Wishy-Washy Jesus

Q: I keep thinking about Fitz’ comments about which Jesus you know and the “wishy-washy Jesus” whose followers that whatever people believe is OK (sic). I’m having trouble reconciling those thoughts with my beliefs in religious freedom and tolerance. Wouldn’t more tolerance be good, especially in terms of today’s topic? Is it tolerance versus acceptance? If so, how do you balance those?

A: Tolerance. Now there's a popular word in the common vernacular these days. It's a tough one, though. According to Dictionary.com, it means a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. Taking that into consideration, what do you do with the person that believes differently than you do? Should you give that person the right to believe however they want to, be permissive about their beliefs? Yes, I believe that's fine. Anyone can believe what he/she wants. We don't have to force them to believe what we believe. However, that does not make an alternate truth that someone else believes to be equally true as the truth (which we believe is found in Jesus Christ, the way the truth and the life - John 14:6). There can only be one truth. Two opposing things can not be true philosophically. For example, you can not have someone who is a married bachelor. Each of those elements - married and bachelor - have a truth to them that can not be combined to the other without a violation of their inherent definitions. Along the same lines, two sets of beliefs that are contradictory to one another can not both be true. One has to be true, and the other false. As Christians, we believe Jesus to embody that truth. If another set of beliefs contradicts Him, then we believe it to be false. If that is intolerant, then Jesus was intolerant since He was the One that made the claim to be the truth. If someone wants to believe to be true what we believe to be false, they have that right. We do not, however, have to accept it as truth.

So, out of respect for the individual, we should let everyone choose for themselves what they want to believe, right? I would answer that with a no. Out of respect and love for the individual, wouldn't we want what is best for them? Let me make a ridiculous example to illustrate: If we have a loved one that believes that drinking a mixture of plutonium and acid will help them to live forever, and we know the truth to be that it will kill them - and rather rapidly - would we not want to tell them the truth? Of course we would. So if we know the truth, why would we be OK with our loved ones - and people we don't know, for that matter - to believe in and live with untruth? We shouldn't be. So while it seems to be more caring for the individual to allow him/her to believe as he/she wants, it is far more caring to them to show them what real truth is. Jesus didn't call us to be tolerant and accepting, but He did call us to love.

Read More......

Is Christianity true?

Q: What do you say when your children ask you, “How do you know that Christianity is real or right?”

A: There is only one way to know if anything is true or not. If it aligns with reality, it is true. If I say, “The Rams are playing the Patriots in the Super Bowl in a couple weeks,” I would not be right. I would be delusional! (Or perhaps prone to wishful thinking!) The statement, “The Giants are facing the Patriots in the Super Bowl” is right because it aligns with reality. My dislike of both teams matter little. It is what it is.

The Apostle Paul tells us Christianity rises or falls on the resurrection. If Christ is raised from the dead, Christianity is true. If not, then our faith is futile and in vain. There is no greater miracle and no greater proof. But, is our belief in the resurrection true? If it aligns with reality, then yes. How do we know if it does or not? After all, that was 2000 years ago. There is only one way to know if something happened in history and that is eyewitness testimony. We have many eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. They believed it so strongly that when they were confronted with the option of Caesar and live or Christ and die, they chose Christ. Can we prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, but the eyewitness accounts mean we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard for any event in human history. It is the standard for trials in court, too. On the basis of reliable eyewitness testimony, we can tell our kids, with confidence, that Christianity is true.

Read More......

Is it all made up?

Q: How do you know what is true or not? We have no proven facts of Jesus’ being on earth, so how do you know it really happened? Maybe it is a made-up story.

A: A number of submitted questions, like this one, fell under the “existence/proof” category. This question, at its root, is about history and how it can be trusted. A couple things need to be said about this: First, when it comes to ancient history, we should apply the same standards to the Bible that we do to other ancient literature. There is far more manuscript evidence for the Bible than many of the other accepted pieced of ancient literature. When it comes to historical figures, there is far more proof for the existence of Jesus Christ than Julius Caesar! In the end, it comes down to eyewitness accounts. If a newspaper or TV news crew is trying to get the scoop on a story, what do they do? They try to find eyewitnesses. This works in collecting news, in gathering evidence for the courtroom and in research by historians. The New Testament is filled with the testimonies of eyewitnesses. The Holy Spirit saw to it that we have not one, but four gospels, which are eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life. There is far less proof that Socrates actually lived, which few historians question. When the same standards are used for the Bible as all ancient literature, the Bible has much greater reliability if for no other reason that the sheer volume of eyewitness accounts.

Could it be “made-up?” At first glance one might think that is a reasonable alternative. But, as they say in the NFL, “upon further review…” it doesn’t add up. First, other eyewitnesses of the same era (folks who had a vested interest in the failure of this new movement) could have produced their own witnesses who contradicted the Christians’ view of events. The Jewish leaders vehemently disagreed with Jesus’ claims. The Romans were none too happy about the early Christians’ Christ-centered living since they refused to worship Caesar as god. Yet, they never claimed Jesus didn’t exist. They simply took issue with the meaning and nature of his existence.

Two, the stories ring true; they don’t sound or read like typical made up stories. Little details are passed along that are totally unnecessary, yet would only be mentioned if an eyewitness was telling the story. The writers are ok with seemingly contradictory accounts; people who are holding together a made up story are extremely careful to corroborate every detail. Made up stories are “slick” and seamless; not so the gospels. Finally, writers making up history tend to put themselves in the best possible light. The apostles are sometimes bumbling, other times faithless and oftentimes clueless. Take Peter for instance. He supplied Mark with the material for his gospel. Why would Peter let the whole world in on his great failure in denying Jesus? The only explanation is that it really happened.

Three, it is hard to hold conspiracies together. If Christianity was made-up, that is what it would be – one big conspiracy. The apostles, the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, were threatened to not preach in Christ’s name. They preached anyway. They were beaten. They kept preaching. They were tortured. They preached even more. All but one was martyred for their allegiance to Jesus. People may die for an unworthy cause. They don’t die for lies. Surely one of Christ’s original disciples would have recanted the whole made-up story when subjected to unbearable pain, torture and death (and believe me, the Romans were masters at this). Yet, none of them did. If it was all made up, it’s the most committed, unified group of masochistic liars in human history.

Read More......