What a Perplexing Moral Universe

In an expression of remarkable generosity of spirit, relatives of the AME Church members murdered in Charleston, S.C., arose one after the other to tell the accused killer of their loved ones, that they forgive him. It is here that I find myself at odds with reason and personal theology based on my Christian faith. That I do not agree with what they did in no way diminishes my ability to be moved by their gesture. But I do not agree with it.

First, consistent with my philosophical viewpoint, I do not believe that anyone but the actual victim has the right to forgive someone for the evil they have perpetrated. Now, I do think that those families who lost loved ones can pardon the assailant who is responsible for their personal loss, but they do so for themselves not the victims. Many Christians believe that their faith demands forgiveness of everyone for everything. Maybe it is just the humanity in me, nonetheless, I do not know why they believe this. Certainly that is not standard Christian doctrine. One may argue that Christ is the template for this position. Let there be no doubt, I am aware that Christ forgave those who crucified him. I am unaware of Him forgiving all those who crucified others.

Second, I am not aware of the accused having repented. And even God Himself does not forgive those who fail to repent and except Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Third, regarding whites, blacks and crimes, we seem to populate a perplexing moral universe. Pronounced numbers of black Americans seem to be unable or unwilling to forgive America (specifically white Americans) for sins committed by whites who are long time passing. But many seem to support the forgiveness of a white man who murdered nine blacks last week.

The families of the murdered blacks speak eloquently and movingly about preferring forgiveness to feeling anger and hate toward a man who murdered their loved ones just days ago. But millions of blacks seem to prefer feeling anger and hate toward a vast number of their fellow Americans who have never wronged them or any other black American. Indeed, most American whites do not even have ancestors who ever wronged blacks. The truth is that the vast majority of white Americans are not racist.

This is demonstrated by the lengths to which those who contend that white Americans are racist must go to "prove" their case. One such absurdity is that of “macroaggressions.” It is the notion that while overt racism in society has largely been done away with, innocuous-sounding questions or comments that may have no racist intent whatsoever are actually filled with anti-black virulence. One example of a "microaggression" is when a white person says, "I don't see color; I just see human beings." Even though such a sentiment is precisely the ideal to which all decent people should aspire - judging every human being by his or her character, not race and there are those who say we are supposed to judge this sentiment racist.

The writer Viktor Frankl once said, “There are only two races -- the decent and the indecent." According to current far left mainstream (both black and white) thinking on "microaggressions," Frankl's response would now be considered racist.

How is it that so many people can forgive an unrepentant mass murderer a week after he murdered a loved one, but not forgive a society that has repented, atoned and created the best place in the world for a black human being to work if they choose and live? Maybe this is a question best answered by Obama himself, who despite his misgivings about America exceptionalism has surely benefited from being part of it.

Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People

In light of what happened in Charleston, South Carolina I am compelled to conclude the current series on apolologetics with an age old question. Why do bad things happen to good people?

Some might argue that the Christian faith is merely an excuse to escape the harshness of reality. Is this any more reasonable than arguing that atheism is a mere excuse to escape the harsh reality of judgement and the thought of an eternity spent without and apart from God? The more important point, though, is that the oft-repeated criticism that bad things happen to good people says nothing at all about God, and everything about man. Yet pain is not mere suffering, but also a warning sign and a way to protect us against danger. That something my hurt is undeniable, and that we all feel some sort of pain at some point is inevitable, but whether this pain is our doing or God’s is something entirely different. The omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and ever compassionate God allows mankind to suffer, just as he allows us all sorts of things, because we have the freedom to behave as we will. But he has also provided a place with the greatest contentment we can imagine if only we listen to him, listen to his Son, and listen to his church.

As to the specific issue of pain, suffering and loss, C.S. Lewis, watched his beloved wife die of cancer, put it this way: “But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” God’s plan is for us to return to him, and lead the best possible life on earth; sometimes we need to be reminded of our purpose, and pain is a sharp, clear tool to achieve that purpose. A needle may be necessary to prevent a disease; nobody welcomes nor do they enjoy the vaccination, but it potentially prevents a far greater suffering, just as what may seem like even intolerable pain or loss now will lead to far greater happiness later.

C.S Lewis also wrote: “By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively his lovingness…By love, in this context, most of us mean kindness – the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or in that, but just happy. What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing…we want in fact a Father in heaven whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, “a good time was had by all.”

What Lewis stated above applies more today than when Lewis was writing. If I want something, runs the current expression, I need something; and if I need something, thus I must have something. To the Christian, however, God knows our needs better than we do, and also knows our wants and our needs are distinctly singular occurrences.

But God did not leave us here to suffer pointlessly. Our loving and merciful God has a perfect plan to use that suffering to accomplish His purpose. He uses pain, suffering and loss to draw us to Himself. Did not Jesus say, “in this world you shall have tribulation (John 16:33).”? Miseries and grief are not unusual occurrences in life; they are part of what it means to be mortal in a fallen world. It is in time of pain, despair and bereavement that we reach out to him. God proves to us that our faith is real through the pain, suffering and death that are inevitable in this life. Now, how we respond to this pain and suffering is determined by the genuineness of our faith. Finally, God uses pain, suffering and loss to take our eyes off this world and to put them on the next. Fore, the pain and sufferings we endure and which seem so terrible “are not worthy to be compared with the coming glory to be revealed in us” (Romans 8:18).

Is Jesus God Incarnate

The last post dealt with the resurrection of Jesus as a significant event to which corroboration through verifying documents attest. The significance of which creates resolution, intention and faith. We also discussed how the details like specific times, dates, places and people lend veracity to the event by placing it in historical settings.

Today we will examine the deity of Jesus. First and most importantly, Jesus communicated about Jesus. Christ himself stated that there was but one God. Yet both by word and works, Christ claimed equality with God. Is not the central message of the Christian faith that Jesus is Messiah, King, Lord and Savior? His distinctive identity came at his extraordinary conception (through the Holy Spirit). Was he not given a divine name? Throughout Jesus’s youth did we not see his relationship with God transcend normal human experience?

At the initiation of Christ’s ministry, the Father spoke from heaven, informing us of Jesus unique identity. Throughout his ministry, he said and did things that evidenced his divine status: He forgives sin; He promised blessings for those who are persecuted because of Him; He determines who enters the Kingdom of Heaven; He taught others to give up their lives and follow Him; He stated that the basis of judgement will be man’s relationship to Him; He speaks of his angels; Eternal life depends on belief in Father and in Him. As C.S. Lewis once wrote: these are either the ravings of a madman – or Jesus was God.

Even the Holy Spirit does not draw attention to himself, but points to Jesus. Did not Jesus clearly proclaim himself to be God? All that has been stated above reference; Christ’s deity and much more not revealed by this writer can be found in the New Testament.

There are more than a few skeptics, some being friends, who openly ask, why did God become man? God became man to primarily communicate himself to us. This being the case, what was his message? That He is the center of the universe and that the "uncaused cause" loves us and does not want any of us to be without him. But our transgression or sinfulness has separated us from God. For this reason also, God became man and lived a perfect life so that He could be a perfect savior. He was our payment. He did not come to show us the way to God, but to be the way to God. Without Christ, eternal death and judgement are all that await us. He was judged on our behalf. Jesus became man so that we might become children of God. “He made Him who knew no sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Jesus Christ is the God–man. He has delivered us and promised to give us eternal life if only we will trust and obey Him.

During a span of four weeks we have briefly examined, from an intellectual standpoint, four issues as they relate to Christianity. The four issue discussed were the following: The existence of God (Does He exist); Reliability of both the New Testament and secular source documents (Are they reliable); Resurrection of Christ (Did He arise from the grave); Deity of Christ (Is Jesus the Son of God). There is a conclusive argument for the reality of God. He has communicated. Jesus rose from the dead, demonstrating the truthfulness of his claims. And Jesus is God incarnate.

The Ruination of a Nation

Have you not noticed how Barack Obama and his secular-socialist worldview is helping push America to the brink of disaster? Worse yet is the possibility of judgment by the Almighty just around the proverbial corner. Time and events will answer that question. 

What I do perceive is a good possibility that we as a nation, are heading toward an international economic crash, racial discord and violence, an out-of-control invasion across our southern border, a massive global war against radical Islam that is spinning out of control. Meanwhile, the Middle East is being destabilized. And who does not believe a war for the survival of Israel will begin with Iran? All of this is likely to play out in the last eighteen months of the Obama presidency.

The question I ask you the reader; is simply impeaching Obama enough to halt the impending calamity? Or should he be put on trial for umbrage's committed while occupying the White House — lying to the American people about his upbringing as a Muslim, his training as a communist, his apparent determination to destroy America as an exceptional nation and his incessant disingenuousness and controlling of the message? These are questions I pose to you, the reader. Is there a definitive answer to these questions? Probably not! And, if there are no answers, then what? And, "the wheels keep on turning," the economy crashes, the embers of racial disharmony explode into a race war, the border invasion continues unabated, the hostilities with Radical Islam ignites a jihad campaign within our contiguous borders, and the Middle-east's descent to "hell in a hand basket," becomes a reality leading to world-wide chaos. 

Resurrection of Jesus

In my last post we cited scrutiny of biblical and non-Christian sources from antiquity that allow us a high degree of confidence in recognizing that what is inscribed biblically actually occurred. Therefore, the central historical events that we previously, though briefly spoke about, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth are significant happenings that are factual and thereby, relevant to legitimacy of Christianity’s claims.

From an apologist’s perspective, the most significant event to which verifying documents attest is the resurrection of Jesus. Why is this significant? It not only establishes what He said to be true, but it creates resolution, intention and faith. Our connection to God does not end with the resurrection, but it starts there and is fundamentally tied to it. All Christian theological cards fall if not authenticated by historical source documentation. This is true not only with Christianity but any other religion’s theology.

Let me ask you, the reader a question. What are the specific issues that you would look for and expect if the resurrection of Jesus Christ actually took place? How about looking for historicity in the accounts which tell of the event. Let us look at historic verification. I do realize that historic corroboration can come in many ways, but an event of this enormity, would not be expected to be achieved in private. Therefore, I am and suppose you are, encouraged to believe more when details like specific times, dates, places and people are provide.

Did these events happen in secret? No, they were not furtive incidents. From a logical standpoint, I would not expect these things to be done surreptitiously. Do not details give events in question veracity, by placing events in historical settings? There are texts and manuscripts, both religious and secular that document Jesus’s public ministry, public death and most importantly, public resurrection. Again, all these were witnessed by whom? The public, thereby verifying the events. Most important though, is the story of His resurrection for it is the cornerstone of Christian faith. The many narratives contain just enough incidental details to make it hard to believe someone made it up. Or in the case of the Gospels, “four someone’s.” made it up. Are we not encouraged by the historical nature of the narratives themselves? The four Gospels tell the same story, with some variations. These variations never disturb the main events, but complement each other in many ways.

As well, there is no discernible profitable motive for someone to fabricate a story in the first-century world. The “crucified-messiah-rose- from the grave” is not the type event one would contrive, for it held no appeal to either Greek or Jew. Simply put, it is most difficult to find evidence or rationale, internal or external, for the Jesus narrative to have been other than the truth.

Lastly, if the resurrection occurred in the way these texts state, one would expect there to be a shock effect whose impact on humanity would be abrupt. One would expect the resurrection event to immediately begin to evidence itself through the message being spread. Is this not exactly what we find? Directly following His resurrection, has not the “church” Jesus began through his resurrection impacted the world in a significant way?

Could one ask for more evidence of the resurrection? Definitely! If one begins to doubt the resurrection of Jesus all they need to do is peruse some of the skeptics and detractors alternate theories. For this and other reasons I believe that God has communicated to us through Jesus Christ. The next in this series of blog posts will deal with the deity of Jesus.

Who will Defend the Unborn?

Who will defend the unborn if not us? If we have ears to hear, eyes to see then we are cognizant of the Congressional and national debate concerning late term abortion. Admittedly, I follow this particular argument closely. To execute a late term abortion in itself, is nothing short of immoral. Is not dismemberment torture? In good conscience, have our political and judicial leaders abandoned the most innocent of our society?  Are these same persons of influence forgetting about fighting for the forgotten, struggling for the defenseless, and battling for the voiceless? And to think, some in office display the audacity to thump their chest and stomp their feet in support of such an injustice. Do we have anyone in our society that’s more defenseless than these soon to be born infants?

It is apparent that our executive, legislative and judicial branches of government cannot agree on when life begins. Is it at conception or actual birth? As for me, it is conception. But, that is an issue to discuss at another point and time. I ask, why cannot three branches of government come together and represent those innocent, soon to be born infants that feel pain, that survive outside the womb? Little ones that do not have supplicants (lobbyists) and affluence? Do not we stand with those little ones? Why do we the people not stay the execution of those who suffer because of an act they had nothing to do with? I contend, it is out of convenience that most abortions are performed.

If one stands with the defenseless, with the voiceless, one must, in the least, place themselves between the soon to be born child and the abortionist’s tools of trade. These implements inflict agony, pain and cruelty on the soon-to-be-born child. If our government officials, could only witness the brutalization of little infants being dismembered, feeling little one’s excruciating pain, perhaps then, we would have someone place themselves in the gap and defend these innocent ones.

Finally, what I have said to the political and judicial representatives, I, also say to all citizens. We are as responsible for these injustices as they. If this blog post offends the reader, my mission is partially complete.