The Foul Play of the American Atheist

American Atheists, in an attempt to run a PR campaign against the Bible paid for this billboard in Harrisburg, PA. There are a number of problems with the AA’s methodology, not the least of which is the incredible lack of a cohesive morality within their worldview. At the most fundamental level, Atheism requires naturalism in order to remain a viable worldview. Naturalism denies the existence of God and by definition could never affirm the existence of something as abstract as morality. Moreover, naturalism would necessarily deny objective meaning at worse or at best, it would have no basis whatever for contending it does.

The AA must establish that truth exists, that it is knowable, that objective morality exists and that human beings have value and hence, it is possible to devalue them and such devaluing is objectively wrong, that it is absolutely true that it is wrong and that we can know with certainty that it is wrong. In other words, the only way that AA’s can condemn slavery is to adopt an epistemology, ontology, and ethic that is remarkably similar to that of Christianity. Atheism has no basis for believing that absolute truth exists, that it is knowable, that human beings have value, and that life has any meaning or purpose, or that objective morality exists.

In order for slavery to be wrong, human beings must have inherent worth. It must be possible for humans to commit evil against one another. Yet, naturalism has no basis for thinking such evil actually exists, let alone is possible. If all matter is the product of time + chance, then life has absolutely no meaning, no purpose, and no value. This billboard is put up by people who have spent the last few decades arguing that truth does not exist, that there are no absolutes, and that morality is really a convention of society. In other words, why should we bother to pay much attention to a group whose own beliefs call into question their own reason for existing in the first place?

The billboard is referencing the apostle Paul’s instructions to slaves. Slavery was a common practice in Greco-Roman culture. It was a reality with which the very small church at the time had to face. However, that the slave-master relationship within the Christian community even at the earliest stages of the church was far different from the images we have of American slavery cannot be denied. The goal of the American Atheists is to imply that Christianity along with the House of Representatives endorse or approve of the tyrannical practices that slaves experienced in American history. This implication is outrageous, unethical, and injudicious. The Bible specifically condemns mistreatment of slaves by their masters. In Eph. 6:9, Masters are warned not to use threats against their slaves. They are also warned against showing partiality. In Col. 4:1, Paul commands masters to dispense justice and fairness among their slaves. The American Atheists fail on both fronts. Their naturalistic worldview has no coherent basis from which to condemn slavery. Secondly, Christianity in no way endorses the kind of treatment that the mention of slavery conjures up in the American mindset.

The Goal of Christian Instruction

Human behavior is a fascinating subject. Why do we do the things we do? A large work of study seems to indicate that human beings behave the way they behave because they value the consequences that particular behavior affords. A man may spend a great deal of time watching his professional sports team because he derives a sense of satisfaction from watching his team engage in that competition. When his team is engaged in a competition, you can count on him to observe the match so long as it is within his power to do so and, providing there are no other behaviors available that may provide for him a more valued reward. This is the nature of human beings and of human behavior. Not only is this true for non-Christians, it is equally true for Christians. This is also true of the apostle Paul who himself had a goal in mind when he sent his letters to a particular audience. Clearly, Paul valued his work and he deeply enjoyed the rewards of his behavior. Of course, the difference between what one actually values and enjoys versus what one should value and enjoy are two entirely different matters.

In I Timothy 1:5 we find the following revelation: τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a genuine faith. Initially two things jump off the page when I read this verse: 1. Paul was instructing Timothy. 2. Paul’s instructions had a very specific goal. The Greek word paraggelias appears five times in the NT. Paul uses it three times while Luke accounts for the remaining two. The word is a derivative of the Greek word paraggello which means to order, to command, and to proclaim. Luke uses this derivative in Acts 17:30 when he says that God is declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent. This indicates that Timothy would have understood “instruction” in a much differently than we do in modern times. To us, instruction has nothing to do with imperatives either implicitly or otherwise. For us, an imperative is always a kind of instruction. However, we seldom think of instruction in and of itself as an imperative. When we read this verse in our modern English translations through the grid of our culture, we tend to weaken the meaning of Paul’s words. The Greek word paraggelias is translated command twice, commandment once, and strict orders once. Out of the five occurrences, only once is it translated instructions. The general thrust of this word is an instruction, command, or proclamation given by someone in a position of authority. In other words, we take for granted that the person receiving the instructions will comply. For Paul, the possibility that Timothy would not receive his instructions did not exist. The presumption was that Timothy would acknowledge and appropriate his authoritative instructions. This is remarkable different from how most professing Christians view Paul’s instructions today.

Secondly, Paul had a goal for his instructions. He was not aimlessly writing Timothy to transfer information. The Greek word telos signifies the purpose of an event or state, viewed in terms of its results. Paul was not interested is merely passing along some information to Timothy. He had a goal in mind for his instructions. Telos appears some 40 times in the NT. It is translated end sixty percent of the time. The word enjoys wide usage by numerous NT authors. It appears in every gospel. Six times the word is translated “outcome.” In Rom. 6:22 Paul says, “But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.” The idea is that Paul has a very specific end that he wishes to accomplish by issuing these instructions to Timothy. He sends the message to Timothy with clear deliberateness. What is the goal for Paul’s instruction? Paul does not leave us at the mercy of sinful speculation. He tells us expressly that his instructions should result in three specific behaviors.

Paul intends his instructions produce the kind of love that can only find its source in God. He says, “Love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a genuine faith.” The idea here is to have love for someone or something, based on sincere appreciation and high regard – to love, to regard with affection, loving concern, love.” [Louw-Nida 25.43] Modern American Christians hardly understand the nature of the love discussed in Scripture. In modern America and the west, love is most often confused with emotions. The romantic fantasy only serves to add extreme perversion to the true nature of godly love, which is, true love. In Greco-Roman culture, love was a bond or an attachment to a group or a person. It may or, may not have been accompanied by emotions or affection. [Pilch & Malina, Handbook of Biblical Social Values] At the same time, the Mediterranean culture had and has issues of its own in terms of recognizing the relationship between love and act. Jesus was constantly tying love to actions. This was unusual for that specific mindset. Nevertheless, it is clear that one does not meet the obligation to love by feeling a certain way about someone. Action is the underlying theme of love in the NT not to mention throughout all of Scripture. To love someone is to have a certain disposition toward that person. While it includes acting to help when a need arises, it is more than that. Paul told us we could actually give all our goods to feed the poor and still lack love! That is a foreign concept to the Western mindset. We think that philanthropy equals love. Obviously, it is not: at least not according to Paul.

Love is much more than outward doing and even inward feelings. Primarily, this love is ground in a pure heart. The Greek word katharas concerns a ritual purity. The idea is “pure in the eyes of God.” Ritual purity is far more complex than this blog can treat. Suffice it to say that New Testament purity differs remarkably from the concept of purity in Western culture. David deSilva writes,

A second prominent line urges us to abstain from polluting the church, keeping the holy congregation without blemish. Christians are put on their guard against defiling the body of believers with their own persistence in one sin or another, or with bringing the lies of the world into the church, thus defiling its vision, hindering its mission and muting its witness. Since disruption of the (social) body is a source of defilement, it is also incumbent on each believer to abstaining from the murmuring, the grumbling, the wrangling and the power plays that pollute a congregation.[1]

The idea is that the kind of love Paul is hoping for is one that comes from a heart that God says is right! Only a regenerate heart is capable of such love. Regeneration then, is a prerequisite for this love. However, such regeneration does not guarantee that we are necessarily there yet! What it does provide for is the necessary framework and presuppositions for one to move to this kind of love. On the other hand, rejection of this idea and behavior that clearly demonstrates this love is absent, hasn’t even begun, could be a clear indication that Christ also is absent. Read John’s first letter if you want to know more about that.

The second characteristic of God-approved love is that it emanates from a good conscience. The Greek is quite simply, “suneideseos aagathes.” This word conveys a sense of moral sensitivity. The word appears 30 times in the NT and 29 of those times it is rendered conscience in the NASB. In some languages, it may be rendered ‘the inner voice’ or ‘the voice in one’s heart.’ The term conscience in this case should cannot rightly be separated from the Greek term agathos.

b) As a t.t. “good conscience” (1 Tim 1:5, 19; cf. Acts 23:1; 1 Pet 3:16, 21; Heb 13:18) belongs to the late period of the NT. Reacting against Gnosticism, the Pastorals call for conduct that corresponds to a faith that takes creation seriously and to the love commandment (1 Tim 1:14). “Thus the traditional parenesis with its household codes, lists of virtues and vices, and its emphasis on the value of marriage and family and on the indispensability for communal life of the normal virtues of good citizenship. Thus the demand for ‘good works’ (1 Tim 2:10; Titus 2:14) and the good or pure conscience (1 Tim 1:5; 3:9)” (P. Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur [1975] 234).[2]

That a good conscience refers to good in a moral sense in this context is unquestionable. Paul uses the same construction in 1:19 where he says the opposite has resulted in disaster for some. Throughout the pastorals in nearly every other instance he uses the word agathos, he does so in reference to works. Paul is seeking the kind of love that emanates from a “good conscience.” This is a conscience of the highest moral quality.

Finally Paul seeks the kind of love that has a sincere faith at its substructure. Rather than focus on pisteos, which is the Greek word for faith, I will spend some time on the word anupokritou. This word appears six times in the Greek NT. It stems from the same Greek work for hypocrisy with the addition of the Greek preposition anti which means against. Quite literally, this is a faith is that is “not a play acting” kind of faith. It refers to being with pretense. It is a faith that is real. The word means that which is genuine and sincere, and hence lacking in pretense of show. Of this six occurrences in the Greek NT, it is rendered sincere three times, without hypocrisy twice and genuine once. Two-thirds of its usage occur in Paul and twice in the pastorals. The idea is that genuine faith is the necessary basis for the kind of love God approves. Genuine faith produces fruit, good deeds, and a clean heart with godly intentions.

The goal of Christian instruction is love. It is the God kind of love. Standing at the very head of this love is a love for God. From this love for God, this love from a pure heart, a moral conscience, and a genuine faith, flows love for the Christian group, the community if you will. Love begins in regeneration, visible at first only to God for God is the one who implants it. But like a volcano, it cannot be held invisible. It is active and her deeds, as she grows within the heart of the believer, only become more and more obvious to those around her/him.

---

[1] David Arthur deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity : Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 314.

[2] Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, vol. 1, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990-), 7.

Franklin Graham on the Faith of Barak Obama

Is it my imagination or are we constantly living in multiple controversies simultaneously in the Christian community these days? The latest flap is Rev. Graham’s Santorum versus Obama on the genuineness of their individual Christianity. Graham was asked if he thought that Obama was a Christian. He was clearly unprepared for the question. His response seemed to lack conviction and it showed. This is not necessarily all bad. What born again leader could say that they accept Obama at his word without a degree of discomfort on their face? In all fairness to Graham, he was attempting to avoid self-righteous politics which all too often Christians are guilty of. However, in the end, Rev. Graham fell victim to the very thing he seemed to want to avoid. A better response than to waffle around and take Obama at his word would have been to ask the interviewer why he was asking such a question of Graham to begin with. Did the interviewer really want to know, sincerely, what Graham believed and why or did he want to create some controversy and drive up ratings? You decide.

Gospel ministers are not in the business of making pronouncements on the faith of political leaders, good, bad, or indifferent. Gospel ministers are in the business of promulgating the gospel. This does not mean that they ought to remain silent when given the sort of platform that Rev. Graham often finds himself occupying. This interview was one more opportunity for Franklin Graham to preach the gospel, as offensive as that may have been. After all, did not Paul himself tell us that such preaching of such a message would only be greeted by offense? (I Cor. 1:18) Paul said he determined to know nothing among the Corinthians except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. This is the business of the gospel preacher.

We entangle ourselves in unnecessary and grievous distractions when we busy ourselves in the affairs of politics and mere social concerns. Behind every social ill there is a spiritual deficiency and it is that deficiency that ought to concern us. It is simply wrong for any gospel minister to publicly praise the faith of any political candidate if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of pernicious politics within the Christian community. The business of gospel ministers and apologists is to proclaim the gospel and defend the faith, not to serve as defenders of the political party they deem closest to that faith. When Franklin Graham asserts publicly that one candidate is a believer while claiming that the president is not, he opens not only himself up to the criticism of partiality and hypocrisy, but the rest of the Christian community with him. If Rev. Graham should apologize to anyone, it should be to the Christian community for the embarrassment he has caused us all.

Is Barak Obama a Christian? Is Rick Santorum a Christian? Is Mitt Romney a Christian? In the promulgation of the gospel, what difference does it make? It makes not one iota of difference if these men are true Christians or not. What matters is the opportunity this questions provides in the publication of the gospel. This is a chance for us to address what it means to be Christian. And that we cannot answer that question without answering first “what is the gospel?” A person who is in fact a Christian is one who is a true follower of Christ in everything He commands. Can a man be a Christian and at the very same time adopt the lifestyle of defending, protecting, and promoting the murder and butchery of innocent babies whether in or outside the mother’s womb? Christians certainly have eternal life abiding in them. Yet John says that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. (I John 3:15) Hence, it follows that since abortion on demand is the wholesale murder of babies, no person who endorses such a practice, who protects, defends, or excuses such a practice can possibly be a Christian. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father. Scripture explicitly teaches that He is divine. No man who denies that Jesus Christ is God is a Christian. The entire gospel hinges upon this truth. Without it, Christianity is another man-made cult doomed to die or become as irrelevant as the next one.

Questions about politics, along with most other questions can provide us with the opportunity to present the gospel. When we get lost in the question itself and forget to think critically and strategically, we miss the opportunity as Franklin Graham did recently. Franklin Graham as far as I know is a godly man. I am reasonably sure he is not pleased with how this incident unfolded and ended. As far as the NAACP is concerned, no gospel minister should feel an ounce of obligation to answer to this group. They hold no sway or authority over the church of Jesus Christ nor should they. No one within the Christian community owes the NAACP anything above and beyond the typical courtesy any other non-religious group deserves. For the NAACP to get involved at all demonstrates their usual desire to intimidate and manipulate all for political gain. Gospel ministers should pay such a group very little mind.

Christians should refuse to give any of these intimidation tactics any place in their conversations. It would be best to ignore any hints of the race card, be it with Barak Obama and the NAACP or T.D. Jakes, not to mention the hysterical use of the homophobia card. I pay little attention to such nonsense because anyone with their wits about them knows full well these tactics are little more than attempts to intimidate those with whom they disagree and desire to silence. Nothing infuriates them more than simply ignoring them and focusing on the real issue of the day. And what is that issue? That issue is Jesus Christ and the revelation of God in Him! He is the gospel!

Gospel ministers must be about the business of preaching the gospel and making disciples. They must spend their time on being acquainted with the Scripture, preaching and teaching from the Scripture and setting an example for the believer to follow. I am convinced that ministers are as confused as ever about who they are and what it is they are to be doing. This should ever be part of our prayer: God teach your ministers to be YOUR ministers.

Rick Warren Emphatically Denies Orange Country Register Report

Apprising Ministries Link

AND

Christian Research Network

The Orange County Register has not responded to Warren's statements at this point.

The Chaos in Christianity – Rick Warren, Islam, and Allah

In his classic book, “Authentic Christianity,” Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones wrote,

“There can be no more urgent question at this present time than just this: What is Christianity?”^[1]

There seems to be no shortage of controversy and chaos these days in the Christian religion. One name that seems perpetually to be at or near the top of that list is Rick Warren. Recently Warren has initiated a campaign to “bridge the gap” between Christians and Muslims, along with other religions. These groups will search for common ground and seek to build relationships and coordinate common goals within the framework of those broadly agreed upon principles and values. Groups that participate in this initiative or network or effort have agreed not to proselytize from one another. According to Warren they are modeling Jesus’ command to “love thy neighbor.” However, one cannot help but ask, “Is this what Jesus meant when He informed us of the second greatest commandment?” Is this what Jesus had in mind when He sent the disciples out in Matthew 28? Finally, did Paul really think the Athenians were worshipping Jesus with their sign “to the unknown god?” This is precisely Warren’s message when he claims that Islam’s Allah is Christianity’s Yahweh. Finally, what are the implications of Warren’s practice to the gospel and what does a responsible and dutiful reaction from the Christian society look like?

First, what is the commandment to “love you’re your neighbor as yourself” actually commanding us to do? Matthew, Mark, and Luke all three mention this commandment in their records. Mark’s account takes place during one of many challenge-riposte games typical of the Mediterranean culture and in Greco-Roman times. In order to appreciate the story, we need to look back to Mark 11:27 in order to understand the antecedent to “they” in 12:13. The chief priests, scribes, and elders sent some Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus specifically to play the challenge-riposte game in hopes to shame him. The religious leaders were very displeased because Jesus was conducting himself as one with authority and this was an obvious threat to their political agenda. Jesus plays the challenge-riposte game with the Pharisees and Herodians, and then with the Sadducees. Jesus wins both challenges, creating a bit of a dither. Finally, a scribe, which is a person that is an expert in the interpretation of the law, decides to issue his own challenge. He asks Jesus, “which is the greatest commandment?” It is in this context that Jesus informs us that we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus answers the challenge brilliantly.  It is significant to note that before Jesus issued this commandment, He harkens back to the first line in the Shema. The Shema is found in Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Num. 15:37-41. The central concern of the Shema is the one true God of Israel and her duty to acknowledge Him all her behavior. Within the context of Deut. 6, the commandments of Yahweh should make anyone who desires to cooperate with those who worship a false god quite uncomfortable. The LORD says, “You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you.” The LORD follows this commandment by instructing the Israelites that it is both good and right in the sight of the LORD for them to drive out their enemies from the land. These enemies are those who worship false gods, the very gods that Yahweh has warned Israel not to follow.

In order to help us understand better what this commandment actually means, Jesus employed the use of a parable that Luke recorded. The parable of the Good Samaritan serves as Jesus’ prime example of what it means to love one’s neighbor. The illustration is perfect because Jesus used the one ethnic group that the Jew hated above all else, the Samaritan. Of all people to set an example of what genuine love is, Jesus picked a Samaritan. The priest and the Levite both failed to stop and provide any care whatever to the injured man. The Samaritan exemplified the love of God more than the religious leaders because he actually took action in the situation. However, this love for neighbor cannot exist in a vacuum. The fact that Jesus embeds this commandment into the Shema is an indication that loving the one true God is a prerequisite to loving your neighbor as yourself. No one would ever have accused Paul of not loving the incestuous man and woman at Corinth. Yet, he did not hesitate to remove this man from the community because of his immoral conduct. Godly love involves godly compassion within the context of the gospel of repentance. Godly love does not seek to provide solely for the needs of a person from a temporal perspective. The believer provides temporal assistance within the context of giving that person the gospel. This same Jesus who commanded His disciples to love their neighbor as themselves, also commanded those very same disciples not to give what is holy to dogs nor to throw their pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces. This commandment and others like it seem to be totally lost in Rick Warren’s strategy. A partnership with wicked men who worship a false god comes dangerously close to violating this commandment. Loving your neighbor as yourself involves setting aside personal bias and offense and meeting temporal needs within the overall framework of meeting the eternal needs. Neglect of the latter circumvents the entire purpose of demonstrating love to one’s neighbor. Moreover, even if one could love their neighbor as themselves without first loving the one true God, what good would it do them? These two commandments are the greatest and the second one is subsevient to the first. So what you are loving your neighbor as yourself, you are also breaking the greatest of all the commandments by not loving the one true God of Scripture!

According to the news story, there will be no proselytizing between groups within the initiative. One cannot help but wonder why Christians would want to be involved in any initiative that forbids them from pursuing converts. When Jesus sent His disciples out at the great commission, he said, “Go and make disciples of all nations.” He did not say go and form groups that include those who worship false gods, find common ground, and do lots of social good. He commanded His disciples to produce converts who were dedicated to following Christ in every way. Rick Warren seems intent on marking himself off as something other than a gospel preacher, as something other than orthodox. While many have written Warren off as a heretic, this is not true of all and perhaps not of most in evangelicalism. However, Warren seems to think he can continue to push the outer limits and remain within the Christian community’s good graces. This move may shift opinions of Warren dramatically. Christ did not call Christians to give up producing disciples for the sake of some common good shared by adherents of false religions. He called us to proclaim the truth and make Christian disciples every chance we get.

The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth about Christians creating partnerships with unbelievers. He had this to say: Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever. [II Cor. 6:14-15] The Greek construction for the prohibition is me genesthe, and this is the strongest negation one can construct in the Greek language. It would be the difference between saying, “don’t do that,” and “you better absolutely not even think about doing that.” It is the same construction used in Romans 6 when Paul asks if we should continue to sin in order that grace may about? Absolutely unthinkable! One major concern in the Christian society is this loss of separation. It would seem that an extreme reaction to the legalism perpetuated by errant fundamentalist thinking has produced, in turn, an extremely casual view around the idea of biblical separation. One should keep in mind that while the fundamentalist movement may have went too far, this does not mean that the entire idea of separation was wrong. It is not. Quoting Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones once more,

“Today people no longer recognize the category of the moral. Modern men and women say, “We have a new morality.” But that is simply a repetition of what the devil has suggested before. He puts an idea back into some cupboard and brings out another one, and everybody forgets the old idea. He lets a century or two pass, then brings the first one out again. “Brand-new!” people say. “A new morality.” But it is as old as Adam in its sinfulness! Nothing new at all, nothing original in any sense whatsoever. All perversions and all foulness are described in the Bible as well as in the pages of secular history.”

In our attempt to correct extremes, the greatest danger is to introduce new extremes. We see it all the time and nowhere is this more obvious than in modern Christianity. In part two of this topic, I will tackle Rick Warren’s claim that Allah and Yahweh are the same God, that is, the idea that the god of Islam is the God of Christianity. I will also discuss the implications of Warren’s view to the gospel and how the Christian community should react to Warren’s views.

---

^[1] David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Authentic Christianity, 1st U.S. ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2000), 5.