Are You a Christian Nationalist?

Are You a Christian Nationalist?

May 29, 2024 | America

Some time back I asked on Twitter if people would call themselves Christian nationalists or not. There were a variety of responses from yes to no to everywhere in between. Here is one representative of the in between.

Until there is strong agreement on what it means, I will not embrace a term that is also claimed by groups that I would never support, endorse, or fellowship with.

Here’s another from a yes:

I’m a Christian. I think biblically based public policy is the best recipe for human flourishing.

I absolutely agree that a biblically based public policy is not only the best, but ultimately the only recipe for human flourishing. This got me thinking about how I would describe myself, and what exactly I do believe in this regard.

First the term. We all know it is leftist dog whistle to imply Christians and nationalists are white supremacists without saying it. This also tells us the left fears both Christians and nationalists because they are a threat to their God-less Marxist, globalist agenda. If you’ve never read Karl Marx’s little Communist Manifesto, you may not know that Marx and his progeny have four enemies that must, in his words, be “abolished” if the revolution is to succeed and communism is to lead inexorably to a classless Utopia where all are equal:

  1. Private property
  2. The family
  3. The nation-state
  4. Religion, i.e., Christianity

Of the four, Christianity is the most dangerous to their diabolical project because from it the other three are derived and sustained.

I will explain below the tentative conclusions I’ve come to about my own political philosophy and what might describe me at this point in time, but first some preliminaries.

The Nation-State
The nation-state is one of the many gifts of Christian Western civilization. I wonder how many Americans know that the idea of a nation with identifiable sovereign borders is a relatively new phenomena in the history of the world. Prior to the seventeenth century, borders were determined by military power, and as power dynamics shifted among peoples, so did borders. This began to change in the seventeenth century as the result of a European peace treaty called the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) and Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648). The basic idea of the Westphalian system is that each state, or nation has an equal right to sovereignty.

So taken for granted by most people, this arrangement is assumed to be the natural order of things—it is not. The reason is because of sinful man’s penchant for building towers of Babel (Gen. 11). Babel teaches us that hubris will always tend to make people consolidate power to unbiblical tyrannical ends unless they are countered with forces that limit their power, something America’s Founders understood better than any thinkers the world has ever known.

Because the nation-state is un-natural, it is fragile, and in our day is uniquely under assault by transnationalist globalist elites who see borders as inhibiting their Babel-like agenda. Put simply, nationalism is an obstacle to the goals of the globalist technocratic elite, the builders of a modern globalist babel. Given this natural sinful tendency to centralize and absolutize power, Christians are obligated to be nationalists, and need to recognize the Satanic threat of globalism.

A nation is more than borders, much more. It is first a local experience because loyalty and commitment comes from the bottom up: first the family, then the locality, town, or city, then the county, the state, and finally the nation. The organic nature of the nation is described well by Stephen Wolfe:

[T]he nation, properly understood, is a particular people with ties of affection that bind them to each other and their place of dwelling; and thus nationalism is the nation acting for its national good, which includes conversation of those ties of affection.

Affection is the operative word. We can’t have a real personal devotion and loyalty to an abstraction like a United Nations or European Union. Affection is only possible with what we know in some measure personally, intimately. The neighbors we see every day, or the parents at school, or people in the grocery store, it is they who we develop a connection with, not people on a screen on the other side of the world. This sense of peoplehood, if you will, is inevitable and necessary in a world full of nations.

The concept of the nation, or specific people groups, is an important biblical concept, the word being used well over 600 times. In fact, when Jesus gave what we’ve come to call the Great Commission to the eleven in Matthew 28, he told them to make disciples of all nations (ethnos in Greek), not all people (anthropos in Greek). In Acts 17 the Apostle Paul lays out the case for the God ordained nature of nations:

26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

You can’t get more biblically unequivocal than that!

The Kingdom, the Church, and the Nation
Related to the issue of a Christian nation, is the problem of the modern confusion in conflating the Church with the kingdom of God. Until recently I believed the kingdom was the church, and the church the kingdom. This is not true. The kingdom of God or heaven is God’s rule or reign on earth brought by God’s redeemed people, not by church bodies as such. It is also not just saved Christians who advance God’s kingdom on earth, but saved Christians who apply their biblical and Christian worldview to every square inch of life, a la Abraham Kuyper who said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” God’s kingdom is also advanced by non-Christians who embrace Christian values and assumptions about the nature of reality and apply them. Worldviews have consequences, and our job as faithful Christians is to inculcate the Christian worldview into the culture, which is a people’s beliefs externalized and applied. The ultimate goal is people imbibing a Christian worldview instead of the poison of the secular woke cultural Marxism they currently do. No culture, like its government, is worldview neutral.

For a long time, I struggled with what as conservative and Evangelical Christians we’re trying to accomplish. What exactly is a Christian society or nation? What does such a thing look like? Is it fifty-one percent of the people being professing Christians? I was always frustrated because I knew intuitively what makes a nation Christian isn’t just the number of Christians. I’m not sure there’s ever been a time in Western history where the vast majority of people in the nations of Christendom were Christians, yet the people, Christian or not, considered themselves living in Christian nations. Most Christians seem to believe if we just convert enough people things will magically change for the better. It doesn’t work that way.

Joseph Boot in Mission of God relates well how this kingdom-church confusion creates a false dilemma:

Believers tend to think that they are confronted with a very restricted choice in these matters: either pursue a return to a form of the ecclesiastical culture of Christendom where power and authority over various cultural and political matters is restored to a particular church denomination, or accept that we now live in a post-Christian age where the only thing Christians can realistically hope for is being one of many interest groups in a diverse, multicultural society, perhaps with a seat at the table—a chair pulled out for us by a humanistic secular state now to be embraced as the norm for human society.

The second view dominates modern Evangelicalism.

The problem, other than these not being the only two choices, and I would argue neither is the Christian choice, is that both lead to totalitarianism. Neither Christian nor pagan (i.e., secular) totalitarianism lead to good results as the historical evidence makes painfully clear. However, going beyond these two limiting choices we realize there are indeed only two ultimate choices—the rule of God or the rule of man—God or paganism. It is abundantly clear how the latter works, but there is unfortunately an abundance of confusion about how the former would work in the modern world. The rule of God in a nation isn’t really difficult to understand, but ignorance and secular programming makes it so. Bringing such a reality to pass is another story.

The Necessity of Sphere Sovereignty
The concept of sphere sovereignty is critical in the never-ending battle against the spirit of Babel. The concept is as simple as it is contested by those who embrace that spirit. It was first introduced by the great Dutch theologian, statesman, and journalist Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) in a public address at the inauguration of the Free University of Amsterdam. The question comes down to authority and who wields it. Absolute sovereign authority rests in God alone, and He has delegated His authority on earth to human beings; “so that on earth one actually does not meet God Himself in things visible, but that sovereign authority is always exercised through an office held by men.” In this he asks two pertinent questions:

And in that assigning of God’s Sovereignty to an office held by man the extremely important question arises: how does that delegation of authority work? Is that all embracing Sovereignty of God delegated undivided to one single man; or does an earthly Sovereign possess the power to compel obedience only in a limited circle; a circle bordered by other circles in which another is Sovereign?

These spheres interact and overlap in society, but one sphere must never usurp the authority of the other. The only way this possibly works, and thus the only possibility of true liberty in any society, is the acknowledgement of the absolute Sovereignty of Christ. Kuyper explains why.

But behold now the glorious Freedom idea! That perfect and absolute Sovereignty of the sinless Messiah at the same time contains the direct denial and challenge of all absolute Sovereignty on earth in sinful man; because of the division of life into spheres, each with its own Sovereignty.

Stephen Wolfe explains it well in The Case for Christian Nationalism:

[I]t follows that every sphere of life requires a suitable authority, with a suitable power, to make determinations. For this reason, God has granted specific types of power by which the authorities of each sphere make judgments. The family has the pater familiar with patria potestas (“fatherly power”); civil life has the civil magistrate with civil power; the instituted church has the minister with spiritual power, and the individual has a power unto himself. The nature of each sphere dictates the species of power required. These powers and their differences are not arbitrary but arise from the nature of each sphere.

Although as a Thomist he attributes this to “natural law,”16 there is nothing natural about it. It is only when those in power acknowledge the power of God in Christ as the ultimate authority that the state will recognize its limits.

What Do I Call Myself?
When I was 24 and decided I was going off to graduate school to become an academic and scholar, which obviously didn’t work out, I thought political philosophy would probably be the path I took. Since that didn’t happen, I never felt compelled to develop my own distinctly Christian political philosophy. It wasn’t until I started writing my latest book, Going Back to Find the Way Forward, that I realized I needed to do just that. Given I was now going to publicly put myself out there in the battle to save America from its Marxist enemies, and hopefully bring along Christians in the fight, I could no longer depend on others to do my thinking for me. I had to figure out what my Christian faith compelled me to believe about how human beings govern themselves. That’s another way of saying, have my own political philosophy.

It’s clear from the above that I am both a Christian and a nationalist. I believe every Christian given God’s revelation in creation and Scripture is compelled to obviously be the former, but also the latter. The only other option is to be a globalist, and Babel teaches us that is not an option. Another word I’ve come to embrace since I’ve been become aware of and have been listening to Steve Bannon over the last several years is populist. The word gets a bad rap because it is associated with the rabble, with the passions of the people to rebel against any and all authority, to in effect be the authority. Another word for that is anarchy, or as the ancient Greeks called it, Democracy. According to Aristotle, there are three forms of government, and each can be good or bad, and it can by laid out this way:

Who Rules?   Good form             Bad form
one person         monarchy                  tyranny
few people          aristocracy                oligarchy
many people      polity/timocracy      democracy

Timocracy is basically rule by property owners, something we know America’s Founders adopted. Democracy, which America is not (we’re a representative republic), is 51 percent rule.

In their genius, America’s Founders decided to adopt each form of rule in the American republic to hopefully keep the country from going to the bad form of government. Unfortunately, the progressives in the early 20th century came up with the idea of a “living” constitution, which is no constitution at all, and by the 1960s and the Civil Rights revolution, the Constitution was dead. This is laid out in painful clarity and detail by Christopher Caldwell in The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, one of the most important books of the 21st century.

America has become an oligarchy, or as we now know it, the deep state, a rule by unaccountable “experts” who only care about maintaining and extending their power. This fact, we’re all too painfully aware of now is why we need to bring back the polity (maybe one day God willing timocracy too), and thus why I’ve embraced populism. I will repeat, America is a representative republic, the democracy side, which means our elected representatives are accountable to us, their constituencies. Both parties, or as we disparagingly call them now, the Uniparty, despise their bosses, us. They and we have forgotten that the very first words of our governing document, the Constitution, begins with, “We the people . . . “ Re-founding America is only going to happen if We take back our government from the oligarchy.

Thus, I would now describe myself as a nationalist populist Christian conservative.

 

Why I Disagree with Doug Wilson on Charter Classical Schools

Why I Disagree with Doug Wilson on Charter Classical Schools

May 22, 2024 | America

Doug Wilson is not a fan of charter classical schools, to say the least, and I am.

It’s an odd form of disagreement because in so many ways I completely agree with him, in an ideal world. Of course, he and others would argue that without agreeing with him, we’ll never get close to that ideal world. They could be right, but I don’t think so, or I wouldn’t be writing this.

The title of the piece is typical brilliant Doug Wilson metaphor: “Classical Charter Schools as a Cut Flowers Display.” We all know that as beautiful as cut flowers can be, their beauty is fleeting; no soil, no roots, no life. His argument is that charter classical schools without Christ are like cut flowers, or to change the metaphor, like a dead man walking, on death row not long for this world. He believes Christians in charter classical education are in effect trying to prop up the failed experiment in secularism that has been such an unmitigated disaster for America and the Western world.

I think the reason for the disagreement is because of an approach to apologetics, defending the veracity of the Christian faith, called presuppositionalism, which Wilson embraces.

Three Broad Approaches to Defending Christianity
From the first Easter, Christians have been under attack. When Jesus’ followers proclaimed he had come back from the dead to establish a new religion out of a very old one, pagans and their fellow Jews did not give them a warm reception. So, Christians had to defend the veracity of their faith from the beginning.

Prior to the 20th century, Christians just defended Christianity without thinking of apologetics categories. That changed with the rise of presuppositionalism starting with a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Cornilius Van Til (1895-1987), the founding father of presuppositionalism. Because he and his followers declared their approach as the biblical and only correct approach, other apologists were compelled to identify and defend their approaches. I will briefly outline them here before I get to how I think this discussion impacts how we look at charter classical schools.

Before I do, I will say I am personally a whatever works apologist. In practice, I’m presuppositional because a fact of existence is that we can’t escape our assumptions in every thought we have, and those assumptions determine what we think and often the conclusions we come to.

Presuppositionalism —This approach teaches that we must start with the assumption that Christianity is true and the Bible is the revelation of the Triune God because we can’t escape our assumptions about God and the ultimate nature of things. Wherever we start will determine where we end up. If we argue outside of specifically Christian presuppositions, whatever knowledge we present to a sinner, they will suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:18). So, any other approach than theirs will be futile. At least that’s the concept.

However, I’ve found over the years having listened to hundreds of testimonies that people very often come to the right conclusions from very wrong assumptions. So I ask, how can there be only one right, biblical way to defend the faith if other approaches accomplish the same thing? My flexible understanding of apologetics separates me from the doctrinaire presuppositionalist.

Classical — I was introduced to this approach in seminary by a book called Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics by R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley. It frustrated me because they were as dogmatic as the presuppositionalists that theirs was the only proper way to defend the faith. Basically, it starts with the proofs for God’s existence going back to the brilliant Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, what Thomas called the five ways. It argues that we must first establish God’s existence, theism, because any historical evidence will only make sense once we’ve established God exists.

Evidential —This approach leans on historical and philosophical evidence but focuses primarily on the former, defending the reliability of the biblical text, and the stories it contains. Philosophy contributes to the evidence, while the classical approach is more purely philosophical.

We could add a fourth approach that takes from these three called the cumulative case method. As in a court of law, an argument is developed with different strands of evidence developing a beyond a reasonable doubt case.

Wilson Believes Charter Classical Schools are Destined to go Woke
Doug Wilson is a doctrinaire presuppositionalist, and I believe this determines his understanding of the frailty of the charter (public) classical education movement. I’m very familiar with this movement because my daughter, Gabrielle, a graduate of Hillsdale College, taught for eight years at a charter classical school, and has worked for two years in their Barney Charter School Initiative.

I believe something like this is of great value as Christians learn to battle and defeat the poison of secularism toward re-Christianizing our nation. I would point out that Hillsdale College would not agree with me that that is the ultimate goal, but challenging that is not the point of this post. Arguing for the value of their project is.

The reason Wilson thinks charter classical schools are destined to go woke is because they are not confessionally and overtly Christian. That’s basically his argument.

Charter schools remove Christ, the gospel, the holy apostles, and any mention of this astounding grace of God. And so when you take Christ out of this story, what do you have? Now all you have are dead, white guys, and nothing in the story whatever about unmerited grace.

This assumes, however, that the only revelation of God to man is in Christ, and as a good presuppositionalist, Wilson believes without Scripture and Christ, any other knowledge is of no ultimate value. I doubt he would put it that way, but with presuppositionalism it is all or nothing.

I, on the other hand, I would argue that Romans 1 tell us that creation reveals God:

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Material reality reveals God, and He cannot be escaped. Paul says, in effect, that people suppress the truth because they love their wickedness more. I don’t believe, contra the presuppositionalist, that this suppression means they don’t in some way possess real knowledge of God, even if it is not saving knowledge.

Does Christ Inoculate Against Wokeness?
If an organization, or church, is avowedly Christian, does that mean, as Wilson says, that they are protected from going woke? History tells us it does not.

Christian organizations that proclaim the unmerited grace in Christ, as Wilson insists charter classical schools must, have gone woke. One infamous example is CRU, once called Campus Crusade for Christ. In fact, this headline at Not the Bee tells us just how woke they’ve become, “CRU, formerly Campus Crusade for Christ, fired two of its employees after they voiced concerns about the group’s stance on LGBT issues.”

Many Christian denominations and organizations have gone “woke” throughout post-Enlightenment history. J. Gresham Machen, the founder of my Alma Mater, Westminster Seminary Philadelphia, fought the Presbyterian Church for much of his life until he was basically kicked out for being an orthodox Bible believing Christian. The Presbyterian Church, started by the great Scottish Reformer John Knox, most certainly didn’t start out “woke,” and wasn’t for much of its history until it embraced Enlightenment inspired German biblical criticism of the 19th century. Then the inevitable result was a different religion, as Machen wrote about in his 1923 book, Christianity and Liberalism. We can see from the experience of the New Testament Church that people proclaiming the Christian faith doesn’t mean they won’t infect the church with heresy. Speaking of antichrists among the people of God the Apostle John says in his first epistle:

 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Unfortunately, as history shows, the heretics don’t always go “out from us,” but pervert the teaching of the gospel from within. The once dominant mainline denominations are a lamentable example, but because of their heresy they are a shell of their former orthodox selves.

Goodness, Beauty, and Truth: Another form of Apologetics
Which brings us to the classical education mantra of goodness, beauty, and truth. If a classical school is actually classical, it takes its marching orders from the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Christians via the Middle Ages. Classical education by definition is rooted in Western history, which is primarily Christian history, and solid charter schools do not ignore that fact, but charter schools are public schools so they can’t proselytize the Christian faith.

What they do proselytize, however, is the objective nature of goodness, beauty, and truth. C.S. Lewis, certainly not a presuppositionalist, wrote about the concept of what he called the Tao in his classic little book, The Abolition of Man. This universal concept of objective values in reality is also known as natural law, or in specifically Christian terms, creation law, or natural revelation. I don’t like the term natural law because in our secular age natural means without God, regardless of what the person believes using it.  Lewis wrote this book in the early 1940s when secularism’s influence was becoming ubiquitous, but not yet affirmed as the default worldview of the West. He decided to use the Tao because his argument about the objective moral values in reality is found in every culture on earth and in every time. This specific passage is relevant for our discussion:

Only the Tao provides a common human law of action which can overarch rulers and ruled alike. A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny, or an obedience that is not slavery.

In other words, something beyond mere human preference is necessary if we’re to escape the inevitable tyranny produced by a merely material universe in the will to power, might makes right, dominating peoples and nations. Put another way, God’s moral law is the only source of true liberty.

As I argue in Going Back to Find the Way Forward, the dividing line in Western culture is truth. Those who believe truth is real, that there is an objective nature to reality, in Lewis’s word, the Tao, believe there is something to which the state, those in power, are accountable, the truth. To those who don’t believe in truth or the Tao, “the narrative” is all, and anything is justified toward its ideological ends.

This brings us to the objective nature of values, or to the concrete reality of goodness, beauty, and truth, and it’s apologetics value. The triune reality of these three values can’t but point to the Trine God who is those things. Those who see them and believe in them and fight for them whatever they believe, are closer to God than those who don’t. They build in a person’s mind what sociologists call a plausibility structure, or a state of mind in which these things actually exist, are believable; they are not mere preferences. God to such people is far more plausible as the explanation of all things than mere chance and matter colliding. I would further argue that people immersed in a worldview of the Tao and its objective nature are less susceptible to going woke than Christians who uncritically swallow the secular zeitgeist, or spirit of the age, the climate of the times. Ours is not only distinctly chilly to God, but it inculcates materialist assumptions into Christians without them even being aware of it. 

This is why Wilson’s argument against charter classical schools doesn’t hold any water. Again, I do agree with him that the ideal is for parents is to send their children to a Christian classical school, or home school them, but that is simply not an option for tens of millions of Christian families. And what about all those children who come from secular families? Do we just abandon them to Marxist indoctrination? Keep in mind, fifty million children every day attend public schools, and that isn’t going to change in the foreseeable future. At some point government or “public” schools must be, in Marx’s term, abolished, but in the meantime, charter classical schools are a possible option.

But is It Really Classical?
As I said, my daughter worked at a charter classical school, and her husband still does. Neither of them have been satisfied that this school is fully classical. I’m not talking about schools like that. I’m talking about schools like those Hillsdale College establishes that understand and teach the Tao in all they do. Here is what the Barney Charter schools believe and teach:

Classical education is a model of K-12 instruction that is rooted in the liberal arts and sciences, offers a firm grounding in civic virtue, and cultivates moral character:

  • It emphasizes the centrality of the Western tradition in the study of history, literature, philosophy, and the fine arts.
  • It features a rich and recurring examination of the American literary, moral, philosophical, political, and historical traditions to equip students for citizenship.
  • Its curriculum is balanced and strong across the four core disciplines of math, science, literature, and history, with explicit phonics instruction leading to reading fluency and explicit grammar instruction leading to language mastery.
  • Well-educated and articulate teachers are central to the classroom, in contrast to conventional “student-centered learning” models.
  • The school culture demands moral virtue, decorum, respect, discipline, and studiousness among the students and faculty—and simultaneously produces a spirit of wonder and a desire to know that which is good, true, and beautiful.

In short, classical education offers K-12 students the sort of rigorous education that undergraduate students receive at Hillsdale College.

I would suggest students who graduate from such schools are far more open to the gospel than their unfortunate compatriots at regular public schools, and are less susceptible to woke indoctrination.

 

J.I. Packer: Be More Annoying for Jesus!

J.I. Packer: Be More Annoying for Jesus!

May 15, 2024 | The Gospel

Packer didn’t actually say this, but it can be inferred from his amazing little book, The Plan of God. What I took from this book is that the plan of God is so amazing that every human being alive should want to know about it, and how else will they come to know about it than through us.

If you were alive in the 1960s you’ll remember a song by Dionne Warwick called, What the World Needs Now. Even as I child I remember it. If you were, I’m sure the tune will pop right back into your head like it did mine, and it will be hard to get out. Written by Burt Bacharach, the chorus goes like this:

What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It’s the only thing that there’s just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love
No, not just for some but for everyone

I recently finished this little book by Packer, and reading the passage below brought this vapid song to mind. As with The Beatles’ All You Need is Love, there is some truth, but that all depends by what we mean by love. The only love the world needs is that displayed by God in Christ for our sins. As the Apostle John says, “we love because he first loved us.” As Christians, we have the answer for what every single person in the world needs: Jesus! Every longing, every need, every frustration, every dream, every hope, the answer to every disappointment, every betrayal, every everything is found in Christ!

Why don’t we share it more? Possibly, if we really believed it, we would. We would become a little more annoying for Jesus.

And that’s all you have to be, just a little more annoying. That can take many different forms, and none of them have to be in the least confrontational. In fact, to do it you just have to get good at dropping hints. There are an infinite variety of ways to do it, and all it takes is practice. Sometimes I just drop God or the Lord in sentences, or say I’m a Christian, and tell them what it means for the circumstance we’re discussing. Ideally, I want them to ask me questions, but sometimes I ask them. I wrote a post a few years back about Greg Koukl’s wonderful book, Tactics. That book is worth its weight in apologetics gold because he teaches us how powerful simple questions are, and we don’t have to know much. As Christians, however, we should know more about not only what we believe but why we believe it. In fact, I’m quite convinced that we ought to know as much about our Christian faith as we do about our occupation of favorite hobby. But back to our heathens.

If there is nothing there, and their heart is currently dead to the things of God, they will either completely ignore me, or blow me off. Then I move on. Koukl in Tactics, though, says what we’re doing regardless is putting a pebble in their shoe. We never know when God might use that little pebble, which to us could have been a throw-away line, to annoy them into curiosity about the faith they’ve thus far rejected even thinking about. Sometimes, though, they want to engage, and we’re off to the races. There is nothing better than talking to someone about Jesus who doesn’t know him, but is curious about him.

Before you ever get there, though, you have to have the motivation to want to do it. If you believe you have the answer to every question of life, chances are you’ll want to share it. I encourage you to contemplate Packer’s eloquent words, and pray for God’s Holy Spirit to convict you of keeping Jesus to yourself.

And now we begin to see what the Bible really has to say to a generation like our own which feels itself lost and bedeviled in an inscrutably hostile order of things. There is a plan, says the Bible. There is a sense of things, but you have missed it. Turn to Christ; seek God; give yourself to the service of His plan, and you will have found the key to living in this world which has hitherto eluded you. “He that followeth me,” Christ promises,” shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12). Henceforth you will have a motive: God’s glory. You will have a rule: God’s law. You will have a Friend in life and death: God’s Son. You will have in yourself the answer to the doubting and despair called forth by the apparent meaninglessness, even malice, of circumstances: the knowledge that “the LORD reigneth,” and that “all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are  the called according to his purpose” (Rom 8:28). Thus, you will have peace.

How many people in our age are looking for peace, but looking in all the wrong places? Because we live in a secular age, that would be most people.

Circumstances or God in Christ
Even as Christians we are prone to this temptation because instead of seeing God alone as our fulfillment, we look to our circumstances. This is, of course, perfectly natural and nothing in and of itself is wrong with it. Everyone wants pleasant circumstances they like rather than horrible circumstances they hate. Where we get into trouble is thinking it is the circumstances that fulfill us and bring us peace. The problem is that even when we think we have everything we want, and things look just like we think we want them, something is still missing. We feel it, we know it.

A few years ago my son called me into his room to show me a video of an interview by a famous British musician. He had played a venue most musicians dream about, the iconic Wembley Stadium, and was asked in an interview what that felt like. He wasn’t at all excited, just blasé, and said something like it was great, but you know, just another gig.  You could tell the interviewer was perplexed. I imagined him thinking, what? Wembley, and you weren’t excited about it? I had taught my son nothing will fulfill us in any ultimate sense outside of Christ, and he explained this was a perfect example of that. It looks like he got the message.

What exactly is that blasé or empty feeling about things that we think should fulfill us? It is God telling us to not turn the good things he’s given us into ultimate things, blessings into a curse. That’s how idolatry happens, and it can be anything in our lives. Augustine called the correct approach to God’s good gifts right ordered loves. There are certain things we love more, others less, but our number one love is God himself in Christ, our Creator and Redeemer. When we’re feeling that nagging emptiness in spite of everything being great, it is God reminding us not to think anything other than Him will bring us true peace and happiness. Living life in a fallen world in a fallen body among fallen people will always be problematic, and our hope of the Resurrection is our ultimate hope. In the meantime we can learn from the Apostle Paul who knew horrific circumstances for much of his life (Philippians 4):

11 I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13 I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

The Greek word Paul uses for “secret” is interesting: to initiate into the mysteries, to instruct. The word was also used as part of a metaphor in “the initiatory rites of the pagan mysteries” for those having been initiated. This “secret” or mystery is Christ! In him we can be “content in any and every situation.” And Paul knew whereof he spoke.

Whenever anyone is going through hard times, I encourage them to read this passage in 2 Corinthians 11 where Paul gives us a powerful description of his suffering life:

Whatever anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28 Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?

30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.

Because of the cross and the resurrection of the dead, our eternal destiny relativizes everything on earth. Modern secular people are looking for this eternal perspective that will finally put all the stuff of their life in perspective, only they don’t know it yet unless someone tells them. None of the stuff will ultimately fill the God shaped vacuum in their souls.

The Path to a Life of Meaning
Everyone we encounter is looking for meaning, hope, and purpose that somehow makes sense of this ridiculous thing we call life. If people stop and think about it for even two minutes, they will realize how bizarre it all is. The devil does not want them to ask the big questions, so he does his best to keep them focused on the petty and mundane so they ignore the profound and eternal. They need to be told that everything they are looking for is found in their Creator, the God who made and died for them that they might have a relationship for God’s glory and their ultimate good. Another quote by J.I. Packer says it typically well:

The only man in this world who enjoys a complete contentment is the man who knows for certain that there is no more significant life, than the life that he is living already; and the only man who knows this is the man who has learned that the way to be truly human is to be truly godly, and whose heart desires nothing more—and nothing less—than to be a means, however humble, to God’s chief end—his own glory and praise.

This is the mystery or secret Paul learned that not only allows contentment whatever the circumstances, but also how to live a life of ultimate significance, no matter what it is God has called us to. For most of us, that is a simple, mundane life of making a living, and if we have the blessing of raising a family,  teaching them that the Glory of God is our ultimate good. This is the only place where true meaning, and what comes with it, fulfillment is found.

Upwards of 50,000 people kill themselves in America every year, and many more try. Drugs, legal and illegal, are rampant among those trying to fill the emptiness of their lives. Distraction like sports and entertainment are what other people chase to give their lives meaning. Every one of these people is looking for Jesus, and when they encounter you, they encounter Jesus. Maybe they will meet him through you, so don’t be afraid to be just a little more annoying for Jesus.

 

Christianity and Our Generational Faith

Christianity and Our Generational Faith

May 8, 2024 | Parents and Family

Even as a young man without children at the time, one of the things that attracted me to Reformed theology was that it was specifically a generational faith. For the first five years of my Christian life I was by default a Baptist, as are most Evangelical or born-again Christians. When I was introduced to Calvinism at 24, the gentleman who did that also introduced me to infant baptism, something I couldn’t accept. I had been born and raised a Catholic, and after I prayed the sinners prayer, I soon rejected everything associated with my Catholic upbringing, including baptizing babies. As I learned about this new Presbyterian and Reformed understanding of how children fit into God’s covenant, I recoiled from it. I could accept predestination and the sovereignty of God over the salvation of His people, but each person having to make their own decision for Jesus, and then being baptized, seemed like the only logical way to look at baptism. And the New Testament seemed to affirm that. Then I went to a Reformed Baptist church service.

I’ll never forget that Sunday morning in 1985. I can see it like it was yesterday; apparently it was that momentous for me. As happens in thousands of churches around the country every Sunday morning, there was a baby dedication during the service. I have no idea why I responded like I did, or why a certain phrase came into my mind, but it did. I thought, “They are treating their children like strangers to the covenant!” I was actually offended, and I was instantly a paedobaptist.

That is an interesting phrase because even at that very early stage in my Reformed journey, I saw the Christian faith as fundamentally generational. It wasn’t just for me, an isolated individual who makes a decision for Jesus, and my children as their own isolated individuals who have to make their choices. I will discuss covenant theology below, but even before I knew the first thing about it, I intuitively knew my children were included in it. As my wife and I are Christians, we raised our children as Christians, not as little heathens who have to decide someday to become Christians. They will of course have to make their own decisions to follow Jesus, but as our children they receive the blessing of God’s covenant promises through us as their parents. The covenant is to them every bit as much as it is to us.

One verse that always comes to mind when I think of this is Deuteronomy 29:29:

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

These things revealed do not belong to our children as a result of them making the right choice and a public profession of Christ. No, they belong to our children specifically because they are our children. We are Christians, we have children, and they are part of God’s covenant promises to us as His people, therefore we raise them as little Christians and not strangers to God’s covenant.

Here is another wonderful passage from Psalm 103:

17 But from everlasting to everlasting
the Lord’s love is with those who fear him,
and his righteousness with their children’s children—
18 with those who keep his covenant
and remember to obey his precepts. 

If you read these words carefully with no preconceived ideas, you can easily see in them the glorious gospel of Christ, that is, God’s love and righteousness given to His people. There is always a connection between God’s active relationship to His people, and their response. In other words, God doesn’t try to get a response from people out of loving them, but His loving activates an inevitable response in them toward Him. This can happen because in Christ He grants us His righteousness so we are no longer His enemies, but granted Sonship in the new birth. We have God’s promise here that His righteousness isn’t just for us, but for our children, and our children’s children—it is generational!

This isn’t just an Old Testament concept either. The first generation of Christians were all pious Jews, and what Peter declared in the first Christian sermon in Acts 2 would have made perfect sense to them, that “The promise is for you and your children.” Of course it is! I contend that if the Apostles had preached a New Covenant in which the children were not included, that would have been controversial to say the least. I can imagine the Jewish Christian families responding, that sure doesn’t sound like new and improved!

The Idea of Covenant in Redemptive History
Depending on your Christian or denominational environment, you are more or less familiar with the word covenant, and it’s importance or not for our faith. I don’t remember hearing it talked about at all during the first five plus years of my Christian journey, which is surprising given the centrality of the concept in Scripture. The word is used almost 300 times in the Old Testament, and almost 40 in the New. The reason the concept is almost invisible be can found in the history of fundamentalism, and especially the interpretive system known as dispensationalism, popularized in the 19th century. Biblical history, in this scheme, is God dealing with His people and the world in different ways in different ages, or dispensations. Thus there is little continuity in God’s dealings with humanity. Covenant theology, on the other hand, sees the unfolding of God’s covenant as the primary interpretive principle for all redemptive history. It is the universal in which all the particulars of redemptive history make sense, and unifies the teachings of the entire Bible.

The practice of covenants, usually by kings, was a common occurrence in the ancient Near East. Formal agreements between two parties, covenants brokered power and defined obligations. Covenants would have been as commonly understood as contracts are today. God’s covenant with His people had stipulations, specifically there were blessings for obedience, and curses for disobedience. Israel failed to succeed as the covenant representative for God’s people, so Jesus came to be the new Israel to fulfill all the stipulations of the covenant of redemption.

Reformed theologians typically argue that there are three biblical covenants: works, grace, and redemption. In the covenant of works God promised Adam and Eve the whole of creation if they would but obey the command to not eat from the tree. In the covenant of grace, God saves sinners by grace through faith in Christ (Old Testament saints were saved the same way, retro‑actively if you will). Daniel R. Hyde explains how the covenant of redemption is rooted in the relationship of the Triune God:

From all of eternity God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit covenanted to share their eternal love and fellowship with their creatures. In human terms, God the Father covenanted to create a people, whom He knew would sin; to choose from this fallen mass “a great multitude that no one could number” (Rev. 7:9); and to give them to Christ (John 17:24), whom He would “crush” on the cross according to His eternal will (Is. 53:10). The Son covenanted to accomplish their redemption: “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work you gave me to do” (John 17:4). The Holy Spirit covenanted to apply the work of the Son to those the Father chose, “until we acquire possession of it” (Eph. 1:14).

The covenant of redemption is the ultimate universal, which means everything in the Bible and in our lives needs to be seen in light of it, including baptism.

To understand generational faith, I need to go back to the Garden of Eden post Fall, and God’s promise that he would “put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” There we have the whole history of redemption in one verse. The promise of God is the foundation of our Faith. From Genesis 3 it is easy to trace the covenant throughout the Old Testament. In Genesis 6, God established his covenant with Noah to save him and his family from God’s judgment and wrath in the flood. Then when the Lord calls Abram (Gen. 12) to go to the land he would show him, he promises to make him into a great nation. He confirms the covenant with Abram in one of the most amazing scenes in the Bible (Gen. 15:8‑21). The Lord tells him a second time that he will have a son, promises that his offspring will be like the stars in the sky (and before electricity that must have been an awe‑inspiring site), and shows him the land he will one day possess. Abram asks how he can know all this will happen. Then something very strange to our modern sensibilities happens. The Lord tells him to get some animals, cut them in two, and line up the halves opposite each other. Then this:

17 When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land . . . . 

What makes this covenant ceremony so strange is that normally both parties to the covenant would walk through the bloody sliced up animals, in effect saying if one of the parties doesn’t keep the covenant, they will end up like the animals. God was declaring to all of history that He would keep both sides of the covenant of redemption, His and ours. We can see here that the Old and New Covenant are intimately connected. Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology tells us how:

It is plain that Christ came to execute a work, that He was sent of the Father to fulfill a plan, or preconceived design. It is no less plan that special promises were made by the Father to the Son, suspended upon the accomplishment of the work assigned to him.

As we saw in the above quote from Daniel Hyde, that Jesus accomplished the work the Father gave him to do, which is why he was given his name (Matt. 1:21), “because he will save his people from their sins.”

Our salvation, then, is rooted in something so much bigger and more profound than our decision, and making a good choice when presented with the case for heaven or hell. In fact our faith, and the faith of our children is rooted in God’s eternal covenant promise with Himself, the covenant of redemption. Paul in Ephesians 1 is clear Jesus didn’t come to redeem every human being, but specifically His people:

4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

We and our children are part of this amazing, eternal story worked out in history, in our lives, and in the lives of the generations to come from our bodies. It is an amazing, thrilling, wonderful faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

Continuity versus Discontinuity in the Covenant
Here is where the covenantal rubber meets the road in the discussion of generational faith.  One of the reasons I am not a Baptist is because I am a Christian whose faith is a fulfillment of its Jewish heritage, not something completely different. Therefore, this means that my understanding of God’s covenant relationship to His people is one of continuity between Old and New, not discontinuity. Before we ever get to water, it is this question we must grapple with. Are children similarly part of the New Covenant as they were of the Old, and thus qualify for the sign of inclusion of the covenant: circumcision in the Old, baptism in the new?  My answer would be absolutely! Even Jeremiah, the prophet of the New Covenant agreed (Jeremiah 31:31-34). We read this is Jeremiah 32:38-40:

38 They will be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me and that all will then go well for them and for their children after them. 40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul.

This was what Jewish people thought, not like individualistic post Enlightenment Westerners who default to thinking faith is primarily individual not familial. God’s covenant promises were always to them, and their children. The Lord through Isaiah 59:21 puts it bluntly:

“And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,” says the Lord, “from this time forth and forevermore.”

And not just our children, but our children’s children to get across the point.

 

Uninvented: I Corinthians 15, Either Paul is Telling the Truth or He is a Liar

Uninvented: I Corinthians 15, Either Paul is Telling the Truth or He is a Liar

May 1, 2024 | Apologetics, Uncategorized

I was recently making my way through I Corinthians and hit chapter 15. I had a hard time getting past it, so I parked there for a while. You may remember this chapter is Paul’s great declaration of resurrection, first of Christ’s, then ours. Having written a book about the impossibility of the Bible having been invented, merely a figment of human imagination, I can’t help seeing Scripture through that lens, all the time. This chapter is a perfect example of why. Let’s look at what to Paul says is the most important thing about the gospel:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

What he received is the most important thing, as in for Christians nothing else is as important as this. It’s number 1, top of the list, everything else can’t compare with it in importance. The reason he says this is because it proves Christianity is true. Critics for 300 years have claimed it is not true, and if they are right those who claimed to be eyewitness of this most important thing were either liars or delusional, which parallels the arguments for and against the resurrection. There are no other options than these three, a resurrection trilemma that parallels the Jesus trilemma; Jesus is either Lord, lunatic, or liar.

Where Did Paul Get This Most Important Thing?
This raises a question: how and from whom did he receive it? Biblical scholars tell us the construction and the repetition of the word “that” tells us it was a memorized creed of the early church. How early? Almost all scholars agree that Paul “received” this teaching when he visited Jerusalem after his conversion (Galatians 1):

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

And if Paul was in fact lying, they could have easily found out from Peter and James if he was, but he wasn’t—at least about visiting the Apostles soon after his conversion. The historical fact of his visit lends credibility to his assertion the risen Jesus appeared to him, “as one abnormally born.” Again we have only three options; either he was telling the truth, was lying, or it was an illusion. The latter is impossible because everyone who claims they encountered the risen Jesus would have had the same illusion or delusion, and those psychological and emotional states don’t work that way.

That leaves us only two options, truth or lies, and if the latter, that would make a remarkable number of liars agreeing on and keeping the lies, many of whom were willing to die for that lie—I’m going with truth.

Within three years the resurrection of Jesus was so accepted as a fact in Christianity that it became a memorized creed passed on to grow the faith. Critical scholars in the 19th century sought to undermine the credibility of Christianity by claiming the basic outline of Christianity grew over time among primarily pagan Christians throughout the Roman Empire. They seemed to have ignored this text that proved them wrong.

According to the Scriptures
The next thing we notice is the importance of the phrase, “according to the Scriptures.” Christianity wasn’t some new-fangled religion, but the fulfillment of the very old religion of Judaism. Jesus declared as much when he said in Luke 24 that the Scriptures, “the writings” in Greek, were all about him. He even rebuked the disciples because it should have been obvious: “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” In 20/20 hindsight it became so obvious to the Apostles and teachers of early Christianity that they quoted the Old Testament consistently in their writings and preaching:

The New Testament writers included approximately 250 express Old Testament quotations, and if one includes indirect or partial quotations, the number jumps to more than 1,000 (referring to all OT books except Obadiah).

In modern Evangelical Christianity the focus often becomes the New Testament, but Christianity was built and grew on the Old. That means we ought to give it as much attention as the New. The more we are steeped in the history of redemption from Genesis to Malachi, the fulfillment and implications of it from Matthew to Revelation become even more transformational, both for us individually and the nations of the earth.

The Resurrection of the Dead.
Then Paul moves from Jesus’ resurrection to ours. This brings up yet another realization I’ve had since my “conversion” to postmillennialism. For most of my Christian life I thought the goal of the Christian life was to go to heaven when we die. I knew very well the ultimate goal was the resurrection on a new heavens and earth, but heaven seemed the more immediate and important purpose of the Christian life. But it isn’t. Whatever happens to us between death and the resurrection, it’s just a way station, a place to get ready for the big show. God never had in mind a bodyless immaterial existence for His creatures or His people. One thing that distinguished God’s people from the pagans in the ancient world was their declaration that the material was inherently good, but disfigured. There was something beyond this fallen and broken material life, but it was still a material life.

But is it true? The only reason I believed in Christianity in the first place was because I believed it was true. I discovered early on there is plenty of evidence for its veracity, the most important being the resurrection. Reading the New Testament makes that abundantly clear; the church was built on the assertion that Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, was buried for three days, and returned to life, with more than 500 people claiming to be eyewitnesses of this fact. It is true or it is not, and we are forced to deal with the issues above, unless we think a man coming back to life claiming to be God is no big deal. As we see from this chapter, people claiming it was not true was something the church had to deal with from the beginning. Human beings don’t come back from the dead, and people in the first century had as difficult a time believing it as we do.

In verses 12-18 Paul directly deals with the skeptics, and tells us everything turns on whether Jesus really did come back from the dead. He and the other Apostles were so convinced of this they were willing to die for it, and nobody dies for what they know to be a lie. His argument is that if Jesus really did come back from the dead, so will we. Later in the chapter he tells us that was the reason Jesus came to earth, to conquer death, the last enemy (v. 26).

Jewish Conceptions of Resurrection
The concept of resurrection was nothing new to Jews; they believed it passionately, just not the resurrection of one man in the middle of history. That made no sense to them, which is one reason first century Jews don’t make up the resurrection of Jesus.

A good example of this is when Jesus was comforting Martha at the tomb of her brother Lazarus (John 11), and he tells her, her brother will rise again. She replied that she knows he will, “in the resurrection at the last day,” but Jesus was telling her something more profound. In response,

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though he die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

The victory over death comes through the one who overcame death first, who paid the penalty of sin, death, for us. The general resurrection of God’s people to eternal life could not happen unless sin’s penalty is paid. That is the only way these beautiful verses in Isaiah 25 could come true:

On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
8     he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove his people’s disgrace
from all the earth.
The Lord has spoken.

These verses are about Jesus. The mountain Isaiah speaks of was the mountain on which Jerusalem, the Holy City, was built. The city that had a temple of sacrifice and atonement for sin that was a type of the temple, Jesus, to come. Jesus the Messiah’s resurrection was the Jewish fulfillment of these prophetic words from the book of Daniel (chapter 12):

 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

Knowing it is true ought to compel us to “lead many to righteousness.”

If Christ Has Not been Raised Our Faith is Futile
So called “liberal” Christians of the 19th and early 20th centuries thought they could keep Christianity without a physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Many scholars, like Rudolf Bultmann, said this historicity of any of it was irrelevant. The only thing that counted was what people believed. The heck with that! If the Apostles were lying or deluded, I’ll go find something else to do and believe. Those “liberal” Christians should have done what I would do if I was convinced Christianity wasn’t true: burn the Bible and move on. But they did something far worse. They changed the nature of Christianity and claimed it was the real deal.

Paul wouldn’t have none of this. Either Christ physically, bodily, materially, in space and time, actually came back to life after being dead three days, or as he says,

 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Everything turns on the resurrection; everything else is noise. If Jesus of Nazareth did not come back from the dead and is not alive at this moment, what we believe is a joke and a fraud. And we can all agree with Paul when he says,

19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Why should we be pitied if Jesus didn’t come back from the dead? Because we are basing our lives on a lie. Who wants to live a lie? If it is not true, in fact, we deserve to be mocked and scorned as delusional suckers.

In his book, Christianity & Liberalism, J. Gresham Machen declares that “Christianity depends, not upon a complex of ideas, but upon the narration of an event.” Either that event happened, or it did not. If there is not enough evidence that it did, don’t waste your time. Contrary to postmodernism, historical events can’t be true for one person, and not for another.

In defending the Christian faith, to yourself and others, this is critically important. The church was built on this specific claim, nothing else. There was nothing ambiguous about it. The Apostles and all who believed because of their message knew exactly what they meant, and decided to trust them that it was true. If you study the resurrection, you’ll quickly conclude, unless you have an anti-supernatural bias, that the resurrection is the only plausible explanation for the early explosive growth of Christianity.

As I often say, lies or delusions do not do that.