent. This might be interpreted merely as evidence of a natural law or it might seen as an indication of a deity. At the least, however, we must acknowledge this inward tendency to look beyond ourselves.

□ Likewise, and in keeping with the above, there is a general tendency to locate purpose in life. Of course this might simply be wishful thinking or some evolutionary survival trait, but most people act like it is more. In other words there is a perceived meaning to our existence.

□ The good that we encounter amplifies this purposefulness. And the bad, while certainly causing us to wonder about it all (i.e., How can a good God allow for such horrendous events?), also forces us to recognize that we are repelled by evil precisely because we sense that there must be some higher purpose that is being violated by the presence of evil. Even as evil feeds unbelief at one level, it also supports the contention that there is such a thing as evil in the first place. This, in a backward sort of way, actually confirms or is at least consistent with the notion of some higher purpose. Thus, the good and bad we encounter are indicators of life’s meaningfulness.

□ Along with what we’ve already said, there is clearly in all of us a sense of connection to fellow human beings. That is, we tend to gravitate to others. Though some are loners, and have a difficult time relating, the overwhelming majority of human beings long for relationships with one or (usually) more co-travelers. Once again, this fits the idea of reaching out, not only to things but to people. There is an undeniable personal feature to human existence.

□ If we are persons (which, of course, we are) and if we also sense a transcendent purpose (which we generally do), it just might be that our longings can only be satisfied by that which is both transcendent and personal. Throughout human history, this has often been another way of talking about God. Might we have been created for such a being?

□ The things and people that make us look for and embrace purpose indicate that we live in a world designed for us. Not only biologically or psychologically but, one might say, spiritually, we live in a universe that corresponds with our felt needs and desires. While not minimizing those aspects that run contrary to this purpose (e.g., the problem of evil), there are many things around us that are created to promote this relational, purposeful existence. From whence did they originate? Many have taken for granted that a supreme being must be the ultimate provider of such grand design and purpose.

□ In our best moments, we remain open to that which is good and true. That’s the way we are constructed as humans. Scientific discoveries, noble acts of philanthropy, selfless concern for others, and countless other endeavors are motivated by the pursuit of the good and the true. Are we open to a higher, divine reality? Are you?

All of the above ideas are consonant with the idea of a transcendent, personal reality. When combined with other features of humankind, they attest to the reasonableness of a theistic worldview and the sensibleness of those who choose to embrace this “Other,” who has (apparently) made us for himself. One ancient sage, speaking of this divine reality, said it this way: “Come to Me and be rescued, all of the earth.” The way we are made, the type of world in which we live, the trends of life–all of these and more seem to confirm the believability of this invitation. Who knows? Maybe we were born for this very purpose, to receive such an invitation.

scary thoughts on halloween

At this time of year, certain Christians get into a tizzy over the (supposedly) satanic elements of Halloween. While admitting some of the original associations, the great majority of people today have no dark impulses when it comes to this holiday. Indeed, it amazes me how often we equate popular ideas with evil (which may or may not be the case) or attempt to “prove” the historical connection between satanic elements and various holidays (e.g., Halloween).

But often, or so it seems to me, we miss the more obvious, every day influences that lead people away from God, truth, grace, and love. I wonder what role satan has within the accusing church, that is, among those who specialize in holiday bashing and the like and conduct their attacks (in some cases) in a very condescending, arrogant, and less than gracious way.

Regarding the celebration of these things, I agree that we should avoid direct links to that which is evil. But, following the advice of those who want to celebrate Halloween in a Christian way, I am very much uncertain what this actually means. Do we have to Christianize it? I suppose we could take this route, but it seems somewhat arbitrary to me (there are no precise rules for having a distinctly Christian Halloween) , and I’m not convinced that this is a very effective way of helping others (when we choose artificial ways to be different from others, we most often look more hilarious than holy). A better approach, I think, is not necessarily to create a Christian version of Halloween but rather to live like Christians amid Halloween and other holidays. Rather than decrying, say, a Star Wars or a monster costume, we would be better off wearing the costumes but in truly faithful ways. What does that look like? Certainly, it would include exhibiting such traits as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and self control. Likewise, it would entail a determination to follow the wisdom which says, “they will know we are his disciples by our love for one another” (not, primarily, by our opposition to everything cultural). To celebrate in ways unlike the world involves, more than anything else, an effort to embody the sacrificial love of Jesus, whether or not we’re turned on by jackolanterns, pumpkins, and the like. Well, I have to run for now, for I’m on my way to a scary movie. :-)

metanoia–the ongoing need to change

“Repent!” I have to acknowledge that I most often hate it when I hear the word. Often, it comes across as an arbitrary emotional appeal designed to by-pass common-sense and the intellect, an effort to harangue people through the manipulation of human guilt into jumping through various religious hoops. A certain (earned) reputation often accompanies those who use such language. Though some of my personal aversion to this terminology may be due to the caricature promulgated by those opposed to anything Christian, I can’t help but recall the countless times when I’ve been embarrassed by the idiosyncracies of those who incessantly cry, “Repent!”

But, lest we allow our antipathy to fundamentalist caricatures to hinder our progress in (or toward) faith, we should proceed with more balance. Though “repent” may leave a bad taste in your mouth, the actual meaning of the concept is healthy and wise.

The Greek term for repent is metanoia, and it represents an idea that it quite prevalent in the New Testament. Basically, metanoia means “to turn.” It is used in a variety of contexts and implies both a “turning from” that which is harmful and spiritually damaging and a “turning to” that which is good and spiritually rejuvenating. When put that way, the notion of repentance sounds relevant, for we all need to be reminded to stay away from whatever endangers us and to stay near whatever is beneficial to us. This is what we tell our children, is it not? Likewise, we use such words when we’re trying to assist family members or friends who need to make wise choices. Repentance, then–the idea if not always the actual term–is something we are all aware of.

If we were to describe metanoia, it would include (though it wouldn’t be limited to) the following: turning from selfishness to selflessness, from arrogance to humility, from personal autonomy (“I can figure everything out on my own without the help of anyone.”) to reliance on that which is transcendent, from arrogant close mindedness to wise openness, from inappropriate behaviors to helpful and honorable ones, from dishonesty to integrity, from going you own way to following Jesus into the unknown.

Of course to provide these examples is to uncover our own inconsistencies, our own fickle tendencies. Therefore, or so it would seem, the metanoia spoken of here is not simply a once and done deal but rather an attitude that, once begun, continues throughout one’s life.+ And if that is the case, we are faced with the issue of what we are accountable to, or to whom, and this brings us squarely to Jesus and to his call.

Early in Jesus’ ministry, Jesus put it this way: “Follow Me.” He said it in a number of different ways and to a variety of people, but the basic message remained the same: “Follow Me.” At the end of the day metanoia is about acknowledging that he is worth following. It’s not about strange religious garb or weird personal habits. It’s not about living in a bubble, separated from reality. It’s not about some sort of monastic existence or abandoning one’s personality and gifts. Rather, it’s about allowing this carpenter’s son to shape and give purpose to your personality and provide direction in the use of your gifts. Indeed, it’s about recognizing that your gifts actually originate in him.

Metanoia, therefore, may not be such a bad thing after all. It may, in fact, be our highest calling. Repentance challenges us daily to live our lives with purpose and integrity, motivated and empowered by the One who governs our lives and gives us hope.

+ In one sense, repentance can be understood as a “once and for all” event, a turning away from that which leads us astray and a turning to the One for whom we were created. As such, it is the act that initiates the conversion process. However, repentance also has an ongoing character to it, for we are all prone to wander from God and his ways. In this sense, repentance is continual. The important thing, therefore, is not whether you can identify some specific time when you were initially converted, though some will, but that you make it your practice to follow the living God today.

love God . . . and do what you want! (thoughts on worldliness)

“Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). With these words, John warns us that conformity to the world is antithetical to God’s intentions for his followers. According to John, it is impossible to simultaneously love God and the world. But what does it mean to love the world?

For many worldliness has been defined in very rigid and predictable ways. Revealing clothing, hair length, piercings, tattoos, profanity, alcohol, rock music, and a myriad of other subtle and not so subtle practices are often equated with worldliness. In light of the many abuses, it is perhaps understandable that such standards are promulgated. However, whatever one thinks of these issues, worldliness cannot be reduced to a simple list.

To be worldly is to possess a likeness to those who are “in the world.” “The world,” in Scripture, is a reference to those who think their thoughts and live their lives with an exclusively secular focus, that is, those whose point of reference is limited to humanly contrived ideas. To be worldly, in other words, is to exude those qualities that are prevalent among people who, consciously or not, give little or no thought to God. When any of us fall prey to such a mentality, the result is idolatry (making anything into a “god”), self-centeredness, pride, and a host of other traits. Worldliness, therefore, cannot be so easily and externally defined, and it would be wrong to equate it with simplistic prohibitions.

Still, there is something to be said about the danger inherent in any chosen lifestyle. Thus, when Jesus referred to “the worries of this world,” he made a point to warn us that these can “choke the Word” (Mark 4:1-20). Since the cares in view here are likely a reference to the daily routines in which we find ourselves, it is possible to allow otherwise good and healthy things to consume us and crowd out that which matters most. Given this possibility, the problem of worldliness is not simply involvement in this or that activity (though, of course, it can be); the problem is with ourselves. We are the quite capable of allowing anything–good, bad, or indifferent–to so dominate us that God himself is locked out of our lives. This, in many ways, is the ongoing danger of the world. As the comic strip character Pogo once remarked, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

If this is true, worldliness cannot be thwarted by simply avoiding certain arbitrary practices. The key here is neither avoiding this or that activity nor separating ourselves from daily affairs. Rather, it is a matter of the heart. If you are doing something that is actually inappropriate (e.g., stealing), you are demonstrating worldliness. If you involve yourself in that which is personally problematic (e.g., if you drink when you know that you have a tendency to abuse alcohol), you are in a dangerous place. If you set up anything as an idol, you’re on the wrong path. The crucial element is that of the heart, not some legalistically imposed standard.

The fact is that we cannot escape the daily activities of this life, nor should we want to. Though it is important to steer clear of anything that actually violates God’s intentions, the most important thing we can do is set our minds on “things above” (Colossians 3:1-2). That is, we must look outside of ourselves to the One who was (and is) willing to rescue us from waywardness, envelop us in unconditional love, and lead us on a smooth path. With this focus, we will be energized to give expression to such higher aspirations as selflessness, humility, compassion, and love.

Augustine said it so well many centuries ago when he uttered these words: “Love God, and do what you want.” If we love God, we’ll stay away from things that are improper. If we love God, it’s much more likely that we’ll keep our priorities straight. If we love God, wisdom will more readily permeate our lives. If we love God, we’ll learn that it’s not about whether we consume or abstain from alcohol. What truly matters is that our greatest treasure is a reflection of the goodness and grace we’ve received from our Creator/Savior. In this sense, it’s all about loving God.

Do goof balls go to heaven?

Let me be blunt. Sometimes, I am an idiot, a goof ball who demonstrates little understanding of what it means to live the right way or do the right thing, much less live for God. I have often been hypercritical and hypocritical. My attitude is often not what it ought to be, and only God know how many times I’ve entangled in ideas and actions that belie my supposed commitment to higher things.

How can I even speak about things like truth and faith? What gives me the right to even mention God’s name? After all, if you were to interview my wife and kids, if you could read my mind, if you truly knew how foolishly I can behave, you’d notice a great dichotomy between my interests/claims and the real me. Can blockheads and spiritual hypocrites make it to heaven?

Well, first of all, I should be clear. I’m neither advocating hypocrisy nor promoting a relativistic “do what you want” attitude. At least, that’s not my intent. Indeed, even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals God’s distaste for the inauthentic and fake. We cannot make excuses, in other words.

On the other hand, human experience teaches us how inconsistent we can appear and how flimsy our integrity can be. So, what we are to make of these matters? How can we do justice to the fact that we really cannot yield to an excuse-making agenda, a naive assumption that the way we live doesn’t matter, while simultaneously acknowledging and living with the realization that even the best of human beings are just that, human?

To be honest, I haven’t worked all of this out. Indeed, I tend to think that we simply need to live with the tension. That is, we must hold these self-evident realties together, somehow living with our own faults and inconsistencies yet not succumbing to our worst impulses. Or, to put it another way, we must not allow our wrongful tendencies to go unchallenged, but we also have to accept the truth that we are exactly the type of people whom God came to rescue.

Can spiritually and morally flawed creatures make it to heaven? Yes, I think they can, and I sure hope they can. Indeed, a strong argument can be made that it is specifically the unqualified and unconditional love of God that motivates our efforts to grow as human beings. When we recognize that God’s care for us doesn’t waver, when we realize that it was for people like us that Jesus came in the first place, when we face up to the fact that God embraces us even when we have embraced the things he hates–we are set free and given the impetus for following him. This, I think, is what Scripture is referring to when it says things like, “the love of Christ compels us” (2 Corinthians 5:14).

What’s the bottom line? Resist improper inclinations, and own up to both your imperfections and poor choices. But, even as you “come clean,” always remember that he loves you still, despite your inconsistencies and mess ups. Go to him. Look to him. Allow your thoughts to take you to that place from long ago when the only perfect person who ever lived cared about you so much that he was willing to absorb every wrong you’d ever commit. Our Maker sent his Son to reclaim all who are willing to entrust their lives and destinies to him, and he accepts even goof balls like me.

Hope's Reason: The Apologetic Significance of 1 Peter 3:13-17

Many Christian thinkers defend the discipline of apologetics by quoting 1 Peter 3:15. Here the apologetics mandate is clearly delineated. One problem, however, is that most apologists never bother to exegete the actual text to which they often refer! Therefore, because it plays a vital role in understanding the apologetic task, it may be helpful to take a closer look at this significant passage of Scripture.

Introduction

When it comes to apologetics, one of the most important (and often quoted) passages in Scripture is 1 Peter 3:15. Here the apologetics mandate is clearly delineated as Peter urges his readers to give an answer for their hope. Indeed, there is little question that this text plays a key role in understanding the subject.

But many, who rightly see in this text a justification for apologetics, are prone to merely quote it in a cursory fashion, while barely noticing (or missing!) some of the apologetic guidance this rich passage provides. Therefore, this portion of Peter's first letter warrants deeper reflection on its context and contents.

Survey

Peter's first letter to the believers scattered throughout Asia Minor (i.e., modern day Turkey) is filled with instruction on how to live successfully in a fallen world. This he accomplishes by identifying God's people (1:2; 2:9-10), depicting their relationships within society (2:13-20; 3:1ff), and pointing them to the One who alone can produce lasting hope (1:13). The reason why hope is so significant is because of the reality of suffering, specifically suffering for the sake of Christ (1:6-7; 4:12-19).

It is within the framework of this suffering motif that the apostle encourages his readers to live holy lives (2:15-16; 4:7). Indeed, Peter expands on this theme in 3:13-4:19. Then, within this broader context, he elucidates principles relevant to the subject of suffering for godly conduct in society (3:13-17). This passage further divides into two sections: (1) an encouragement to live zealous and informed lives (3:13-14a), and (2) the provision of an alternative to the intimidation resulting from persecution (3:14b-17). In essence, then, Peter here enjoins his readers to utilize, and so enjoy the benefits of, a truly Christian apologetic. This will be explored in greater detail. In verse thirteen of chapter three, Peter asks a rhetorical question: "Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?" The clear implication is that godly living (depicted, for example, in 3:1-12) can sometimes insulate the believer from certain troubles. On the other hand, suffering cannot be completely avoided, and when it comes, says Peter, Christians are "blessed" (v. 14). "This blessedness or happiness is the certainty that comes from belonging to God and His kingdom with the promises of future vindication."[1]

The thought continues as Peter draws, with minor alterations, from Isaiah 8:12 (LXX): "And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled" (v. 14b). This type of intimidation can be crushing for the suffering believer, leading to turmoil and trepidation. But there is an alternative to fear, one about which Peter has already written (e.g., 1:6-9, 13-16; 2:18-25). The alternative is perseverance, which is not to be viewed as a vague quality. On the contrary, the Christian's continuance in the faith is the result of a changed perspective. Instead of concentrating on the troubles that inevitably result from a God-honoring lifestyle, Christians are to "sanctify Christ as Lord" (v. 15). To sanctify Christ as Lord is to treat Him as He really is, to consciously yield to His authority and will. "The focus of itself is upon the inward acknowledgment of Christ's Lordship."[2] The phrase "in your hearts" refers to the believer's inner life. The believer's commitment begins internally and works its way out in practical ways.

Peter goes on to elaborate on the implications of Jesus' Lordship. For him, this entails the implementation of Christian truth and, among other things, a readiness to give an account of one's hope. The passage reads: "always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is within you" (v. 15). "Always" stresses the ongoing need to remain alert, for unbelievers are watching (v. 15). This means that hope, normally considered an internal characteristic or mind set, is observable. As the Christian anticipates Jesus' return, hope begins to swell, and even present difficulties become something less than defeating. Far from a merely contemplated and/or verbalized wish, biblical hope so permeates the lives of God's people that unbelievers are forced to take notice.

But hope is not only to be perceived but explained. What is needed is a defense or answer. Though the Greek apologia (from which apologetics is derived) is used of a formal defense in a courtroom setting, here it is "being applied to informal exchanges between Christian and non-Christian at any time (aei) and under varied circumstances."[3] The term "account" (logon) similarly implies that "you are to state on what ground you cherish that hope."[4] In view, then, is the believer's effort to communicate objective Christian realities, those which undergird and stimulate hope. "This implies a constant willingness to speak up for him, to confess one's allegiance to him, and to witness fearlessly to his saving grace."[5]

Thus far Peter has urged holy living, even amidst suffering, and he has instructed his readers to "give an answer." This answer, this apologia, however, is not to be thought of as cold, abstract, and (worse still) condescending. Instead Christian apologists (i.e., all believers) are to speak with "gentleness" (prautetos) and "reverence" (phobou). Commentators differ on the precise meaning of these terms. Some take both as a Godward attitude, i.e., Christians are to be humble and respectful/fearful toward God, and this obviously affects one's relationships with others.[6] Many commentators, however, interpret the first term with reference to man, and the second to God. If this is correct, Peter is saying that "gentleness should be shown toward the antagonists and respect emphatically toward God."[7] It is even feasible that both terms are applicable to the Christian's attitude toward unbelievers. In this case, "gentleness and respect" (NIV) are traits exemplified in the evangelist's stance toward others. "‘Respect' would mean treating the unbeliever as what he is—a person created in the image of God. It would mean not talking down to him, but listening to him—not belittling him, but taking seriously his questions and ideas."[8] Whatever the specifics, central to Peter's purpose is the proper "delivery" of the Christian message. Thus life, words, and manner of presentation are all integral to the apologist's mission. As Peter concludes this portion of the letter, he once again reminds his audience that suffering is inevitable. In context, this takes the form of slander (v. 16), which is to be countered by conduct consistent with a "good conscience" (v. 16). When mistreatment is met in such a fashion, revilers are "put to shame" (v. 16). "Possibly he is thinking of the way in which persecutors will be ashamed at the Last Judgment when they realize that the people whom they despised are honored by God. More likely he has in mind a change of heart by the persecutors here in this life."[9] Therefore, if God allows persecution, it ought to be the result of "doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong" (v. 17). This way, both believer and (potentially, at least) unbeliever benefit. Peter encourages this outlook by appealing once again to Christ—the believer's Savior, hope, example, and strength (3:8-22).

As mentioned earlier, 1 Peter 3:15 is often quoted in connection with apologetics. But rarely is it observed within its wider and narrower contexts. Having conducted a survey, however, it is now possible to draw apologetic principles from this pertinent New Testament passage.

Apologetic Principles

The Bible is simply teeming with apologetic data. To 1 Peter 3:13-17 could be added any one of a number of relevant passages (e.g., Acts 17:2-3, 15ff; 19:8; Philippians 1:5-7, 16; Jude 3). Still, this text is indeed significant, for it provides clues as to how Christian apologetics works. To that end, here are a number of relevant principles.

(1) Genuine hope constitutes a kind of apologetic attention-grabber.

Throughout 1 Peter, hope is a predominant theme. This is the case, of course, because of the difficult circumstances that many a first-century believer endured. The same is true today. Trying and hurtful times require something of substance to cling to. Ultimately, only Christ can provide such an anchor for the soul.

But, the presence of hope is not merely a comfort for believers. It is also has a powerful influence on those outsiders who observe Christian behavior. This means that true biblical hope is often the instrument by which non-Christians come to see the power and uniqueness of the Christian gospel.

In a very real sense, then, hope itself—possessed, perceived, and eventually explained—is the impetus for evangelistic success. When unbelievers notice Christ's followers exuding hope, even when surrounded by persecution, they sometimes want to understand this strange outlook. One of the believer's greatest weapons of communication, therefore, is the stability provided by the knowledge of eschatological glory. As this hope permeates a person's life, it serves as a powerful apologetic attention-grabber.

(2) Hope's explanation is key to the apologetic task.

It is true that hope, all by itself, is able to capture the attention of non-Christians. But eventually more must be done and said. While the Christian's life is to attract people to the gospel, at some point this gospel must be verbalized. In other words, hope demands an explanation. As Goppelt notes: "Here every Christian is summoned to be prepared at all times in relation to every person to give an account about the meaning of being a Christian."[10]

Depending on the circumstances, there are many ways that this might be accomplished. For some a simple declaration of Jesus' suitability as Savior is all that is needed. Others require answers to the objections raised against Christianity. For certain individuals misperceptions need correction.

But whatever the particulars, the Christian's witness must center in God's Son. He, after all, is the source of genuine hope. Thus, apologetics involves a concerted effort to declare the facts about Jesus Christ and to show forth the attractiveness of following Him. There are countless reasons why a person should follow the Savior; the believer's task is to share these.[11]

(3) Life and word are inseparably linked in a truly biblical apologetic.

Christian evangelism involves both hope and an explanation of the same. Indeed, Peter seems convinced that these two cannot (or should not) be divorced. After all, a life without a message may impress, but it leaves the onlooker in his sins. The goal of evangelism is not merely that people notice Christian piety, but that they embrace the One who transforms lives. On the other hand, a message devoid of godly example remains unconvincing, even hypocritical. Indeed, one wonders how many have spurned Christianity because of the lack of godliness among professing Christians.

But the different facets of Christian apologetics were never intended to be compartmentalized, for hope and word, life and message work in tandem. Christian witnessing requires speech, the communicated Word of God, even as it demands conduct worthy of this heavenly message. Put plainly, the apologetic task requires a divinely initiated coalescence of life and word.

(4) Evangelistic relevance and apologetic savvy require the diligent use of the mind.

Peter informs his readers that they are to give an answer or a defense to those who ask. But this is not necessarily an easy task. At one level, of course, the Christian message is simple, and all believers ought to be able to share it with others. At another level, though, the complexity of life and of the situations in which men and women find themselves can make communication quite difficult.

For instance, certain people have been influenced by various anti-Christian philosophies.[12] Others have had bad experiences with church people. Indeed, the objections of some are grounded in the bad impressions fostered by true believers.

It is important or Christians to think through the ways in which they communicate with the unbelieving world. Of course believers should not be pressured (from within or without) to feel they must have the answers to all queries. Furthermore, the central answer to which Peter refers here relates to Christian hope, not some philosophical dispute. Still, there does appear to be more to evangelism (and to this passage) than the robotic repetition of a canned message.[13] Instead, Christians are encouraged to give serious responses to (sometimes reasonable, sometimes unreasonable) questions, and this requires some measure of thought. Indeed, apologetics "rests on two premises: (1) that you know something about your friends, and (2) that you know something about Christianity."[14]

It is true, of course, that believers need not become scholars in order to share the good news. Then again, clear thinking was never intended to be an activity reserved for professional theologians.

(5) One aspect of a Christian theodicy[15] is the hope of Jesus' return, coupled with a life transformed by this hope.

Suffering is surely one of the great equalizers of human existence and one of the major objections to Christianity. Indeed, in one sense, Christians and unbelievers share the same lot. Though perhaps for different reasons, all people eventually experience the pangs of heartache. No one can avoid contact with what theologians and philosophers refer to as the problem of evil. Now, the Bible has much to say (directly or by way of implication) about this subject (e.g., Job 38-42), but Peter's theodicy in this text is quite simple. He urges Christians to live soberly within this fallen world (1:13-16; 2:1-2; 4:7ff), and to look ahead to the time when evil's conqueror, Jesus Christ, returns.

Between now and then much suffering may come into a person's life, some of which is baffling and nearly unbearably painful. But there is a difference in the way Christians and non-Christians handle difficulty. When the unbeliever encounters life's trials, the outcome is often one of escape, frustration, depression, and confusion. Thus, when Christians react otherwise, non-Christians—who have themselves experienced pain—take notice. This does not mean that believers never fall apart. Nor does it imply some type of stoic resignation, as a kind of "spiritual" painkiller. It is just that the Christian's overall perspective is the antithesis of unbelieving thought, and this is a powerful argument against the ultimate triumph of evil. Though believers in Jesus are not given a full explanation concerning the problem of evil, they are given hope that one day the trials will end. In fact, Jesus Himself encountered and defeated evil in His cross (e.g., 1:11, 18-21; 2:21-24). Therefore, amidst the pain, Christians can hold up a genuine and powerful antidote to the problem of evil, the hope given to those who trust Jesus Christ. Whatever nagging questions remain, in Him there is enablement to persevere now and to expect that one day evil will be put down forever.

(6) Hard circumstances, especially those resulting from persecution for Jesus' sake, often provide an opportunity for apologetics to flourish.

As Peter's overall context shows, and as noted above, the Christian's response to suffering is a strong argument for the truthfulness of Christianity. In fact so surprising is this response that those who lack such hope are led to ask questions.

But all of this touches on another factor that is sometimes neglected by those emersed in life's trials. Trying circumstances often provide the context within which apologetics flourish. Though all people experience suffering, the Christian is able to handle it differently. This allows the unbeliever to witness, first-hand, the power of the Christian gospel. Since this is so, Christians should be more alert to apologetic opportunities when trials come.

(7) The proclamation of Jesus' Lordship and the use of reasoned arguments work hand in hand in the doing of apologetics.

Within the realm of apologetics, there are two broad camps, presuppositionalism and evidentialism.[16] Usually, these are viewed as separate and irreconcilable positions. What is interesting here, though, is that both are intertwined. Without getting into a detailed philosophical discussion, it appears that Lordship, the presuppositionalist's battle cry, and reasoning, the evidentialist's mainstay, exist side by side. On the one hand, Jesus' Lordship is to be maintained and announced. On the other hand, coherent answers are to be provided for the non-Christian inquirer. A balanced (and biblical!) apologetic can do nothing less.

(8) The gospel is integral to genuine apologetics.

Certain apologists are so concerned with winning an argument that they forget the ultimate purpose for which they are called, the winning of souls to Christ. This being the case, it is very instructive to see Peter's christocentric focus. Though there is much to share with the unbeliever, hope is of paramount importance. This hope centers in Jesus Christ, the Christian's Lord and love. Only He can rescue fallen humans from spiritual slavery.

Therefore apologetics is true to the evangelistic commission only to the degree that it points people to the unique Savior. He, after all, is the sum and substance of Christian theology, fellowship, evangelism, preaching, and life. In Him apologetics finds its sure foundation and goal.

(9) All Christian are to be, at some level, apologists.

Too often Christians consider themselves spectators, mere observers of Christian ministry.[17] From this mistaken perspective, apologetics seems foreign to some. They think it is the responsibility of someone else. Peter doesn't treat apologetics this way. Instead, he encourages believers to join the apologetic venture. While this does not mean that every Christian is equally gifted (or interested) in these matters, at some level all are urged to consider their role within the spheres in which they live.

Christians are often instructed to be heavenly minded (Philippians 4:8; Colossians 3:1-4);[18] when this outlook evokes a response, they should be prepared. Answers must be provided, reasons given, hope explained. It is the privilege and duty of all Christ's followers to join in these noble efforts.

(10) Apologetics is central, not incidental, to the evangelistic cause.

Apologetics is often treated as ancillary to the task of reaching the world for Christ. Sometimes this mistaken notion is caused by overly zealous defenders of the faith, who promote an imbalanced (or even unbiblical) philosophy of apologetics.

A more biblical approach enables the Christian to see the true relevance of apologetics. Though there are many facets to this discipline, at the core it must be seen as integral to Christian evangelism. Here in 1 Peter it forms the content of the believer's message. Indeed, to excise the apologia to which Peter refers is to strip the gospel of its explanatory force, thus robbing unbelievers of the opportunity to know precisely what it is that stirs the hearts of God's people. If evangelism is, strictly speaking, the sharing of the how-to's of Christian salvation, apologetics is the platform on which evangelism is built. Evangelism says, "Come to the Savior." Apologetics exclaims, "Here is why." Whatever else is true, apologetics must not be minimized or treated as secondary. Instead it should be viewed as an indispensable component of the mission to show forth the beauty of Christ, the believer's hope.

Concluding Reflections

Life is complex and often unpredictable. Joy and sorrow, peace and misery, occupy the lives of all people. Christians especially know this to be the case, for in Christ joys are multiplied, as are persecutions.

It is within this up and down world, that the Christian gospel offers so much hope. This hope, as Peter instructs, is not temporary or shallow. Rather it finds its anchor in the magnificent Jesus, the One who came to save and who will come again to complete the work He initiated.

If anything ought to be true of the believer, it is this mighty allegiance to the Lord. He not only provides blessings now, but hope for tomorrow. So powerful is this hope that it is capable (in God's grace) of reaching into the hearts of lost men and women. When this occurs, they want to know why the Christian is so confident and secure.

A faithful apologia begins with a heart commitment; Jesus is "sanctified as Lord." This works its way out in the words spoken to those so desperately in need of the Savior.

"Our apologetics must be pervaded by a sense of Christ's lordship, and this demands diligent preparation so that we may be able to obey our Lord's great commission, being prepared to answer inquirers—not only with proclamation, but with answers and reasons."[19]

In the final analysis Christians must learn to appreciate the grace that causes them to be members of "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession." Prolonged contemplation of this blessed condition can only compel believers to "proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called [them] out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9). This declaration of the splendid Savior is at the hub of biblical apologetics. To that end, may the Lord Himself reign in the hearts of His people, shining forth in their lives, thus providing opportunities to share the reason for the hope that is in them.

NOTES

1. Edwin A. Blum, 1 Peter, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol 12. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 240.
2. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 49. (Waco,Tx.: Word Books, 1988), 187.
3. Ibid., 188.
4. Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishers, 1976), 1421.
5. Scot McKnight, 1 Peter, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 213.
6. See Michaels, 189.
7. I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter, The IVP New Testament Series (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 116.
8. John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994), 30.
9. Marshall, 116.
10. Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 244.
11. Here the plural, reasons, has been employed, but the text of 1 Peter 3:15 actually reads reason. The use of the singular is probably intended by Peter to highlight the ultimate cause of a person's hope, i.e., Jesus Christ. But the declaration of this single reason, by the nature of the case, demands fuller explanation. Thus, the Christian's reason for hope is Jesus Christ, which is demonstrated through the use of many arguments or reasons.
12. For an exposé of some popular belief systems, see Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil: Restoring the Soul in a Disintegrating Culture (Nashville, Tn.: Word Publishing, 1997). Also, a good examination of world views can be found in James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988).
13. This is not to suggest that it is wrong for the Christian to memorize and rehearse what he or she might say. The point, rather, is that it is incumbent upon believers to acquire as much knowledge as they reasonably can. Though the essentials of the gospel can be grasped and communicated by a child, the Christian message should not be reduced to the simple repetition of the same words. For example, compare and contrast the evangelistic method of Acts 7 with that of Acts 17. Note also Peter's own instruction to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18).
14. Michael Green and Alister McGrath, How Shall We Reach Them? The Christian Faith to Nonbelievers (Nashville, Tn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 50.
15. A theodicy is an attempt to explain the presence of evil in a good and sovereign God's world. One component of a full-orbed apologetic, therefore, is to provide a solid, biblical perspective on such matters. See, for example, D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990).
16. Presuppositionalism and evidentialism are broad categories, admitting a wide range of perspectives. For an effort to combine the strengths of each, see Ronald B. Mayers, Balanced Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1984). See also D. A. Carson's discussion in The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 184-188.
17. Contrast this with Ephesians 4:11-13, where "the saints" (i.e., all believers) are the ones performing Christian ministry.
18. An old saying goes, "You are too heavenly minded to be of any earthy good." Quite the contrary, the Bible tells us that it is precisely this "heavenly mindedness" that equips Christians to benefit others!
19. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), 358.

Hope's Reason: The Apologetic Significance of 1 Peter 3:13-17
Copyright © 1999 by Carmen C. DiCello
All rights reserved.

Those damn Christians! -– Believing the message when you have reservations about the messenger

You’ve probably witnessed it many times, a believer proudly strutting, sanctimoniously proclaiming some odd agenda. What happens when a life doesn’t match the message, when it actually violates common sense and contradicts the claims of the messenger? The scenes are all to familiar.

• A preacher prances across a stage, waving a Bible, speaking with an authoritative twang, and promising some untold blessing. Often, the rewards seem to be in proportion to the amount of money you send to the preacher’s organization.

• A zealous believer spends an inordinate amount of time denouncing the behavior of others and threatening them with damnation if they don’t immediately conform to his standards. Many times, these standards appear more an expression of the believer’s practices than of a divine command.

• An overly vocal religious group makes it clear not only that its views are correct but that anyone who disagrees is at least a fool. Opponents are viewed as enemies, and a condescending attitude pervades any attempt at discussion.

• A religious “expert” is interviewed about some current event or controversial issue, and he/she seems unable to have an intelligent conversation with those who disagree. Be “faithful” is construed as verbally stating the facts as loudly and boisterously as possible.

• A man stands on a street corner and harangues those who pass by, warning them of impending danger. “Repent” is repeatedly on his lips, and he is evidently quite confident that his words and accompanying actions are the answer to life’s questions.

• A couple of believers at work are always using Christian speak, taking their religious stand and announcing it in distinct religious language. The lingo, which is only partly understood by others, seems strained and foreign to outsiders.

The intent of the above examples is not to demean those who sincerely desire to live out their religious convictions. Indeed, there are certainly times when speaking out boldly or defending the truth are admirable qualities. The unfortunate point here, however, is that many times the actions and attitudes of believers are anything but admirable. When this happens, the behaviors displayed reinforce long held stereotypes and, as a result, many people–within and especially outside the church–are turned off.

Ghandi once reportedly remarked that, though he admired Jesus, he would not consider becoming a Christian because many are so unlike their Christ. To put it bluntly, one of the great obstacles to faith is the faithlessness and/or hypocrisy of its adherents. Why should anyone take Jesus seriously if his followers live in ways that are, frankly, unattractive and perhaps questionable? These are pertinent issues that we must face with seriousness and honestly.

In thinking through these difficulties, I admit that I’ve often been irritated and repelled by the strange behavior of many religious adherents. The all too predictable air of superiority, the arrogant swagger, the condescending attitude, the “I already have everything figured out” mentality–these and other traits are offensive to me. What I offer here, therefore, is the view of one who is often repulsed by religious stereotypes. However, despite “those damn Christians” and our aversion to some of the things that are done in Jesus’ name, it just might be possible to approach these matters in a way that actually bolsters faith. Let’s take a look.

Handling Hypocrisy and . . . Weirdness

□ While some believers are indeed hypocritical, one wonders what portion of the typical opposition to Christians and Christianity is based on the often repeated caricatures that are so prevalent. It is, frankly, popular to criticize those who make statements pertaining to religion, and some pundits have made a religion out of attacking anything that pertains to values or morality. In at least some cases, therefore, the hype outmatches the facts, and the common religious depiction is exaggerated. Do you know of any religious person who is basically a good and kind individual? Disagreements to the side, how do the believers with whom you’re acquainted fare when compared to, say, the average unbeliever? Is it not possible that at least some of the attacks on religion are cases of persecution? Could it even be that certain religious types are actually models of integrity? More so, is not the impulse to oppose hypocrisy itself a religious or spiritual impulse? Those with a distaste for predictable religiosity (and I am one of them) must honestly face such questions.

□ Let’s face it, none of us escapes some measure of hypocrisy. We are all inconsistent at best. Have you ever made promises that you were unable or unwilling to fulfill? How often have you been insincere or self-centered? Indeed, even when you fall far short of your own ideals, you don’t abandon those ideals, do you? Though we often behave unlovingly, most of us still believe in love. While many of us have told “white lies” (or worse!), we still cherish honesty. However unkind we have acted, we don’t normally depreciate acts of kindness. Inconsistency, you see, is a part of the human fabric. Thus, before we too quickly dismiss Jesus because of the shallowness of some of his followers, we probably ought to take an honest look at ourselves. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to Jesus despite the fickleness and, sometimes, strange behavior of some who utter his name.

□ Of course there is an even better reason to look to Jesus, for he–above others–is critical of those who act with pretentious piety. Even a cursory look at the Gospels reveals that Jesus most often attacked not the average person but those who bragged about being the guardians of truth. Though Jesus hated and opposed arrogance, he was able to distinguish between genuine beliefs (from and about) God and those who sometimes used those beliefs to carry out personal agendas. No one utilized “fire and brimstone” language more than Jesus, and no one was on the receiving end of such judgments more than the proud, self-proclaimed defenders and executors of the faith. Jesus didn’t allow the imperfections of people to stand in the way of genuine faith. Should we? Ironically, it may be that the inconsistency we find in others (and ourselves!) is not a deterrent to faith but an indicator that the truth is “out there.” The fact that hypocrisy and related offenses raise our ire suggests that there is some higher standard that we ought to pursue.

The call to follow Jesus is coupled with danger, for we live in a dangerous world and we all possess deceitful hearts. Perhaps, this is why in choosing to believe certain things about Jesus we must never forget that we are ultimately following him. He alone can enable us to navigate our way through the dangers. It is comforting–at least to me–to observe how radical and, shall we say, anti-traditional Jesus can be. He takes up our cause and mingles with common folk. He criticizes the high and mighty and hangs out with the weak and unstable. He refuses to bend to the status quo when the status quo is contrary to the will of his Father and the good of his people. And, he invites us to go with him–boldly yet humbly, openly yet confidently–on a journey of faith.

Like you, I too am annoyed by so much of what goes by the name “Christian.” The strange beliefs and behaviors, the weird lifestyles, the ostentatiousness of so many are a real “turn off.” To be honest, it occasionally makes me question the whole enterprise. But in my better moments I also realize my own many shortcomings, and I recognize, as well, that Jesus long ago anticipated this sort of thing. Unsteady as we often are, bumbling idiots that we might be, there is still a place for faith in our world. Faith works its way around the obstacles of hypocrisy, pomposity, and wackiness, and finds a way to follow. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. That’s how faith operates.

One ancient sage said it well: “We have this treasure in earthen vessels.” Somehow, in the mystifying ways of God, this is the way he’s chosen for us. We must still oppose hypocrisy, of course, especially in ourselves, and we must do our best to distinguish between perfect truth and our imperfect expressions of it. Along the way, we must learn to embrace the treasure itself. The treasure is worth it all. Skeptical, uncertain, even cynical as we might be, there is still room for the treasure. You can still believe in the treasure.

Where did we come from?: origins, faith, and our place in the universe

It stands out vividly in my mind. We were traveling home from my grandparents, and I poked my head forward and asked the “big question.” It was not the first time I had inquired, but it stands out more than the others. “Mom, dad–where do babies come from?” Of course a good portion of this type of questioning is related to sheer curiosity and, perhaps, a sense of adventure as we seek to discover some truth that is hidden somewhere away from the minds of children.

Yet, as we get older, the subject of origins doesn’t go away. It’s not so much the biology of it all that intrigues us but the larger issue of who or what caused us to be in the first place. Are we the result of chance mutations in an otherwise meaningless universe? Or, are we the product of some special creation?

The opinions on this subject range from the narrowminded assertions of purely naturalistic evolutionists to the dogmatic claims of those who are so convinced about the precise mechanism of creation that it seems they must have been with God when he created. Between these, a host of other options are available. Some separate science and religion entirely, feeling that neither has the right to encroach upon the territory of the other. Others, theistic evolutionists, seek the blend the two, accepting evolution but attributing it to a deity who got the whole thing started. Still others advance various types of progressive creationism in which God creates life and then “steps in” at various times to introduce new features to the creation.

Though much ink has been spilt over the precise answer to such questions, most of what I will do here concerns broader issues of origins. Without denying the need for ongoing discussion of these matters, my intent is more modest but also, I hope, more profound and far-reaching. Where do we come from, and what does this tell us about our place in the cosmos? To this end, I offer these brief excursions.

The subject of origins is integrally tied to our sense of purpose in the universe.

While the precise mechanism that yielded our existence may be a hot topic, the real issue is whether we can honestly conclude that we have a raison d’etre, a reason for being. Where we came from is inextricably tied to our sense of purpose. If, as many naturalistic suggest, we are merely the result of blind chance plus time, if we originated in purposelessness, it is likely that our existence lacks meaning. As Scripture says in one place, “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” While we can lose ourselves in a lifetime of supposedly relevant activities, it is difficult to imagine how these activities amount to anything more than wishful thinking.

Then again, if we are the result from some creative purpose, if we owe our existence to a master Creator, our origin might be meaningful. Indeed, if the Maker is personal and benevolent, our whole existence takes on a more pleasant hue. One might even argue that this involves nobility.

The thing to understand is that there is a correlation between the debate on origins and the issues of identity and purpose. Indeed, at some point when contemplating these matters, we have to face up to the ultimate question: Is there a God?

While it can be relevant to discuss such matters as the age of the universe, these must be viewed as ancillary (and not central) when it comes to thinking about origins.

A good portion of the debate about origins has focused on the age of the universe. Evolutionists place the age of the universe in the a billions of years, while young earth creationists place it in the order of thousands (or tens-of-thousands) of years. Then, there are old earth creationists, who believe that the universe is old but that an old universe can be reconciled with Genesis 1 and other passages from the Bible.

Too often, however, we have allowed our disagreements to degenerate to such a point that they become useless. The real issue is not how old the universe is but whether or not the universe was created with intent. Both old earth and young earth creationists, along with theistic evolutionists, agree that there is a God. If that is the case, can we not at least allow this to be a starting point for discussions? And can we not also agree that it is possible to have a relationship with a living God even if disagree over the manner in which he placed us here?

Please understand, I am not underestimating the implications of the various views. For instance, many young earth creationists believe we are compromising the biblical text if we allow for any other possibility. Likewise, many old earth creationists feel that we are abandoning common sense and the findings of science if we deny that the universe is ancient. But the reality is that fidelity to the biblical text and properly and honestly interpreting the created order are both necessary. When the Bible is set aside in a cavalier fashion, we lose our greatest spiritual resource. On the other hand, when we too easily dismiss the discoveries of science, we run the risk of neglecting our God-given instincts, our ability to interpret whatever it is that God has placed before our eyes. This is why, according to Christian theology, we must respect both special revelation–God’s special interventions in the historical process along with the writings provided for our edification and spiritual health–and natural revelation–our sense that his “fingerprints” are everywhere in creation. More importantly, we need to rely on him if we are to be able to make any sense of the world at all. The point, again, is not to ignore debates about some of these topics but simply to recognize that these should “take a back seat” in the overall discussion of origins.

The primary purpose of Genesis concerns the prerogatives and majesty of the Creator and our relationship to him.

Christians (rightly, I think) have a high regard for Genesis One, for there we discover the Jewish-Christian perspective on beginnings. Still, so much debate has surrounded matters of detail (e.g., the meaning of the Hebrew term “Yom,” i.e., day, the order of creation, the age of the earth) that we sometimes neglect the larger picture. When Genesis One was written, when the Psalmist spoke of the creation (Psalm 8), when Jesus referred to the beginning (Matthew 19:4, 8; Mark 10:6)–the major points of emphasis were highlighted. What are these?

First, the true God is the Maker of all things; he, not impersonal forces or other gods, is the Creator. Second, creation is separate and distinct from the Creator, being designed and fashioned by him. Third, the living God is a magnificent and all powerful being, worthy of our honor. Fourth, human beings are the crown of God’s creative activity, occupying a special place among his creatures. Fifth, we were made for God. We are both subject to divine authority and find our greatest meaning through him. Though other topics are relevant, it is important to accentuate those truths that are central to the writers of Scripture, drawing forth from the relevant texts that which God intends for us. Whatever else is true, the heavens declare the glory of their architect. However much we don’t know, we can know him and marvel at the intricacies and spectacular displays of his wisdom and power. The Word informs us of creation’s Originator, as the world shows us the marvels of the Originator’s handiwork. Through it all, we encounter beauty and mystery, along with the imperfections of a marred and scarred world. Likewise, we are drawn to the true source and goal of creation, the One whose imprint is there for all who are willing to see.