In the previous blog  I started talking about something that really disturbs people today–the exclusive claims of Christianity. Let’s continue discussing this today.

Of course, any time people discuss exclusive claims of religions, the famous parable of the blind men and the elephant comes up. The story involves several blind men who feel different parts of an elephant, trying to decide what sort of beast it is. One describes the trunk as a snake, another feels the tail and says the animal is a rope, while another grabs the leg and says the animal is a pillar. An observer who is sighted says they are all describing the same beast, just focusing on different parts of it. The point, of course, is that all religions are actually describing the same God  even though they only have a portion of the truth.

But there’s something wrong with this analogy. If religious humans are the blind men, who is the sighted observer? How did this person get to this position of authority and insight? How is it that he or she can see, but the rest of us cannot? For someone to claim that all religions are the same, her or she is actually being arrogant: “You may not be able to see it, but I have a privileged position that allows me to understand the big picture here.” How did this person get to play God here??

We may feel overwhelmed in trying to look at all the different religions that exist, but it’s not as difficult as it appears on the surface. There are, in fact, only three great families of religion. First, there is the Eastern view, in which God is seen as an impersonal being. Secondly, there is the secularist religion, which sees chance as ruler over all. Finally, there is the Jewish/Christian/Islam religions, which tell of a God who is both personal and infinite. So, these three represent the most important worldviews that religions hold. It’s less overwhelming to consider these three families than to think of tackling what appears to be a dizzying array of religions.

It strikes me that lazy people come up with stories like the blind men and the elephant to relieve themselves of investigating the conflicting claims of religions.  I have a talk that tells of ways we can distinguish between religions and judge which is worthy of our devotion. Take a look at my audio resources and listen to “Can We Test Religions?” OK, let’s continue this issue in a future blog.

Some time ago I took a DVD called Towards Belief to our apologetics class and went through various topics it covered. For the next few blogs I’d like to cover a key question it tried to answer–are Christians arrogant for claiming Jesus as the only way of salvation? This idea that Christianity has an exclusive element to it is wildly unpopular among those who have bought into the idea that relativism rules–all truth claims are equally valid and there are many roads to God. But this relativistic view has some holes in it.

First, the claim of truth by Christians is not unique to one faith. All believers in every faith believe they have the truth. So do atheists. That’s why people believe what they believe – because they think it’s correct. I’m not sure why it’s only Christians who are ridiculed for this point.

Secondly, the DVD looked at the differences between religions. People who have not thought very carefully about this assume that most religions agree on major things and just have minor differences. However, that’s not true. Religions disagree about who or what God is, where people came from, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what’s important in life. These are not minor issues at all. In fact, it is disrespectful to religions to say they all teach the same doctrines. It shows the person who makes this claim has not really looked at the individual beliefs of any religion.

In addition, the DVD pointed out the amount of laziness when it comes to discussions of religion. People who wave their hands and claim that “all religions are the same, so why bother to distinguish between them” are mentally lazy. The truth is out there, the differences are real, and we can all explore those differences if we take the time to do so. For example, we can look at the founders of each faith to see what their lifestyle was really like – Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Buddha. Yes, this will entail some work, but if our souls are on the line, it should be worth it.

We are facing a scourge in our society today–moral relativism. First, a definition. Relativists see no objective morality. Instead, moral opinions are like our tastes in ice cream–a personal preference. You like vanilla, I like chocolate. There are  no “oughts” out there.

This belief has had a huge negative impact on society today.  There is less emphasis on Western values (multiculturalism reigns–all cultures are equally valid and correct in their beliefs). It also suppresses free speech (don’t suggest one idea is better than another), creates mental laziness (no need to compare ideas), and leads to political correctness (don’t offend).

One type is cultural relativism, which says it’s society that determines moral beliefs, but there are  problems with it. Contrary to what it believes (that societies can’t agree on moral standards), there are shared beliefs among societies– rape is bad, it is noble to die for others, unjust killing is bad, it’s wrong to punish innocents. If  society determines morality, nothing is immoral. Think of slavery in 19th century. Also, if society determines morality, moral reformers are not heroes. That makes people like Corrie ten Boom, M. L. King, Gandhi, and Wilberforce immoral–seems crazy to believe that.

A second type, individual relativism, also has problems with it. For example, relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing (take child abuse–all they can say, “I don’t like it”). In addition, they can’t complain about the problem of evil. Here’s the problem C. S. Lewis encountered in his atheist days:

“My argument against God was that the universe  seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world really was unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fantasies.”

One more problem for relativists–they can’t place blame or accept praise–why punish anyone? An additional problem has to do with using words like “unfair” or “unjust.” Those words have no meaning. Finally, they can’t promote an obligation of tolerance, since the term means to allow people to disagree. But disagreement indicates a difference of opinion in which someone may be right or wrong. These two terms don’t mean anything to a relativist.

This obviously only scratches the surface of moral relativism as a topic to be explored. I will touch on it again and again, I’m sure. People might want to read Greg Koukl’s excellent book on it–Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.

I have been working on a new type of apologetics class for our church. We usually tackle specific topics during the spring and fall while taking the summer off. But I’d like to present a class I’m calling Apologetics 101 during the summer. This class, only four weeks long, would cover just the basics of apologetics for those who want the big picture–why we believe truth exists, what evidence there is for God, why we can trust the New Testament documents, who Jesus was and reasons to accept the fact that He really rose from the dead. I’ll be posting more info about the class soon.

I’m on a kick of finding interesting quotations. Here goes another batch on the resurrection of Jesus. Some good things . . .

Easter says you can put truth in a grave, but it won’t stay there.  – Clarence W. Hall

In truth, faith needs apologetics. It needs it to answer both the negative arguments of the resurrection and to construct positive arguments in favor of it. Apologetics will not create faith, but perhaps, for some, it will pave the way for it or make it possible. What is destructive of genuine Christian faith, in my opinion, is not apologetics, but unfounded beliefs, unjustified commitments. Unsound arguments are irrational leaps of faith. It is the aim of apologetics to prevent Christian faith from amounting to anything like that. – Stephen T. Davis

I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world-and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible. – Charles Colson

The Gospels were written in such temporal and geographical proximity to the events they record that it would have been almost impossible to fabricate events. Anyone who cared to could have checked out the accuracy of what they reported. The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection under such circumstances had it not occurred. – William Lane Craig

The truth of the resurrection gives life to every other area of gospel truth. The resurrection is the pivot on which all of Christianity turns and without which none of the other truths would much matter. Without the resurrection, Christianity would be so much wishful thinking, taking its place alongside all other human philosophy and religious speculation. – John MacArthur

It will not do … to say that Jesus’ disciples were so stunned and shocked by his death, so unable to come to terms with it, that they projected their shattered hopes onto the screen of fantasy and invented the idea of Jesus’ ‘resurrection’ as a way of coping with a cruelly broken dream. That has an initial apparent psychological plausibility, but it won’t work as serious first-century history.

We know of lots of other messianic and similar movements in the Jewish world roughly contemporary with Jesus. In many cases the leader died a violent death at the hands of the authorities. In not one single case do we hear the slightest mention of the disappointed followers claiming that their hero had been raised from the dead. They knew better. ‘Resurrection’ was not a private event. It involved human bodies. There would have to be an empty tomb somewhere.

A Jewish revolutionary whose leader had been executed by the authorities, and who managed to escape arrest himself, had two options: give up the revolution, or find another leader. We have evidence of people doing both.

Claiming that the original leader was alive again was simply not an option. Unless, of course, he was. —N.T. Wright (from Who Was Jesus?)

Any position in which claims about Jesus or the resurrection are removed from the realm of historical reality and placed in a subjective realm of personal belief or some realm that is immune to human scrutiny does Jesus and the resurrection no service and no justice. It is a ploy of desperation to suggest that the Christian faith would be little affected if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead in space and time. – Ben Witherington III

Let us ban together to invent all the miracles and resurrection appearances which we never saw and le us carry the sham even to death! Why not die for nothing? Why dislike torture and whipping inflicted for no good reason? Let us go out to all nations and overthrow their institutions and denounce their gods! And even if we don’t convince anybody, at least we’ll have the satisfaction of drawing down on ourselves the punishment for out own deceit. – Eusebius

Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception than any and all others, before them or after them, or they have truly stated astonishing things which they saw and heard. – Simon Greenleaf

It is of the very essence of Christianity to face suffering and death not because they are good, not because they have meaning, but because the resurrection of Jesus has robbed them of their meaning. ― Thomas Merton

The evidence for our Lord’s life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece as carefully as every judge summing upon a most important case. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead. – Thomas Arnold

I went to a psychologist friend and said if 500 people claimed to see Jesus after he died, it was just a hallucination. He said hallucinations are an individual event. If 500 people have the same hallucination, that’s a bigger miracle than the resurrection. – Lee Strobel

I love studying astronomy. The last few years have brought some comforting news in this field for theists (those who believe there’s a God).

Consider the beginning of the universe. All research points to the truth of the Big Bang as the starting point for everything–space, time, matter, and energy. First there was nothing–absolutely nothing. Then, the universe exploded into being. Doesn’t that suggest Genesis?

But I love the reaction of God-doubters. They now have to create a story that eliminates God from this picture. Here’s where Stephen Hawking, a brilliant physicist, enters the scene.

In a desperate attempt to explain how a finally tuned, infinitely complex universe with highly intelligent, mindfully self-aware human beings can “appear spontaneously from nothing,” Hawking latched on to something called “M-theory,” which argues that multiple universes are created out of nothing with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. In a recent speech, Hawking mentioned that he felt “fortunate to be living in this state of existence.”

This is also known as the “multiverse” theory. There are so many problems with this idea. First, there’s no proof for it–none, absolutely none. Secondly, there can’t be any proof since these other universes can’t be seen or detected from our universe. Third, even if the theory proved true, you haven’t solved the problem. What is throwing off these universes? the creator of all the universes still has to be beyond the physical, natural world. Let’s see . . . that makes the creator a part of (watch this) the supernatural world. Hmm . . . what have we been talking about over the last couple of thousand years as inhabiting the supernatural world? Oh yeah–God.

I love Christian apologetics, which has to do with rational defenses for Christianity. There has been a  tremendous outpouring of books on the topic, so it can tough to decide which ones should be on your shelf. Here are some of my favorites.

1. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
   All of Lee Strobel’s books are required reading for two reasons. First, they are good introductions to the subject and provide a good overview of the material from some of the best scholars in their fields. Second, the writing style is very accessible, taking you alongside a journalist in his investigation of the evidence for Christianity. In this particular title, Strobel focuses on the life and identity of Jesus.2. The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
   This book is just as readable as The Case for Christ, but this one delves into the evidence for the Creator. Another thing that makes this good reading for the beginner is this: whatever areas you find particularly interesting can be pursued further by reading the sources interviewed in the book.

   3. The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
   In The Case for Faith, Strobel moves from making a positive case for Christ and a Creator to defending Christianity from some common criticisms and objections. This one deals with the hard faith questions such as the problem of pain and suffering and issues of doubt. Again, all three of the Lee Strobel books are a great starting point for the beginner.

   4. Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics by Doug Powell
   No doubt about it–this is a strangely-shaped book (tall and thin). This book, filled with tons of graphics,  will introduce you to the wide landscape of apologetics by outlining, diagramming, and illustrating all of the key arguments for the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible, the beliefs of other world views, and common objections. This is very helpful in providing visual categories for the content you are taking in.

   5. Love Your God With All Your Mind by J.P. Moreland
   Moreland is one of my favorites in the field. He’s thoughtful and clear–not always the case with deep thinkers. In this book you’ll be challenged to live a vibrant life of intellectual engagement with your faith. This is a classic book that every apologist should read, and that’s why it finds itself firmly in the foundational books recommended here.

   6. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictionsby Greg Koukl
   Koukl is probably my favorite apologist, with a radio show and great live presentations. This book will train you not only to use apologetic content in everyday life, but it will also train you to be a better, more critical thinker. This is another “must read” book, and mastering its contents early in your apologetic studies will put feet to your faith.

   7. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesusby Mike Licona & Gary Habermas
   The resurrection of Jesus is central to Christianity. This book equips you to understand and defend the resurrection from an historical perspective. Not only does the book have useful diagrams, summaries, and an accessible style, but it also comes with a CD-ROM with interactive software for teaching you the material. This is an essential book for the apologist.

   8. Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow
   Now it’s time to look at some of the most common objections that have come against Christianity since the rise of the new atheism. There’s no better book at dealing with these in a concise yet dense way, while providing additional reading suggestions and introducing some of the key apologists that deal with these questions.

   9. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist by Geisler & Turek
   Geisler and Turek have authored a great apologetics book that also takes a step-by-step approach to showing that Christianity is true—and it’s filled with lots of information. This gives the growing beginner a ton of good content, while strengthening the framework of a cumulative case for Christianity. This book will help to grow your overall general apologetic knowledge as well.

10. Cold-Case Christianity by Wallace
11. Warner Wallace, a former cold-case detective who has been featured on TV, does an excellent job investigating the claims of the gospels. He shows you how his skills play a huge role in deciding the case for Christianity is as convincing as any case he worked on as a detective.

The next section of Greg Koukl’s book Faith Is Not Wishing deals with an issue we hear often, especially from the new atheists. It has to do with the idea that there is a conflict between faith and science. Critics of Christianity say science tells us what’s real while religion tells us fairy stories that can be comforting but have nothing to do with the real world. Greg, instead, argues that the object and domain of science should be the natural, physical world, but the goal of science should not be to produce naturalistic explanations, but rather to follow the evidence wherever it leads to find truth. In other words, science should be about getting the right answers, not the right kind of answers (materialistic ones).

Even some Christians find comfort in the idea of science and religion as occupying two complementary but totally separate realms. Natural science studies the physical universe while the non-physical realm belongs to religion. Science cannot tell us of the ultimate origin of the universe nor discuss the governance of the universe.

Greg says that, at first glance, the two-realms of view is inviting, but he sees problems with it. Why should we accept the view that science reigns supreme in the area of the empirical?

For thousands of years science was viewed differently. The old tradition had one aim– to identify ideas worth believing. But by the modern era there was a shift in science from a general methodology aimed at determining truth to one that was solely empirical. Science became the final measure of all truth.

Greg sees three errors in the view that religious theories should not intrude in science. First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Some metaphysical issues might have empirical support. Think about near-death experience research or conclusions on the existence of a creator based on Big Bang cosmology or the fine-tuning of the universe.

Secondly, it commits the straw man fallacy by assuming that those who advance intelligent design make no use of scientific methods. This is simply not true. Those who promote intelligent design are quite happy to present an abundance of properly gathered scientific evidence for their viewpoint if they’re allowed to. Instead, what they run up against are major scientific journals which summarily disqualify them.

Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific view (materialistic macro- evolution) does not have religious significance. But this is false. Any view about ultimate origins has metaphysical ramifications. In this case, if evolutionary naturalism is a true description of how life developed on earth, then the only room for God is in the imagination of the faithful.

Christianity is, by its very nature, wedded to the physical realm known by the senses. But modern man apart from religion lives in a two-story house where nature/science/reason occupy the bottom floor while meeting/value/freewill are in the second floor. Because modern individuals are told there should be no interaction between the upper story and the lower story, people try to live in the lower floor. But human dignity and purpose are crushed in the gears of nature’s determinism. So people without religious beliefs must take a leap apart from reason into the upper story of meaning and significance. They pay a heavy price for this – schizophrenia and loss of rationality.

But Greg suggests an alternative – restore to the scientific process the classical emphasis on truth. Science and theology can still have their separate domains, but they need not be arbitrarily isolated from one another. After all, early scientists believed they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him” and saw no problem merging the two. It may be the case that physical phenomenon might be caused by an agent rather than a prior physical event. Though science is restricted to examining physical effects, when causes are inferred, there should be no limitation to the physical world.

Those who believe in intelligent design claim that issues like origin and governance can be properly inferred using empirical methods. For example, take a look at forensic medicine. Medical examiners use scientific methods to determine if an individual died of natural causes or by foul play. It may have been a heart attack or an intelligent agent may have been involved. In the same way, scientific evidence could, in principle, indicate that creation was the result of an agent rather than chance physical factors. Think about the old movie Contact in which researchers use scientific methods to infer intelligent causes. I wonder what Carl Sagan would say if he knew his book and movie were used to justify respect for intelligent design.

Last time I only finished half of one of Greg Koukl’s chapters in Faith Is Not Wishing. He was discussing a complaint often brought against Christianity – historical bloodletting in the name of God. Is Christianity a blood-thirsty enterprise?

In the last blog I covered two of Greg’s points. First, the crimes leveled against Christianity have been exaggerated. Secondly, the greatest evil in the world actually came from the ones who denied God’s existence. Consider Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. Enough said.

Another point Greg brings up has to do with the teachings of Christ. It certainly is true that there has been oppression and bloodshed as a result of Christianity, but the question is simple – did this come because it is a religious duty of Christianity or a logical application of the teachings of Christ? If not, then any violence done in his name cannot be laid at his feet. Critics can’t hold Christianity responsible when so-called Christians violate the written instructions. Jesus spoke often about the need for us to love, and this extended to even our enemies (John 14:15 and Luke 10:29-37). You can’t find any Christian teaching that mandates forcible conversion to the faith or coerces adherence to biblical doctrines.

Greg claims that Christianity has actually been the greatest force for good in the history of the world. After all, it is part of the Judeo-Christian morality that says human beings are made in the image of God and therefore have transcendent value.

Greg specifically lays out four areas where Christianity has transformed the world for the better. First is education. Modern education owes its origins to Christianity. Think of the Reformation – the goal was to get the Bible into the hands of the common man. To do this, primary public education was important. It’s hard to believe, but most of the Ivy League schools were started with theological intentions. Missionaries spread out around the world, creating literate societies wherever they went.

A second area where Christianity has improved things has to do with human rights. William Wilberforce, a Christian, spent a lifetime working to abolish slavery in England and the British Commonwealth. It was Christian missionaries who entreated European powers to intervene in Africa to stop the slave trade carried on by the Arabs.

A third positive result of Christianity has been acts of mercy. Think of Mother Teresa, a humble Christian who spent her life serving the poor people of Calcutta. William Booth started the Salvation Army, and Chuck Colson began Prison Fellowship. George Mueller started orphanages all over 19th-century England. Many historians acknowledge that evangelist John Wesley’s preaching saved England from a bloody revolution like that in France. Most of the social reforms in England between 1787 in 1850 were the outcome of evangelical Christians trying to help the poor.

Finally, Christianity has done wonderful things through its missionaries. They have tackled social evils throughout the years. In India, for example, they worked tirelessly to stop child marriage, the immolation of widows, temple prostitution, and untouchability. They opposed foot binding, opium addiction and the abandoning of babies in China. In the continent of Africa they opposed polygamy, the slave trade, and the destruction of twins. All over the world they have opened schools, hospitals, clinics, medical colleges, orphanages, and leprosaria. Missionaries often protected indigenous peoples against their own governments or rapacious business interests.

Does Christianity have a perfect record? Of course not. But Greg has pointed out the true record of the followers of Jesus, and it’s much better than some would tell you.

I love history. It was my minor in college, so I was especially interested in reading Greg Koukl’s chapter called “Christianity’s Real Record ” in his book Faith Is Not Wishing. He deals with the question of whether followers of Christ actually have been the cause of great evil in the world.

Current critics of Christianity and religion in general see a history littered with examples to support their point of view. They bring up witchhunts, crusades, and religious jihad. For example, Thomas Friedman, a popular New York Times columnist, said our battle is not really against terrorism but against any religion that claims to be true, which he calls “religious totalitarianism.”

What is his solution? Pluralism, the idea that “God speaks multiple languages.” But Greg points out the self-defeating nature of Friedman’s argument. Friedman’s claim that God is a pluralist is, in fact, a narrow, exclusivist religious claim that he thinks is true. He’s dogmatic about this doctrine of God, and is also militant about it since he believes people who disagree with him should be silenced.

Friedman actually misdiagnoses the problem, according to Greg. Friedman sees it as religious dogma, but everyone, including Friedman, is dogmatic about issues of truth. The problem is not religious dogma, but religious error. The problem with Muslim terrorists is not fundamentalism, but that their fundamental beliefs are simply false.

Another key problem with Friedman is his complaint that religion has been responsible for more devastation than anything else in history. But the crimes themselves have been exaggerated. In some cases, conflicts that appear to be religious in nature are actually political or cultural wars that divided along religious lines (Northern Ireland is a prime example). Yes, people did die in the Crusades, the Inquisition, religious wars of the Reformation, and the Salem witch trials. However, the numbers of deaths are far smaller than what some people have suggested. In addition, the Crusades were a defensive war, the Spanish Inquisition involved the government more so than the church, and the Salem witch trials were stopped by Christians.

Friedman’s look at history is incorrect also because the greatest evil in the world actually comes from those who deny God’s existence. The greatest evil has always resulted from a denial of God, not pursuit of him. Greg points out that noted radio talk show host Dennis Prager has said, “In the 20th century alone, more innocent people have been murdered, tortured, and enslaved by secular ideologies – Nazism and communism – then by all religions in history.” Think about communist China, the USSR, and Cambodia – millions were slaughtered in each of these countries where people in charge were convinced that there is no God to whom they must answer.

The above represents only half of Greg’s chapter on Christianity’s real record. I’m going to save the other half for a future blog.