“Who are you to judge?”

What does it mean to have faith?

Recently, someone ask me: “What are your fundamental beliefs when it comes to faith?” Here was my answer:

A lot of people are confused about what faith actually is.

Some say that faith is a passive, intellectual accent, or acknowledgement of something. While this is indeed a type of faith, it is not the faith that brings about salvation for which the Bible talks about. After all, as the Book of James says, “the demons believe in God and they shutter” (2:19); yet they are not saved.

Some say faith is a matter of what you SAY you believe. But the Bible says "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven.” In other words, not everyone who claims Jesus is claimed BY Jesus.

Their close cousins are those that believe that faith is encapsulated in the very words themselves. They are referred to as the “Word of Faith” movement. Their faith is in the words themselves. They believe that the louder you say the words (like “Jesus!”) the more powerful the Spirit moves.

Others think that faith is just some sort of energy force that we just need to pay $19.95 for, and it will quickly rescue us from all our problems.

But real faith is something else. Real faith, first, involves active trust. Real faith is an active, receiving and trusting belief. This is what the Bible speaks of in terms of salvation. John 1:12 says, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (ESV)

Second, real faith involves active trust in something particular. In other words, real faith has an object of faith. When someone says they have faith, the common sense response should be “Faith in what?” One’s faith is only as good as the object by which it is placed. Something implicit in real faith is that it is also a right faith – that is, the object of their faith is worth trusting in. Conversely, one’s faith is misguided if the object of one’s faith is NOT worth trusting in. For example, if you had a physical condition that required treatment, trusting in the right doctor is critical for your recovery. Trusting in an incompetent doctor will only lead to worse physical problems. Similarly, let’s say you have a spiritual ailment. You need a competent spiritual doctor to help you, not a quack. We need faith (to trust) in the real God to save us.

Third, real faith always involves having reasons for why one believes in this object. Real faith is “trust based on evidence.” Some people think that the opposite of faith is reason. But the opposite of faith is disbelief. Everyone has reasons for their beliefs. Having reasons for one’s belief does not mean their beliefs are correct, but they have them because they have reasons. So if you’re trying to understand someone and where they are at, after asking the first question about faith (“what do you have faith in?”), another helpful question to ask is: “Why do you believe in that?”, or: “What are the reasons you have for believing that?” The answer one gives is their reasons. The reasons help them make the decision to trust in that thing. Those reasons can also be helpful in exploring whether one has trusted in right things.

In summary, real faith can be defined as an active trust based on reasonable assurance in right things. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith similarly: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

MacArthur on Larry King Live

Here's a clip of John MacArthur accurately representing what the Bible says about the ways things are spiritually. Even Larry King recognizes the non-sense the other so-called "Christian" is saying is the way we need to look at it. FYI: This other man is coming from the perspective of what is referred to as religious pluralism and neo-tolerance.

Book Review: The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

It has been over ten years now since I first heard about an orthodox Christian pastor who has found growing success reaching young people in arguably the most liberal city in America, New York City. What was so amazing was that congregation was growing mainly as a result of new converts! You ask, “Who is this man?! And how did he do it?!”

Well, this man is Tim Keller, pastor of Manhattan’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church. And he gives details on how he did it in his new book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. In it, he not only evaluates the reliability of Christianity, but he offers what he considers to be the solution to the growing polarization that has been occurring in the Culture Wars in America where “denunciation has replaced disagreement” in public discourse on topics related to religion.

His thesis is this: The right question isn’t whether one has faith but whether the object of one’s faith is trustworthy; in light of this reality, it can be further demonstrated that sufficient reasons exist that should dissuade one from trusting in anything other than the Person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.

Keller has two main reasons for writing the book. The first, which I guess is the most important, is because his wife told him to. He considers her one of the three greatest influences in his life – along with Christian giants C.S. Lewis and Jonathan Edwards.

The second reason he wrote his book is to try and allay the bitter, vitriolic, nasty atmosphere that exists between the left and the right in America, by imploring both sides – the conservatives and liberals; the religious and secularists – to act more civil towards each other. These two groups are his book’s intended audience. He refers to them as the skeptic and the believer. He hopes his book will help bridge the divide between these opposing sides: one that wants to write off liberals as “God-haters” and one that considers less progressive Christians close-minded to either the Truth, or the truths of others. He expresses a hopefulness as he writes in his introduction (xix) that his book will encourage collegial, yet respectful, dialogue between those he calls “entrenched traditional conservatives” and those he refers to as “secular liberal people” urging both sides towards increased communication and understanding despite the fact that each holds diametrically-opposed worldviews: that is, philosophical materialism and/or epistemological relativism, on the one hand; and theism and epistemological absolutism, on the other.

Despite his optimism, Keller remains realistic, understanding that simply calling people to civility will not reduce the polarization. Someone has got to show them how to get along better. Keller’s anecdote to this cancer of discord in our country he refers to as a “Spiritual Third Way”. His solution requires both sides to be willing to being honest – first with each other and them with themselves. All parties must understand and fairly represent the other side. I think of 1 Peter 3:15 where it exhorts us to give respect to the other side. I often am reminded when I am evangelizing that I have no right to choose what they do with their own soul. Moreover, while I am confident my faith is indeed well-placed, if I’m going to be intellectually honest, I must admit to skeptics that there is a possibility that I could be mistaken about how I see the world.

Honesty must furthermore extend to oneself. This is where he invites readers to reconsider the meaning of doubt. He urges both skeptics as well as believers to examine the reasons for their doubts. He points out that a skeptic’s doubt in something is actually rooted in his or her faith in an alternative belief. He emphasizes how everyone believes in something. The question they should be asking is whether there is good enough reason for them to be trusting in the things they are trusting in. Skeptics should hold the same high level of scrutiny to one’s own faith as they do with the faith of believers. Proper level of scrutiny of one’s own faith insures that the object of their personal faith is worthy of their trust.

Keller writes in the introduction (xix), that the majority of his book, “is a distillation of the many conversations [he has] had with doubters over the years.” They comprise objections which Keller takes on with a great amount of cultural-sensitivity and philosophical competence. In essence, what he does, as a good evangelist, apologist, and pastor, is metaphorically “come alongside” both the skeptic and the believer and practically guide them through that process of exploring their doubts chapter by chapter, page by page.

Similar in content to other popular apologetics books like Lewis’ Mere Christianity, or the more recent The Case for… series of books by Lee Strobel, Keller’s book is organized topically according to the reason for one’s doubt or belief. Keller devotes the first half of his book (chapters 1 – 7) addressing the major objections skeptics have for why they do not follow Christ. Keller pursues here the unfolding of what is commonly referred to as defensive apologetics. Keller calls it, “tackl[ing] intellectual barriers of theology” (xx). The second half of the book covers the top reasons why believers believe in God and trust in Christ – otherwise known as offensive apologetics. Here he focuses on allaying the doubts of believers by offering reasons why their trust in God is properly placed. Keller describes this section as “a more positive exposition of the faith they are living out in the world.” The methods he employs for developing each chapter are quite diverse. He integrates occasional narration and description, as well as a proportionally greater amount to exposition and argumentation. He provides not only personal stories of those in his church who have been transformed by God, but also carefully-thought-out analogies he has collected over the years, all in an effort to help doubters better understand what Christianity actually says regarding the issues of life.

Argumentation is the main method by which Keller develops his thesis. You may not recognize it though, namely because the way in which he craftily builds rapport with his reader. One way he disarms the unbeliever is by getting on their side of a debate when he can. He argues in Chapter Four, for instance, that injustice like the racism experienced in America often blamed on Christianity was not due to the influences of Christianity per se, but by the lack of application of the faith by those who claimed to be Christians. History demonstrates this, he notes. As Keller points out, “The greatest champion of justice in our era [Martin Luther King, Jr.] knew the antidote to racism was not less Christianity, but a deeper and truer Christianity.”

Along the lines of his argumentation in the book, I largely agree – particularly on a number of points. His overall critique of what is wrong is spot on. Civil discourse is rare and the sources for this contention, I believe, are as he indicates. After reading his book, I have particularly been hard hit by how much of this is true when a very well known conservative political pundit who I – to some degree – admire and respect, went ballistic one day on an animal rights activist over the radio. This conservative was constantly interrupting him and was never affirming what he said that was correct. It caused a very heated conversation. I think this pundit needs to read Keller’s book. Who is our real enemy? The Bible is clear: our enemy is the devil (who is full of pride), the world’s system’s (which are broken), and our own broken natures (which is antagonistic toward God). Keller reminds us that whether we are talking to a radical liberal, or staring at ourselves in the mirror, those three things remain the same!

Having looked at points of agreement with his arguments, I will now share three areas I recognized in his writing for which I may have disagreement: his apparent affirmation regarding pacifism (74-75); his possible perspectives on restoration theology as it relates to social justice and eschatology (224), and what seems to be a rather too optimistic a view regarding man’s ability to reason correctly (7). I am not entirely certain what his views here are exactly; he only quickly touches on these subjects. This makes sense though, considering these topics are not the main focus of his book; they are merely secondary, if not tertiary, points of doctrine. Similarly, these points of potential contention are rather minuscule when compared to the weight of importance given to those areas which Keller does focus largely on, and for which the Christian faith rests. For these reasons, I will leave my conjecture and criticism to only a passing mention.

With few exceptions, the clarity, simplicity and thoroughness by which he writes, is also worth mentioning. He unpacks deep theological concepts so that the lay person can understand them while avoiding being reductionistic. Moreover, he provides additionally helpful information in the end notes, where he often cites leading proponents or opponents of views expressed or events detailed in the book – along with corresponding published works.

I mentioned there are exceptions; here are two: The first weakness involves his occasional cursory analysis. For example, Keller says (18) he argues against the main efforts to address the current divide on religion in our world. While describing many of the causes for religious division (e.g. not acknowledging both sides are growing, both sides not looking at their own doubts honestly, denouncing rather than reasoning with), he does not move much beyond there. He does indeed support a call for more civil dialogue, as I discussed earlier. However, this is the only time when I found him describing any other efforts at bridging the religious divide (other than his own), let alone arguing against them.

Another instance of weakness involves his lack of clarity and thoroughness when warning people not to seek God as a means to an end. He cautions readers to explore their motives in their quest towards God. Keller asks: “Are you getting into Christianity to serve God, or to get God to serve you?” (228) He states that the correct answer is the former and not the later, yet provides no clear explanation as to why that is or why it can be nothing else. He simply states that if one’s motive is for God to serve them, then it would be illicit for they would be loving the creation rather than the Creator (1 John 2:15). If one’s desire is for God to serve them for the purposes of acquiring the things of this world, then that would indeed be an illicit motivation. Yet, the phrase “get God to serve you” is an equivocal phrase. It could also mean that God serves them by giving salvation to them. Hello? Should they not want God to do that? He is the only One who can serve us in this way. Matthew 20:28 states, “even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (ESV; cf Mark 10:45) Again, Keller provides no sufficient distinction. Consequently, the gospel in this case is misconstrued. On one hand, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding this ambiguous section. After all, none of us are perfect. (I certainly am not.) I am convinced that he fully understands the gospel, and communicates it clearly every other time I noticed. I would conclude that he simply falters here expositionally – not theologically (Gal. 3:1; 5:12). Moreover, I would assume he would be in whole-hearty agreement with my assessment above. In fact, it seems as though he attempts in the paragraph that follows on page 228 to make this point clear. Sadly, despite the attempt, in my view, the clarity never comes. My personal conviction is the gospel is just too important to get wrong at all – even if ambiguity occurs just on very rare occasions. In respect to those like him who are elder-teachers in the church, in some way I feel this is the one area for which no tolerance or grace of any kind should be extended.

In my final review, I think the book will do quite well among all of us doubters – both skeptics and believers. From my own personal experience in evangelism, I am confident this book will be used by the Father to draw people to Jesus (John 6:44). Particularly, this book should fare well among believers considering Keller’s growing reputation and credentials. After all, who should not be impressed with a man who has for many years, in the heart of one of the most liberal areas of our country, following each service, left time for a question-and-answer period (69)! I must say, that takes guts! Besides his reputation contributing to the sale of his book, Keller’s work itself should easily serve as a wonderful reference book on Christian apologetics. But more than that, let’s pray, for our sake, and for the sake of the lost, that we in the church become more honest as Keller hopes we will, and take the “Spiritual Third Way”.[i]

________________

[i] Speaking of which, the Holy Spirit has reminded me after reading his book of my need to lead my conversations with skeptics with an honest assessment of their criticisms. I need to be sure to give adequate time to affirming their criticisms when appropriate. Moreover, as Keller demonstrates, sufficient time needs to be devoted to reflecting back to them what they are saying so that they know I am listening to them and understand them. If they know that I know where they are coming from, rapport will be build, relationships can be manifested, which can establish the fertile grounds necessary to plant the seeds of a clear understanding of Christianity in their minds and hearts.

Living Buddha, Living Christ

By Rich Bordner

At the request of a colleague, I recently read a book titled Living Buddha, Living Christ, by Buddhist Thich Nath Hahn.

The author seems to be a man of character. He makes some good observations about character virtues, the fruit of the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit in his book. But other things he says are misguided, I think.

Below are some of the things he says in the book, followed by some of my thoughts.

Hahn:

People kill and are killed because they cling too tightly to their own beliefs and ideologies. When we believe that ours is the only faith that contains the truth, violence and suffering will surely be the result. The second precept of the Order of interbeing, founded within the Zen Buddhist tradition during the war in Vietnam, is about letting go of views: "Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice non attachment from views in order to be open to receive others’ viewpoints." To me, this is the most essential practice of peace.

My thought:
Of course, being open to a change in perspective can be a good thing. I’ve found that far too often, rather than engaging opposing viewpoints and either being changed by them or refuting them, we put our hands to our ears and shout "LALALALALALAAA!!!" Sometimes we’d rather stick our heads in the sand than consider the possibility that we’re wrong. But this is only one side of the coin. Sometimes it’s good to be "bound to present views" and attached to them. It can be good to be zealous for your beliefs... what matters is not your zealousness, but the truth of the belief you are zealous about. Martin Luther King, Jr. was definitely attached to his beliefs in the equality of all human beings, and the world is a better place as a result. William Wilberforce was "bound" to his abolitionist beliefs, and we should thank him for that. Other examples abound, but you get the point.

Another thing that bears commenting on is Hahn’s remark that "When we believe that ours is the only faith that contains the truth, violence and suffering will surely be the result." This is a very passive-aggressive way to argue against a religion or point of view. His book is peppered with statements like this, but all throughout the book, Hahn himself believes he gets it right. That is, he believes that his pluralism ("all roads lead to god"), as opposed to more exclusivistic faiths (i.e. fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, etc), is the faith that contains the truth. This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Better to just admit you (as well as everyone else) think your point of view is correct, and that this is ok. Then, argue for your point of view. Simple as that.

Hahn:

If we say, "According to Buddhism, this exists," or, "This does not exist," it is not Buddhism, because the ideas of being and non-being are extremes that the Buddha transcended.

My thought:
Interesting. And ironic, given the fact that his whole book is an exercise in pointing out what is true and false, what exists and doesn’t exist. Kinda like the vegetarian who walked into In-n-Out and ordered a double-double.

Hahn:

When we see something overflowing with love and understanding, someone who is keenly aware of what is going on, we know that they are very close to the Buddha and to Jesus Christ. (emphasis mine)

My thought:
Anyone see any contradiction between this and Hahn’s previous comment? Just checking.

Hahn:

In this small book, I shall try to share some of my experiences of and insights into two of the world’s beautiful flowers, Buddhism and Christianity, so that we as a society can begin to dissolve our wrong perceptions, transcend our wrong views, and see one another in fresh, new ways. (emphasis mine)

My thought:
Time and again in his book, Hahn critiques those who are judgmental and intolerant (meaning: those who think other’s religions are wrong), like Pope John Paul II, yet also time and again he does the same thing himself.

Hahn tries to compare the Buddha to Christ, but at the end of the day, the two are as unlike as aspirin and arsenic. Sure, both aspirin & arsenic are white and come in tablet form, but the differences are legion, and they make all the difference. Likewise, both Christ and Buddha might have spoken about living a moral and peaceful life, but only One has risen from the grave in history, and only One claimed to be God in human flesh, the only One who can eradicate your sin debt.

MINISTRY SPOTLIGHT: New Evangelism Ministry Launches

This week marks the start of a new Christian outreach ministry, Sharing The Truth In Love (STTIL). The founder and director of this unique nonprofit organization is none other than me, Ed Nicholson, creator of this blog ThatTheyMayB1.net. Based in Columbus, Ohio, STTIL’s mission aims at clearly and accurately communicating a Christian worldview with those who are living in the United States. To learn more about our ministry and how you can contribute, go to: www.sharingthetruthinlove.org.

Personal Invitation to “Pay It Forward” >>>

If you’ve ever felt blessed by any of my emails or posts over these past three years, I want to invite you to please consider financially supporting my new ministry. Simply click on the Donate tab at www.sharingthetruthinlove.org if you would like to “Pay It Forward.”

Here’s a really nice piece about me that appeared this week in my hometown newspaper. Click here>>

Related Article:
Local Track Star Becomes Evangelist

Greg Koukl debates Deepak Chopra (video)

Greg Koukl, an "up-and-rising star" within the Conservative Evangelical community, is making inroads encouraging Christians to not only be “light,” but “salt”(Matthew 5:13-16). As President and Founder of Stand to Reason, Koukl has devoted his ministry to helping Christian think more clearly about issues of moral, social, and religious significance. The scope of his ministry is specifically aimed at “equipping Christians in three vital areas: Knowledge, Wisdom, and Character.”

Recently, he debated the kingpin of New Age gurus, Deepak Chopra on PAX television. To watch this stimiluting debate, click here.