The Task of Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern World

Apologetics is needed for the Christian task of evangelizing in a postmodern world. In this essay, the nature of truth will be presupposed as being absolute, as is the definition of the word. Truth must not and cannot be used in the irrational sense that multiple truths can exist.

Nature, Purpose, and Justification of Christian Apologetics

Christian apologetics involves establishing logical, historical, and scientific facts that correspond with reality. As believers, we presuppose that all general revelation in our world points back to God. However, this presupposition is not necessary for God to be revealed as single Lord of the universe. With this understanding grasped, apologists are able to proceed confidently because they can know that even from an unbiased perspective, the truth of the Christian Faith is still apparent.

The purpose of Christian apologetics is both offensive and defensive. The defending of the Christian faith is in regards to its rational and compelling Biblical claims, and the presentation of them as absolute. On the offensive front, apologists must become and remain intentional to point out contradictions and inconsistencies of other various arguments which are leading others astray. Compassion for the lost is key. Both defending Christian claims and debunking false truth claims can be done through logical thought, and historical and scientific proofs.

The justification for the task is found in the scriptures, God’s specific revelation to his people. Solomon expresses reality in his statement "This only have I found. God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes," # and Paul gives us the exhortation to demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ. # As believers, we should heed Paul’s words in our own lives, as well as our outward efforts in evangelism.

The Importance of Worldview for Apologetics

Worldview is crucial to apologetics. “A worldview is, first of all, an explanation and interpretation of the world and second, an application of this view to life. In simpler terms, our worldview is a view of the world and a view for the world." # Worldviews are not reserved for formal philosophers, but rather are apparent in the convictions of every person. "Some convictions are conscious, while others are unconscious, but together they form a more or less consistent picture of reality." #

Before I approach the reasons for the importance of worldview, let me stress my belief that regardless of which Faith people prescribe to, they have a worldview which is logically implied. However, "many people fail to bring their worldviews into critical focus." #

But this should not be, faith and worldview should flow back and forth, interpreting and affirming each other.

My question is, what is the point of faith if it does not dictate the worldview? Many moderns, or more accurately postmodernists, would ask that faith be kept to oneself and practiced only inside the home. If all Faith leads to worldview, then by privatizing it, (i.e. taking out the worldview) the Faith loses its essence.

Here lies one importance of worldview for apologetics. If Christianity is the only Faith which offers a true, logical and non-contradicting worldview, then the request to privatize Faith can only be seen as an attack on Christianity. Through apologetics, we must present the fact that any and all actions imply a worldview and therefore a faith, and then challenge that faith until the point of inconsistency is exposed.

As Francis Schaeffer stated, many non-believers cannot live within the logical implications of their beliefs,# and I think one of the major worldviews that needs to be challenged is postmodernism.

The Christian Worldview

The Christian worldview is a "Christ-centered, Spirit-led, Bible-honoring way of being," # and as the apostle John tells us that it “sets people free.”# It is the logical worldview that follow the Christian Faith. The Christian Faith affirms the supernatural creation through a single god existing in three forms, the fall which placed us “under God’s righteous condemnation and without hope in ourselves,” # redemption through the atonement and defeat of death, and hope in the eschaton that we will see God face to face and be ultimately perfected. Evangelism happens in light of the reality of what has happened and in the hope of what is to come.

The Christian worldview that follows this Christian faith, affects theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history. # What this implies, is that it is not appropriate for any believer to become, nor to remain, a relativist in any of these areas, although sadly, this is where so many remain. (I am not implying that by having differing views in these areas, one is considered a relativist. I am simply stating all of the views cannot be true at the same time.) 

Basic strategy for defending the christian worldview

In a world of so many different beliefs, and different concepts in regards to those beliefs, Christians must not underestimate their apologetic task. When evangelizing, we must always be aware of our we are being interpreted. In light of our postmodern culture, or more accurately our relative culture, we now have to start “the conversation” by taking a step back and discussing the concept of truth as being absolute, before delivering the truth that is Christianity.

It is crucial to understand and to not ignore the perspective of our audience. If we do, we run the risk of our audience misinterpreting our message. We must understand the context into which we are speaking, so we may proceed in an effective way. So many times we let ourselves get in the way, whether that be our arrogance in wanting to appear in a certain way to our audience, not ever stopping to think our audience actually might want to hear what we have to say, or letting our insecurity get the best of us. We need to meditate on the fact that God does not give us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power and love and self-control. #

We must remain prayerful, begging that the Holy Spirit would give us words that would penetrate the hearts of the lost. That we would be able to “hit home” in a way that stresses the importance of this life giving and life saving message of the cross. Finally, we must commit to do everything in our power to not allow any trace of apathy or indifference to be left in the person. Intellectual sloth can be considered one of the major hindrances to people  receiving the gospel. It must not be taken lightly but rather should keep us on our knees as we remember we, too, were once lost. #

Paul writes in his second letter to Timothy that servants of the Lord “must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.” # He goes on to say that perhaps God will grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of truth, and my hope is that we are ready and available when this happens.

Conclusion

As Jeff Ventrella of the Alliance Defense Fund once said, we must give enough apologetics to clear the path, then get back to the Gospel. In our modern world full of distractions, agendas, confusions, and contradictions, we must remove any obstacles keeping anyone from humbly coming to Faith in the Lord. As Paul tells, we are Christ’s ambassadors, through which He makes His appeal, to beg others to be be reconciled to God.#

We must continue doing our part through discipleship, and becoming more competent in our witness for Him. If while evangelizing, or simply leading our lives as followers of Christ, we do not insist upon what God has to say about a certain realm as crucial, we will encourage the misimpression that it falls outside the command and will of God, and that Christianity deals with private concerns only. # This will only fuel our current culture of relativism and shallow Christians who are unequipped to face the challenges that present themselves daily.

We must be on our guard to expose what is happening in our world, all the while remaining aware of the end goal. One very important fallacy that the postmodernists evoke is the fallacy of self-refutation. They are making an absolute truth claim that absolute truths do not exist. We must point this out intentionally while remaining gentle. If in the midst of proclaiming the message of Christ we seccum to worldy ways, we have effectively done nothing but to make the evangelistic task harder on ourselves as a whole because we will have perpetuated a culture which is basically void of Christ-likeness. We also need to take very seriously that we are being representatives of Christ, and strive in every means possible to do this with the utmost focus and dedication to the work and drawing people to His kingdom.

Bibliography

1) Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
2) Henry, Carl F.H. Twilight of a Great Civilization. Westchester: Crossway, 1988.
3) Noebel, David A.  Understanding the Times. Manitou Springs: Summit Press, 2006.
4) Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth. Westchester: Crossway, 2004.
5) Phillips, Brown, John Stonestreet. Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview, 2nd Ed. Salem: Sheffield Publishing, 2008.
6) Schaeffer, Francis A.  The God Who Is There, 2nd ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982.

War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

The subject of war has always been a topic of debate, but since the attacks on September 11th in the United States, the subject has become more highly debated as a matter of immediate security. As humans coexisting in a world of many different agendas and ideals, we must find the best solution which affirms the right to life and to freedom. As believers, we must find the way of which our Lord commands us, and then accept the duty to which we are called.

There are many examples of war in His specific revelation to His people, the Bible, to which we turn our attention. These stories are to be examined to shed light on current situations, but one must keep in mind the differences between the world in which the Hebrew people lived, and the modern times in which we find ourselves. All factors, such a differing methods of communication and weaponry, must be taken into account.

Overview of War in the OT

War was accepted as being part of the Hebrew world. The question was not “is war right”, but rather was “in which way is God commanding us to deal with it”. There are various stories represented in the Old Testament, however none of these may be taken out of context of the whole scripture. The war examples must be examined in light of the unchanging character of God, regardless of how an initial glance at the text could show otherwise.

The God of the the Hebrew people, Yahweh, is a holy god, and He carries out whatever means necessary to preserve His holiness.  His activity in the various wars the Israelite people enter into, are almost always a response to a people rebelling against Him. Even His chosen people are not immune to this.

Without a proper understanding of God’s holiness, the text could be misinterpreted as God not being a God of love or mercy. However, in the context of the grand narrative that is portrayed throughout the Old testament, God is continually forgiving and turning away His wrath. His mercy is even evident when He does release His wrath, because we can see that He is destroying a few as a means of preserving the ones who have not yet been enslaved by sin.

A New Testament reference, in John 15 verse 2, alludes to this. The author writes about a vine being pruned, and how the branches that do not bear fruit are cut off so that the whole vine may become more fruitful.  

Another characteristic of God that can be inferred from the war stories presented in the Old Testament, is his role as savior. "The greatness of Yahweh is described in terms of his role as Savior...the purpose of the victory is not the destruction of the enemy but the salvation of Yahweh's people." #

God has been described as the divine warrior, leading His people into battle, and possessing the only authority to set the terms of the battle. His people were never permitted to take more than what he allowed. As Hess stated, "the Bible prescribes for Israel neither a total ban on war not permission for the nation to fight however it wishes." #

In conclusion, “the Bible reflects a variety of reasons for war, but it does so with a moral tenor that ultimately recognizes battle as a necessary evil in the context of a great, cosmic struggle between good and evil.” #

Shalom by absorbing the violence

"The legacy of biblical monotheism is shalom, not violence" says Elmer Martens on page 33. # I would venture to say, there are many opposing view to this. However, I also believe these opposing views are based on taking stories out of context, not recognizing that apparent violence is actually a means in which God is using to establish His peace. This theme runs through the Bible and foreshadows what ultimately happens upon the cross.

"The cross both incorporates the message of peace and exhibits the method by which peace is made." # On the outside, even the cross has been criticized as being an act of violence, but again, ephesians 2:13-14 tells us “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.” #

The peace which God brings must be “calibrated” as Martens says, with the means by which it is brought. In order to stop the spread of evil, God may take "drastic action to halt the downward spiral." # Again, the destruction we see from stories in the Bible must be interpreted in light of God’s holiness and desire for His people.

In application for modern times, it is necessary to notice how the Bible never teaches violence from personal vengeance. As believers, we aim to follow Christ’s example in absorbing violence, rather than instigating or allowing to perpetuate. We are promised peace in the eschaton, and in light of this “it is incumbent on God's people to work in the present toward this goal." #

In conclusion, "God's project, to restore shalom, involves God's ultimate offering of himself as the scapegoat, the ultimate absorber of human violence...sin-caused violence is intercepted by Jesus Christ. Shalom is the result, but it's purchase price is the total self-giving of the deity, the absorption of violence." #

Impulses toward Peace in a Country at War

Two questions we must ask ourselves, as encouraged by Daniel Carroll, are: who are we, and what are we to do.# As believers, our identity lies within Christ, and is therefore where we find what we are to do.

In the book of Isaiah, we see the prophet’s grief and anger regarding Judah’s leadership and arrogance in the context of their pact with the Egyptians. As the people of God, they wrongly took their focus off of God, separating them from their “divine warrior”, and leaving them with a “death sentence.”# "The prophetic evaluation of Judah's preparations for war is extremely negative... there is at the same time a word of hope for the people of God that lies beyond the affliction that would soon befall them."#

We see another foreshadow to a model king that will not make ungodly choices, but will rather “reign in righteousness.”#  In conclusion, "war is not God's final word: the promise of universal peace is a fundamental part of the text's eschatological hope." #

Modern Terrorism

For modern application, we must examine prevalent violence in our world. Terrorism has been defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."# We must recognize that terrorism is not so much a movement as it is an instrument, and the people who utilize it are considered terrorist. The next step is to categorize terrorist, either as criminals or enemies. They may represent an enemy, but it is not always the best option to pursue them in this way.

"If terrorist are simple criminals, then acting in a way that will lead to civilian deaths, even if unintentional, is morally impermissible."# However, sometimes they "may be more appropriately regarded as enemies, given the magnitude of the threat they represent... The fact that [destroying institutions that preserve civilian life] is their goal and that they have the capability of carrying it out is what makes them enemies." #

Conclusion

As followers of Christ, we must look to His instructions for how to deal with the idea of war. We can, and must, study the Bible to shed light on modern situations, both for establishing peace and for maintaining it. Our goal should be to defeat enemies and to establish credible institutions to maintain the order. As Tony Pfaff writes, "by enforcing laws, police maintain peace; by fighting was, soldiers establish it,"  we just need to be wary that the means of establishing and enforcing are appropriate.#

We have to take into account, that with modern advances with technology, communication, and weaponry, what could once be considered a potential threat has to be taken more seriously. If weapons are capable of mass destruction, the mere possession of them now has to now be seen as an actual act of aggression. Our role as shalom-bringers and peacekeepers, is to affirm human life, while following the Biblical example of destroying whatever remains a threat to this. At the end of the day, "as governments deal with terrorists in a way that is legal and just, it is vitally important for them to recognize and address the roots of opposition from which the terrorism springs." #

The God Who Is There

Reflections on Schaeffer’s Insight

In The God Who Is There,

Francis Schaeffer summarizes the thesis of his book in the first sentence, “The present chasm between the generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the concept of truth.”  [Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982), 25.] The first half of the book is dedicated to defending his claim, and the second half speaks to Christianity and the action of the Christian in light of this claim.

The Intellectual & Cultural Climate of the Second Half of the Twentieth Century

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, it was presupposed that absolutes existed. Due to this, the notion of antithesis was implied and was a means of reasoning together.

Beginning in the realm of philosophy this notion was rejected. They “came to the conclusion that they were not going to find a unified rationalistic circle that would contain all thought... so they shifted the concept of truth.” [31] Relativism was the result, spreading geographically, through society, and from one discipline to another. Gradually trickling down from those consciously rejecting the concept, to those unaware of what was happening and being affected subconsciously.

Without antithesis, truth was to now be sought through synthesis, which disregarded any form of reason. [35-36] Soren Kierkegaard was perhaps the first to champion separating truth from reason, and faith was therefore conceptualized as being a blind leap. The philosophies of the day, had become more accurately considered “anti-philosophies” by Schaeffer. [37]

The next discipline to follow suit was art. Despairing artists of the century were channeling this concept of relativism through their art, almost as if they were saying “everything is chance. Change, the nothingness, is not just shut up in a framed picture, but it is the entire structure of life. You are in the chance, in the nothingness.” [53] Music closely followed, impressing upon the culture that “all is relative, nothing is sure, nothing is fixed, all is in flux.” [56] Homosexuality became more prevalent, because what is heterosexuality if not a fixed idea that needs to be challenged? Drama, poetry, and mass media were all being developed on this idea that if there is no certain truth, there can be no distinction between right and wrong. [61] A dialectical methodology tore through culture, leaving in its wake a despairing culture who had given up the means by which to fix it.

The New Theology

With the wrong concept of truth permeating culture, the next inevitable step was to have it permeate theology. Everything was reanalyzed through the lens of relativism. One could imagine what would happen when even the given theology of the day implies meaninglessness.

Man struggled to live within this inconsistency. As believers, we know this is because we are created as rational beings. As Schaeffer puts it, they “fail to know and function on the level of the whole man.”[80] This is a potential starting point for sharing the truth of Christianity because it aids this tension. More on this below.

Christianity

“Rightly understood, Christianity as a system has the answers to the basic needs of modern man...certainly regarding the reality of individual personality.” [113]  The new theology cannot give adequate answers, because any form of communication would be meaningless, because with no fixed meanings there are no fixed meanings for words. Christianity claims the opposite because “within the Trinity, before the creation of anything, there was real love and real communication.” [113]

The scriptures are God’s specific revelation, communicating to His people who are created in His own image. In His Gospel we find the truth which corresponds to our reality, and are stirred to respond in light of His loving sacrifice. Without this truth, love would be meaningless. With no final antithesis between right and wrong, “there can be no such thing a true moral guilt; therefore justification as a radically changed relationship with God can have no meaning.[132]

Speaking Christianity into the Twentieth-Century Climate

A materialist or naturalist could (try to) make a case (built on words which are meaningless), but they are not able to live within the implications of their beliefs.[150] Most non-believers, however, are never pushed to the logical conclusion of their presuppositions. [156] As believers, can we push them to this point, with all gentleness and compassion? Considering the tension they are no doubt dealing with, they just might listen. [157] No one can live at ease within this tension, and this should work on our behalf.

We have the opportunity to offer those lost and enslaved by the ways of the world freedom from tension and despair; it is so much more than wanting to win an argument or point out a fallacy. This will undoubtedly be painful, as coming face to face with reality usually is. We must remind ourselves of the ultimate goal and pursue it unashamedly, embracing the tough love we must show, all the while remaining faithful to walk alongside our audience as they embrace reality.

Pre-evangelism

Schaeffer emphatically regards pre-evangelism as “no soft option.”[169] I would whole-heartily agree that this is a matter that must be taken seriously, and not considered optional in the evangelistic task that confronts us. This the responsibility of ambassadors in order to effectively beg others to be reconciled to God, [2 Corinthians 5:20]

As apologists, as evangelists, as Christians, we need to recognize the context into which we are speaking, and therefore how our audience is interpreting the gospel message we are offering them. If it is into a pantheistic (pan-everything-ism[79]) framework, we have essentially done nothing and our work will return to us void of changed lives.

We cannot simply offer “one more probability into the twentieth-century relativistic people to whom everything is only a probability” [202]. The starting point for conversation needs to be in reference to the concept of truth and establishing it as standing on the basis of antithesis. Without this concept grasped properly, the reality and the good news of a personal Savior has no place to penetrate.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we must let the importance of the Christian task rest upon us, and become experts of our culture in order to understand and accomplish that task. We must acknowledge our culture of prevailing pantheism and relativism, and stop at nothing to challenge it.

We must developed a spirit of commitment to the task, while retaining a spirit of humility, gentleness, compassion, and perseverance. Humility in light of the fact that we were once also lost, compassion for our audiences who is dealing with despair and tension, gentleness in bringing them face to face with reality, and perseverance to do whatever the Lord calls us in order to reach the world for Him.

Schaeffer, Francis A. The God Who is There, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982.

Penitentials

Psalms 51:10-12 has been a life verse, well verses, for me. A Prayer for a clean heart, a steadfast spirit full of Joy. Recently, I have really been looking at this passage in it's context of acknowledging one's transgression and begging for forgiveness.

Psalms 51 is one of seven poems referred to as the Penitential Psalms, made up of chapters 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, and 143. David wrote 51 and 32 specifically referring to his affair with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, however all of them refer to confession of sin and God's forgiveness.

Looking back, the last post I wrote is more meaningful now than it was even when I wrote it, but I do have more of a follow up on my awe of God's forgiveness.

In light of God being all knowing, what does it mean to confess? In Chapter 32:5, David owns up to his transgression, and in chapter 51:4 he admits His sin is against God. Above any earthy earthly relationships, our sin is ultimately against God. This reality is crucial, because we see in verses 16-17 that ritual without genuine repentance is useless, and how can there be genuine repentance if we unaware of our separation from God? I'll speak for myself, but I am right there with David that separation from God is blatant, no chance of being unaware of it, it affects us physically. In 102:4 & 7, we see David's sleeping and eating affected.

"If you, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, That You may be feared." 

Psalms 130:3-4

What a mouthful, what a reality check. All sin separates us from God, how can I put more weight on certain actions (based on my emotions that a certain sin is worse), without therefore putting less weight on other sin? All sin has separated us from God, and our only hope is that God has already forgiven us. He is all knowing, and yet He ran after us anyway? He continues to run after us, though He knows the future? The human in me trembles in fear that His patience is about to end.

I think of the Casting Crowns East to West lyrics:

Here I am, Lord, and I'm drowning in your sea of forgetfulness 
The chains of yesterday surround me
I yearn for peace and rest
I don't want to end up where You found me
And it echoes in my mind, keeps me awake tonight
I know You've cast my sin as far as the east is from the west
And I stand before You now as though I've never sinned
But today I feel like I'm just one mistake away from You leaving me this way

I start the day, the war begins, endless reminding of my sin
Time and time again Your truth is drowned out by the storm I'm in
Today I feel like I'm just one mistake away from You leaving me this way

I know You've washed me white, turned my darkness into light
I need Your peace to get me through, to get me through this night
I can't live by what I feel, but by the truth Your word reveals
I'm not holding on to You, but You're holding on to me

*   *   *   *   *

Bonhoeffer speaks to the contrast of cheap grace v costly grace, and defines cheap grace as "the justification of the sin without the justification of the sinner," pg 43, and that "Costly Grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. Grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: 'My yoke is easy and my burden is light,' " pg 45.

We are commanded, yet as Bonhoeffer says on pg 38-39, "Jesus asks nothing of us without giving us the strength to perform it...May we withstand out foes, and yet hold out to them the the Word of the gospel which woos and wins the souls of men"

This is the point, that God may be glorified. I don't know why, but he chooses to use us to reflect his glory, and to show the vastness of His love. Ephesians talks about this all over the place... to the praise of the glory of his grace (1:6), to the praise of his glory (1:12), that you may know the hope of His calling (1:18), because of His great love (2:4), He might show the exceeding riches of His Grace (2:7), You who were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ (2:13), He might reconcile (2:16), that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the Church (3:10), to comprehend the love of Christ (3:18-19), for the edifying of the body of Christ (4:12), that we should grow up in all things into Him (4:15), for the edifying of itself in love (4:16),

This is a serious, important, significant call. We are forgiven, but this is not where the story ends. We are called to now be imitators of His great love (5:1) - Walking in love (5:2), walking as children of the light (5:8), finding out what is acceptable and exposing evil (5:10-11), walking as wise (5:15), redeeming the time (5:16), understanding the will of the Lord (5:17), being filled with the Spirit (5:18), giving thanks in all things (5:20).

"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil...Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints - and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make know the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak" Ephesians 6:10-11, 18-20

false humility

"'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called you son,' ... But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him"

It's worth noting that there is no mention of how the son felt or what he did. Personally, I don't think there is even a need to do so, because we already know the answer from first hand experience.

As a believer, I find myself putting limits on God's forgiveness. I only allow myself to hope to be forgiven for the the actual sins I am guilty of, while never even fathoming that God would/could forgive me. 

Shame, ladies and gentlemen...This position before the Lord, where we cannot bear to look at Him. We close our eyes tightly hoping He holds back His wrath. Our total depravity affirmed, yet he is running towards us?  

What does the son do, how does he feel? This is opposite of everything innate to humans. We earn forgiveness, we make it up, we expect the record of wrong to be kept, we beat ourselves up, we run away, we hide.

"Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations...according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh"

The false humility part part is what gets me. In my "humbling" of myself, I am just beating myself up, and am therefore allowing sin more power over me than I am allowing God. I am in fact "humbling" myself to this idol I have created, because the one true God is all powerful. I sin, in my sin, because of my sin. Depravity, affirmed.

Encouraged

So encouraged from Uncharted last night, and our discussion on the importance of intellectual roots in our Faith. We studied how the Bible as a whole stresses the importance of knowledge, but dove into Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians that all knowledge and Faith means nothing without love.

We talked our experience in ministry, and all the times we've ended up just trying to win an argument, rather than letting compassion for the person be our focus, with them knowing Jesus being the end goal. Lots of interesting discussion.

When is it righteous anger, and we are we taking too much of a burden upon ourselves?
When do you shake the dust off your feet and walk away?
How do you form a relationship with the person without condoning their sin?
What are some tangible ways of finding the sweet spot between knowledge and love?

Oh, and he's a picture of a baby seal that snuck in to nap on my couch.