12 Reasons Why People Leave Christianity

It seems like a daily occurrence. Either a prominent voice in Christian culture, or someone we know personally, announces on social media that they no longer identify as a Christian. Hawk Nelson singer Jon Steingard recently made his announcement via Instagram, citing the reasoning behind his stepping away from the faith. For those of us who believe, this can be hard to understand. Why would someone abandon the assurance of salvation in Jesus Christ? It seems you have everything to gain in persevering to the end and eternity to lose in walking away. Yet many do, and my goal in writing this is to help believers understand why. 

Before I begin, I want to make it clear that my objective is not to determine if someone can have salvation in Christ and lose it. That is a separate issue. This is merely about why some people walk away and others don’t, and why some later return while others will not. The easy answer for many is that those who leave were never true believers, and I don’t doubt that is the case at least some of the time. However, many of them will object, and I believe it is best to take people at their word when they share their stories. The important thing is that they do not presently believe. Also, this post is not dealing with those who merely grew up in the environment of the church. There are countless young people who leave the moment they have the chance because they never were personally invested. They were merely dragged along by their parents, and faith in Christ meant nothing to them. No, this post is about those who, by their own testimony, did believe and live a Christian life. These are self-described ex-Christians. 

Having walked away from my own faith for a time, only later to reconstruct it, this subject is near to my heart. I know many others, including someone especially instrumental in my life, who left Christianity behind. Having seen it from many angles, I understand how and why it happens. 

The Post-Christian ID

With much attention on this issue, I’ve observed a number of key factors in an individual’s departure from Christianity. I would summarize these broadly within what I will call the “ID”s of the post-Christian viewpoint: Influences and Decisions. Within “Influences,” we have all the negative influences in Christian culture as well as the positive influences outside. There are also the societal influences that can be very persuasive against Christianity. “Decisions” refers to the steps taken by the choice of the individual to distance himself/herself from Christ and the Church. It takes at minimum a single decision to lead a person away from their faith, though that decision is never made apart from at least one of these influences. Together, they form a new post-Christian identity.

Influences Inside the Church

1. Bad Christians

“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” This oft-repeated quote from the late evangelist Brennan Manning is technically not true, but it strikes a chord with many because those within the church often do live lives full of hypocrisy. Many have been put off by those proclaiming the name of Christ, and that personal representation can easily leave a negative association in the minds of many on the outside of the Church. It can also move the hearts of those within its walls who are hurt by those they expect to live differently. This could be as simple as someone living no different than an unbeliever in their daily life. It could also be much more personal and traumatic. Some have experienced physical or psychological abuse at the hands of someone who takes the name of “Christian.” These kinds of traumatic events can be powerfully influential against belief. 

2. Bad Teaching

What we believe as Christians is incredibly important. There are essentials of the faith that we can all agree on, but Christians diverge in numerous secondary doctrines. Depending on what church an individual finds himself in, there may be a strong emphasis on certain debated doctrines as being essential, with the questioning of such things not tolerated. This intolerance of dissent leaves the impression for many that to be a Christian is to believe a long list of things that historically have not been held by all believers. The shutting down of debate can raise considerable questions in the mind of those who have legitimate disagreements with the interpretation or application of Scripture in their church. This general approach, regardless of the issue, can give the questioner the impression they are trapped in a cult. This is especially problematic when the theology being taught paints a distorted picture of God. It is tragic when people walk away from a “Christianity” that isn’t the real thing.

3. Inauthentic Spirituality 

Related to theology is the real-life application of what we believe. One of the foundational beliefs of Christianity is that God is personal, and His presence is evident in the believer. There are various ways in which someone can not experience the reality of God in the church environment. Perhaps an individual finds herself in a legalistic church where the emphasis is on working their way to salvation. The Christian life becomes an endless chore devoid of joy. Another problem in many modern churches, especially Pentecostal denominations, is equating a genuine relationship with Christ with demonstrating the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit (speaking in tongues, prophecy, healings, etc.) If you don’t have such experiences, the legitimacy of your faith is questioned. As a result, many growing up in these environments feel they must “do as the Romans do” and act out such experiences to be accepted. The thought eventually crosses their minds that perhaps everyone else is “faking it” too. So it’s no surprise that later on they depart. To the other extreme, some churches demonize personal experiences, as though they are evidence of a false, damning faith. Merely believing a list of facts doesn’t equate to saving faith, and some who have had a purely doctrine-driven background in the church have also found it to be empty and lacking the power of the God they profess to believe in.

4. Discouragement of Doubts

In many churches, doubt is seen as the enemy of faith. In truth, doubt can co-exist with faith, depending on what the doubter does with it. Sadly, many ex-Christians have shared their experiences of raising questions to their pastors or youth leaders only to get told to “ignore it and just have faith.” This gives the impression that there is something being hidden from the questioner. Like in The Wizard of Oz, there is a “man behind the curtain.” If you are asking too many questions, you are getting too close to discovering the truth. Therefore you must be silenced! That may not be the intention, but it is the impression given. The truth, more often than not, is that the one silencing the questioner is simply ignorant of the answer. For them, “just believe” is sufficient. They have probably counseled many others who also found it acceptable to embrace the unknown. But for those who really are deep thinkers, or have a great desire to learn and understand what they believe, such an answer is discouraging and potentially defeating.

5. Lack of Love

As ambassadors of Christ to the world, we are to be known for our love. That love is to be demonstrated to other Christians, and then outward to the unbelieving world. As the old hymn goes, “they will know we are Christians by our love.” Unfortunately, many experience the Church as a place of judgment and condemnation, not the love we profess. This is not to say that we should not call out sin for what it is, but rather that we are failing if we are not communicating the love of Christ towards others. As a committed Christian, I am continually discouraged by the infighting among Christians on various issues. We are eager to divide, resistant to unity. Yet Christ Himself prayed that we would be One, as He and the Father are One (See John 17:20-23). This is not what the world sees, and it is not what many within the Church see. Instead they see a Church that is self-seeking, filled with those desiring their own way or the highway. This failure to reflect the self-sacrificial love of Christ should be troubling to all of us. Yet in spite of this broad generalization, many of us have experienced the selfless love of Christ through the witness of fellow believers. Seeing it walked out gives legitimacy to the words that motivate them to live it out. I have benefited greatly from such real-life examples. However, I know that many have come and gone without having encountered the love of Christ through the Church.

Influences Outside the Church

6. Positive Personal Relationships

Sometimes it’s not a matter of negative experiences within the Church that begins to turn a person’s heart away from Christ. Sometimes it is the opposite. Getting to know people outside the Church, especially in close personal relationships, can be powerfully influential in leading a person to question the exclusivity, and consequently the truthfulness, of Christianity. It could be a good friend, a co-worker, or possibly a love interest, that shatters a preconceived stereotype of what an unbeliever should be like. This is especially troubling for someone who has been raised in an overprotective environment, where they are sheltered from perspectives outside of the Christian world. Growing up in such a way can lead a young person to believe that all non-Christians just go around sinning continually, and are horribly unpleasant people. When they get out on their own and actually meet people who are pretty decent, and perhaps even more enjoyable to spend time with than the average Christian, this can be a shock to the system. If everything they have been taught about the unbeliever is a lie, it seems quite reasonable that doubts might arise about the whole framework of Christianity. 

7. Cultural Pressures

I remember when I was growing up in public schools, there was a lot of talk about the dangers of peer pressure. Kids were encouraged to resist other kids who were pushing them to smoke or do drugs, or whatever other bad behavior they might face. We were encouraged to stand up for what is right, whatever the social cost might be. What I’ve learned as I’ve grown older is that peer pressure never goes away. It just takes different forms, and the consequences of resisting can be much more significant. The cost of being a Christian (at least publicly), can be extremely high in certain environments. There are social and financial pressures to “get in line” with the sociopolitical causes of the day, and some of those are in direct contradiction to Christian values. Young people are especially vulnerable to these pressures, as our culture is growing increasingly “post-Christian.” Also factor in the influence of the rich and powerful, whether they be celebrities or media outlets, and it seems that the whole world is speaking with a unified voice against the views and beliefs of Christianity. For many, it is just too hard to resist these pressures, and as much as they may have loved life within the Church, there is a life outside of it that seems a lot less lonely.

8. Philosophical Indoctrination

Our educational systems are predominantly governed by two philosophies that directly contradict Christianity. For young Christians who are not properly prepared to counter these ideas, they can create a great deal of confusion, and potentially lead them to abandon their faith in Christ. These are the philosophies of naturalism and postmodernism (a.k.a. relativism). Contrary to popular opinion, indoctrination in these views does not begin at the university, but is present in various ways from grade school on up. Naturalism can be summed up in the idea that everything within the universe can be explained by the universe. There is nothing supernatural. All that exists is the natural world, and everything that comes into existence finds its cause in nature. As Carl Sagan famously said, “the cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be.” Assuming atheistic naturalism as the “neutral” view for public education, Darwinian evolution is given exclusive rights to be taught as the explanation of our origins, since all other views are regarded as superstitious belief systems lacking scientific proof. This ignores the fact that naturalism is itself unproven scientifically. For impressionable young minds, what is taught in schools as the real story is in direct contradiction to the biblical accounts of the origins and history of human beings. This becomes irreconcilable for those who are taught young earth creationism as an essential doctrine of Christianity. It can also be a problem for those in more liberal environments who are taught that God guides evolution. At some point they realize that Darwinism doesn’t really need God if its tenets are true. And if He isn’t needed to explain life in the universe, why bother?

Alongside naturalism is postmodernism, which teaches that truth is subjective. Each individual has their own truth, and what is true for you is not necessarily true for me. Therefore we should be accepting of beliefs different than our own, since they are equally true. What is interesting about this philosophy is how it contradicts both itself and naturalism. First, you could argue that postmodernism is true for someone else, but not for you. Second, you could argue that naturalism is true for your science teacher, but not for you. So in that sense, our schools are teaching contradictory philosophies. Where they find unity is in the area of moral relativity. Since an atheistic universe has no moral lawgiver, and therefore no binding moral laws, it follows that morality is an invention of human beings. So it is up to us to decide what is right. Thus, what is moral can either be decided by the individual or the group. In some cases society decides what is acceptable, and in others, society grants the individual the right to decide for themselves. For example, society agrees (rightly) that rape is morally unacceptable. However, all forms of consensual sexual behavior are okay, and maybe even morally good. So the attractiveness of such a worldview becomes apparent. Since I am nothing more than my body (naturalism), my body’s desires should be expressed as a way of living out “my truth” (postmodernism). A worldview that offers us the justification to live life on our terms is certainly appealing, especially in contrast to one that calls us to “take up our crosses” and die to ourselves daily. 

With all of these influences working against Christianity, it is still possible to remain in the Church. All Christians deal with a good percentage of these, yet many do not forsake their faith. What tips the scales to unbelief are the decisions an individual makes.

Decisions (The 4 “D”s of Deconversion)

9. Disconnecting from God

A few years back, a Seventh Day Adventist pastor named Ryan Bell embarked on a “year without God” as an experiment in living the life of an atheist. This involved intentionally disconnecting from all faith practices, including prayer, Bible reading, involvement in a church, and so forth. When the year was over, he had become an atheist. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. To intentionally shut God out of your life will lead you away from a relationship with Him. What often happens in deconversion stories is that the individual gradually or suddenly begins to stop doing the essential things that draw us closer in relationship to Him. When you shut out His voice, it is no wonder that He is not heard. Then it becomes easier to believe that He is not there.

10. Disobeying God

“Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called ‘Today,’ lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.”‭‭ (Hebrews‬ ‭ 3:12-13)

From the very beginning of the Christian movement, there have been defectors. While some of the influences have changed shape over time, the practice of sin has remained a constant obstacle to perseverance in the faith. Why is this? Well, our hearts can be shaped by our minds, or our minds can be shaped by our hearts. When it comes to absolute truth and the Christian world view, we are called to conform our hearts to the truth revealed in Christ and the created world. This goes against our natural tendency, which is to conform our minds to the desires of our hearts. We seek to rationalize those things that we want to be true so we can enjoy life on our own terms. Many have chosen to follow their desires to do what is against the commandments of the God of Christianity, and in so doing, have chosen to embrace those sins instead of confessing and turning from them. All Christians have sinned, and we all face this temptation. For many who abandon Christianity, there is a choice to give up the struggle against sin, and allow it to shape their worldview. The philosophies of the world come along and provide encouragement to choose this path. 

11. Disappointment with God

In my own story, I began to distance myself from Christianity as my first marriage was ending. While I knew intellectually that being a Christian didn’t mean that I would live “happily ever after” in this life, there was a sense that all of my life up to that point had been a huge failure, and being a Christian had gotten me nowhere. For all my years of service to God, He had failed me. I’m sure I’m not the only one to have had my faith shaken by such a feeling. When the realities of life hit, and all that we had hoped for fails to meet our expectations, there is a temptation to blame God. “Why didn’t you bless me? Why didn’t this relationship work out? Why am I, after all these years, struggling to make ends meet?” For some it might also be, “Why am I still struggling with this sin?” These are the kinds of questions every Christian will ask themselves at some point. Many wrestle with these things, but lean into their faith. Others turn skeptical. When we allow our expectations to place demands upon God, we are in danger of losing faith when those demands aren’t met. It is easy then to go from being disappointed with the Christian God to simply believing that He just isn’t there. Disappointment, in this sense, is deciding that faith in God is pointless, and possibly even detrimental to living a good life.

12: Disapproval of God

Perhaps the most common of all causes of deconversion is moral disagreement with God. More than being disappointed with the Christian life, this is a personal rejection of God’s character as understood by the now-unbeliever. It is the conclusion that his or her’s own morality is superior to God’s, whether or not He exists. This can take a variety of forms. It may be that they disagree with the actions of God in the biblical narrative (particularly in judgment of idolatrous nations), or the prohibitions on extramarital sexual behaviors and homosexual acts, or the idea that the Son of God would be “unjustly punished” by the Father for the sins of the world. Certainly the doctrine of hell is a hard one that all believers struggle with. Or maybe their disapproval is connected to the particular warped theology of the denomination they grew up in, which they wrongly understand to be the true representation of Christianity. It may also be a rejection of God’s goodness based on the presence of evil and suffering in the world. 

How can a loving God allow so much suffering in His creation? What is commonly referred to as “the problem of evil,” is one of the most challenging questions posed to Christianity, and one that very few are prepared to answer. For Jon Steingard, he has cited the evils he witnessed in his time working in Uganda as a turning point in his deconversion. Often it is closer to home. Watching a friend or loved one suffer with a horrible disease or be the victim of a senseless crime can lead someone to lash out in anger at God. That anger can be a gateway to disbelief, as it is incredibly difficult to square an evil god with the loving God of Christianity. Sometimes it is their own experience with evil that justifies their rejection of God. It is said by many Christian apologists that the problem of evil is much easier to make sense of in a philosophical sense, and much harder on a felt, personal level. All our answers cannot adequately satisfy the one who is hurting. For many, that hurt turns to anger. For some, that anger turns to disbelief.

Concluding Thoughts

Every testimony of an ex-Christian is filled with some combination of these reasons. It can be hard for us who remain believers to understand, and leave us with a sense of loss, especially for loved ones. How should we counter what seems to be a growing trend in our churches? How should we respond when it our own son or daughter walks away? I hope to address these in a follow-up post in weeks to come, while sharing my own approach in teaching my kids about Christianity.

For now, I want to leave you with some encouragement. Is there hope for the one who walks away? I am convinced there is, as I am sure that our patient, gracious God is eager to receive each prodigal son and daughter in His loving arms. Time will tell who will find their way back home. What separates those who do and those who don’t is not a God who loves one and not the other, but rather, it is whether the individual is willing to seek the truth and follow Him if that is where it leads. One of my favorite Bible passages to quote is the following:

“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.” (Acts 17:26-27)

Let me repeat that last phrase one more time: “He is not far from each one of us.” That includes the one who has walked away from Him. There is always hope because the Father is still right where He’s always been…waiting.

Should We Mourn For Kobe?

Yesterday was unexpected, to say the least. Kobe Bryant was already on the minds of many basketball fans, as Lebron James had just passed him up on the NBA’s all-time scoring leaders board. Saturday night, he had publicly offered his congratulations to Lebron with words of respect and admiration for the new #3 on the list. Sunday morning, it was over. Gone in a flash, Kobe, his daughter “Gigi” (Gianna), and seven others with them, were taken from this world. What an awful tragedy! We mourn the loss of all nine victims, yet most of our thoughts are focused on Kobe, followed by those of his daughter and the unimaginable pain experienced by his surviving family. Why do we seem to care more about Kobe than the others who died in this crash, as well as all others who remain anonymous to us that die all over the world everyday? Aren’t their lives equally important and valuable in the eyes of God?

The answer to this is yes. Of course, the lives of each and every human being are equally valuable, because we all are persons made in the image of God. At the same time though, there is nothing wrong with us feeling the loss of some of those people with more weight than others. We already know this to be true. I don’t know anyone who would argue that we shouldn’t mourn the loss of a spouse, a parent, a child, or a best friend more than we mourn the loss of someone that we never met or even knew existed before their passing. That doesn’t mean that our family members are more important than the family members of other people across the world, but it does mean that they are more important TO US, and there is a difference. Understanding this can help us to also see why the death of someone like Kobe Bryant is felt much deeper than the death of others we don’t hear about in the headlines. 

Though Kobe, for most of us, was not a family member or even someone we had met in person, he was someone who played a part in our lives. His life’s work made an impression on us personally. Many of us have had a kind of relationship with him in the sense that his life intersected with our own. We witnessed the highs and lows of his public life. We shared in his victories and defeats (positively or negatively depending on which team we were rooting for) and we were awestruck by the art he produced in the process. Yes, to be an athlete of the caliber of Kobe is to be an artist, and those who saw him in action were viewing a master performer as much as they were a competitor. Artists make an impact on their audiences, and much of what we remember now as we think back on the person of Kobe Bryant are those images he painted in our minds. 

In a way, each human being is an artist. We all paint pictures in the minds of those we interact with. When we pass away, those images and impressions are what those around us are left with. While we may hold onto photographs, videos, or written words, we are still left with a sense of profound loss. While the artist has painted, his or her work is now complete. We long for more. But more than that, we long for the artist. We cannot separate the two. 

The world lost Kobe Bryant yesterday. We did not lose his career as a professional basketball player. We did not lose his championships, or his impressive highlight reel, or the images of his intense game face or his smile in celebration. These things will live on, as will the written and recorded work he has produced since his retirement from the NBA. None of that is removed by his death. But we have lost Kobe Bryant. We have lost the artist himself, and it is our innate sense that we have lost something of great value to our lives because he is done creating that art for us to behold. 

Somewhere along the line, though we don’t know when, we realize that the artist is worth more than his art. We cannot shake that innate knowledge of the incredible value of a human person. It is for this reason that it is good and right to mourn for Kobe Bryant. We mourn because we lost him. We mourn the loss of his daughter because we care about him, and part of that caring is to care about those closest to him. We mourn for his wife and the three girls who will grow up without their daddy. It is a tragic loss. There is no reason to feel guilty for mourning him in a way that we don’t mourn for those we don’t know. It is not an insult to them. It is simply acknowledging that we lost a brilliant artist who added beauty and color to our world. 

Why the Ontological Argument Fails

"If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." This saying comes to mind as I consider the Ontological Argument for God's existence. When I began to delve deeply into Christian apologetics some years back, I was immediately fascinated by its mindbending logic. It's just so much fun to think about! Here we have what may be about as close to a philosophical "proof" for God's existence as we can get. If the argument is sound, God is certainly real! Too good to be true? I think so, and I'd like to explain why.

As a firm believer in the Christian God, and one who finds the other popular theistic arguments to be solid, I believe our case is much stronger without the Ontological Argument. If its logic isn't sound, and the sneaking suspicion that there is something not quite right is justified, it can weaken our credibility in defending those arguments and evidences we present that are valid. As we point skeptics to the truth, we need to shed everything that is false, including those parts of our case that may lend support to it, if only they were true. So while I may be attacking a part of our cumulative case, I believe the whole would be much stronger without it.

So for those unfamiliar with the Ontological Argument, what is it? The word "ontology" is briefly defined as "the study of being." So when we speak of ontology in relation to God, it refers to what it means to be God; the qualities God possesses that makes Him God. The OA attempts to show that by God's very nature, He necessarily exists. In short, the argument states that if it is POSSIBLE that God exists, then He MUST exist. Originally developed and popularized by the 11th century theologian, Anselm of Canterbury, the argument has been controversial among both skeptics and believers throughout the centuries. Anselm's version is framed around the concept of the "greatest conceivable thing." If that thing is able to be conceived in the mind of an individual, then its greatness must be actual, because something that exists in the mind alone is not as great as something that also exists in reality. His original argument has been revised and improved for clarity throughout the centuries, most recently taking the form constructed by Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, and reworded by William Lane Craig. This "modal" version defines God as a "maximally great being." Since this is the version most commonly used in contemporary apologetics, I will present it below and point out where I find it to be flawed.

The Modal Ontological Argument

Premise 1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
Premise 2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

(Here's a great animation video to further explain it.)

Most skeptics attack premise 1, comparing the idea of a maximally great being to such things as a maximally great pizza. How would you define such a thing? Isn't maximal greatness a matter of personal opinion, just like what would be the perfect pizza? How many slices of pepperoni? Would you add pineapple? As someone who affirms the Christian understanding of God's maximally great qualities (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence), I will defend the idea of a maximally great being (MGB), and why it is different than the pizza.

The skeptic relies on subjectivity (personal viewpoint) in determining what God is, yet it is their own subjectiveness that rules out the possibility of God's existence. By saying that the MGB is impossible, they carry the burden of proof in showing that such a concept is impossible. However, maximal greatness is not in itself a matter of OUR determination. Sure, we may all define it differently, but that doesn't mean there isn't an objective standard of greatness that exists. We are in no position to conclude that our own disagreements about what it means to be maximally great rules out the possibility of maximal greatness. Add to this the fact that many fellow human beings think it IS possible for God to be maximally great. So the skeptic who says it ISN'T possible must be absolutely certain that his own conclusion is correct, and those who disagree are wrong. The burden of proof lies with the skeptic to show that he is an infallible determiner of what is true. If he is wrong about anything, then that means that he can be wrong about his conclusion that maximal greatness is impossible. Therefore if it is possible that he is wrong, it remains possible that a maximally great being exists, and the skeptical objection to premise 1 fails.

Premise 2 simply states that if God might exist, then there is a "possible world" where He will exist. This is the obvious conclusion of premise 1. If He exists, then there exists a world He exists in. Likewise, if He doesn't exist, there exists a world where He is absent. So far so good.

This leads us to premise 3, and this is where things get really interesting. The premises that follow are obvious, as well as the conclusion. It all hangs on this. "If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world." The underlying assumption here is that maximal greatness implies the necessity of existence. If God is maximally great, He MUST exist in every possible world. But is this really true? I don't think so, and this is why I believe the Ontological Argument fails.

To understand why, let's go back to premise 1. "It is possible that a maximally great being exists." Yes, we decided that it is possible. However, when considering the possibility, we are also considering alternate possibilities. As Christians, we must also consider the possibility that the God of Islam exists, or the pantheistic God of Hinduism exists, or the created God of Mormonism exists, and so on and so on. We must also consider the possibility that no God exists, or that there is a "world" of complete nonexistence. These all exist in the realm of "possible worlds." Unless these ideas are shown to be logically impossible, they must be admitted into the potentially infinite set of possible worlds that might exist.

So when we jump from the MGB existing in one possible world to Him necessarily existing in every possible world, we end up with some absurd situations. For example, we end up with the MGB existing in a world where Allah also exists. If Allah exists as well as the Christian God, doesn't that compromise what it means for God to be God? Doesn't maximal greatness entail the fact that God is God over all things, and there is no other? Yet Allah is also understood to be the one and only God over all things. So we have a contradiction. This becomes even more apparent when we consider the possible world where no God exists. Must the Christian God exist in an atheistic world? This is absurdity! So when the third premise is applied to the original set of possible worlds implied in premise one, we can see that there must be something off here. Just how do we put our finger on it?

I would suggest that the key error is the underlying assumption that if God's existence is necessary in this world (and I believe this to be the case), then His existence is necessary in all those possible worlds we can imagine in our minds. Those imaginary worlds may not really be "possible," but we cannot show them to be logically incoherent and therefore impossible without begging the question in claiming that the MGB is necessary for any world to exist.

So what do we mean when we say that God's existence is necessary? I don't see how we can understand what is necessary without appealing to what is contingent. We say there must be a cause when we see an effect. Without the effect, we cannot infer the cause. When we look at this world we live in, we see evidence that points us back to a cause. We use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to understand that this cause is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. We use the Teleological (Fine-tuning) Argument to understand that this cause is a mind. We use the Moral Argument to conclude that this cause is personal and is morally good. These arguments point to the Christian God's necessity in the world we live in, for it cannot account for the qualities it possesses on its own. But what if the world didn't possess these qualities? What if, for example, the world was morally neutral, and we didn't have a concept of right and wrong? Could we conclude that there was an omnibenevolent God? What if the world was uninhabitable and chaotic? Could we conclude that He is a mind, and therefore omniscient? We could then have a god who is omnipotent, but not omniscient or personal. This is not the MGB. So it seems that we understand the necessity of the MGB's existence by the world we live in, and cannot make a rational case for Him apart from it.

Where the Ontological Argument ultimately fails is in assuming that God must necessarily exist in worlds that don't. There is no reason to assume this, other than a faulty understanding of necessary existence. This still leaves us with a potentially infinite number of worlds in which the Christian God could exist, but all of these are a subset of worlds taken from the greater ensemble of worlds that don't exist, but are logically possible. These are the possible worlds which the MGB could have created, had He so desired. As someone who affirms that God knows everything, including all possible worlds He could have made, I don't believe that this actual world must be as it is, but exists as it is because God decided to create it this way. However, whatever world He could have created would have also been consistent in reflecting who He is. Just as a story is reflective of its author, so too our world is a reflection of its Creator.

We can conclude that the Christian God is that Creator, but I don't believe we can do so through the Ontological Argument. It is a thoroughly fascinating idea, but I'm afraid it doesn't succeed in its objective. I'm open to being wrong about this, but I'd ask that the Christian apologist also be open to the possibility that this just doesn't work. We have plenty of good material to make our case. We don't need the Ontological Argument, and we will be more effective without it.

What Happened to Derek Webb?

It's the fall of 1999, and as the world lies restless in anticipation of Y2K-inflicted chaos, I find myself in Visalia, CA with tickets to see Caedmon's Call. The Christian alternative music scene is thriving in the wake of the breakout successes of bands like Jars of Clay and Sixpence None the Richer, and Caedmon's offers their own take of artistically relevant and lyrically profound folk-rock. Unlike the aforementioned bands, they take no interest in crossing over to the secular market, with lyrics that are transparently Christian, often with specific references to Bible accounts. No, Caedmon's Call were far more interested in appealing to the deep-thinking Christian, and as the new millennium approaches, "40 Acres," their sophomore album, finds them emerging as one of the brightest and most talented bands in all of Christian music.

On this night, "unknown" singer/songwriters Jill Phillips and Bebo Norman set the stage for Caedmon's and their faith-filled "coffeehouse" music. The band, featuring three alternating lead vocalists, delivers solid renditions of their best-loved songs, and a cover of "Walk On the Ocean" for good measure. Between songs, singer Derek Webb steps forward to deliver a rant a la Rich Mullins about Joshua Harris' book, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye." Clearly he is not a fan, and by the sound of it, neither is the audience. This is what we love about Derek. He is willing to speak his mind and challenge the status quo. He's authentic, and this comes through in his songs. Whether he is writing about his struggles with temptation ("Standing Up For Nothing"), or the frustration of being single and waiting ("Table For Two"), we feel like we know Derek, and Derek knows us. The band closes the night with the biggest hit of Webb's career, "Thankful," an encapsulation of Reformed theology in just over 4 minutes. "Yes, by grace I have been saved, through faith, it's not my own…" This is the anthem of the serious-minded Christian, the one who gives God all the glory.

Fast forward to 2017, and Derek Webb releases his latest solo album, "Fingers Crossed," announcing to the world that he is no longer a follower of Jesus Christ. Not only that, but he is now boldly proclaiming the "gospel" of atheism. How did this happen? How could someone who so passionately devoted himself to Christianity make such a sharp turn? What happened to Derek Webb?

There are a number of things we could point to, most obviously his recent divorce from his wife of 13 years, to which he accepts responsibility. He fell into sin, and sin is deceptive (Hebrews 3:12-13). Yet many believers who do so recognize their need for Christ and repent. Derek took the opposite route. In the wake of his sinful choices, he has come to see that he is a better man by embracing his freedom apart from Christ. In his mind, free will and Christianity are incompatible. In a recent interview on the ex-Christian podcast, "The Life After," Webb talks about how he now has victory over pornography after 20 years of struggling. He credits his ability to choose to do what is best for himself, rather than to wait on God to make the changes in him. And here it becomes clear where he went wrong in his theology. It all comes back to that line, "through faith, it's not my own." Derek Webb never took responsibility for his faith.

For many Calvinists, faith is the gift of God spoken of in Ephesians 2:8, which reads: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." The interpretation offered by Webb in "Thankful" is one that is proven false through analysis of the original Greek pronouns used by the Apostle Paul. When Paul speaks of what is "not of yourselves," he refers back to the whole equation of salvation that precedes it, not specifically to faith. Therefore, Paul is saying that we are powerless to save ourselves, and in combination with verse 9, "not of works, lest anyone should boast," he is driving home the point that the works of the law are not meritorious for salvation, but it is by God's grace that we can be saved through placing our faith in the work of Christ. Webb's interpretation is a common mistake, and sadly, it illustrates where his philosophy went wrong. He saw faith as something that was happening to him. He didn't have faith. Faith had him. And as such, when doubts emerged, it was evidence that he wasn't given the gift of saving faith. 

Consider these lyrics from the song which closes his new album, "Goodbye For Now:"

"So either you aren't real
Or I am just not chosen
Maybe I'll never know
Either way my heart is broken
As I say, goodbye for now"

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is a central tenet of Calvinism, representing the "P" in the acronym "TULIP." It is commonly credited with giving the believer assurance of salvation. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the one who is chosen from eternity past for salvation (unconditional election) will be regenerated (irresistible grace), and their faith, because it is the effectual work of God, will persevere to the end. Therefore the Calvinist can rest in the assurance that because they are chosen, they will remain faithful. Unfortunately, while the intent is to give the believer assurance that he/she is saved, the opposite is often the case, and we see this evidenced in the lyrics above. Derek is convinced that he wasn't chosen because his faith did not last. Lack of assurance is nothing new for the Calvinist, or any believer for that matter, and was even the basis for another Caedmon's Call song, "Prove Me Wrong," written and performed by other members of the group: 
 
"Sometimes I fear, maybe I'm not chosen
You've hardened my heart like Pharaoh
That would explain why life is so hard for me

And I am sad that Esau hated
Crying against what's fated
Saying father, please, is there any left for me

Cast out my doubts, please prove me wrong
'Cause these demons can be so headstrong
Make my walls fall, please prove me wrong
'Cause this resentment's been building
Burn them up with your fire so strong
If you can before I bail, please prove me wrong"

These lyrics are haunting now that Derek has in fact bailed. So why then has he bailed entirely? Why not simply believe that Christianity is true, but he is on the outside of it, needing to get in? Listening to his interviews, it seems that much of his rejection of the faith is based on practicality. Because he now finds life so much more livable by taking ownership of his actions, it shows that something is horribly false about the claims of Christianity. Though he doesn't believe in God, he remains a Calvinist. He likens his views on theology to his views on Star Wars or other works of fiction. It is a source of conviction, and in his mind, the Bible is solidly on the side of a deterministic God who elects some people to eternal glory, and others to hell. From his perspective, if God is real, He is a horrible monster (his interview comments use much harsher terms) responsible for all the evil in the world, and Derek is a "reprobate," created specifically to glorify God in his never-ending torment for the sins that he has been determined to commit. Honestly, I can't blame him for rejecting such a god. I can't think of a good reason why a "reprobate" should worship someone who has made him for such a reason. This is such a tragic misunderstanding of the character of God!

So what do we conclude from this? I think it raises some hard questions for the Calvinist that need to be answered. Clearly, Derek Webb was, and still is in some sense, a Calvinist. This doesn't mean that Calvinists aren't Christians, but it does show that the two aren't synonymous. Most Reformed types will cite the words of the Apostle Paul below to argue that people reject Calvinism because their minds are darkened to it:
 
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

How do we make sense of the fact that Derek embraced the "Doctrines of Grace," if those doctrines are spiritually discerned? If we say that his mind was enlightened by the Holy Spirit, why did he not persevere in the faith? Some will say that he didn't really believe, but that is hard to square with the Calvinistic understanding of the above verse. The way I see it, the Calvinist is left with two options:

1. The unbeliever is able to understand and willfully embrace the truth of the Gospel (which appears to violate "total inability"), or 
2. The true believer is able to renounce his faith (which violates "perseverance of the saints"). 

This conundrum seems to point to the solution that John Calvin himself offered:

“Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent .... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.2.11)

This "evanescent grace," is a concept that most Calvinists shrink away from. It is a terrifying thought, that God could determine for them to have such an assurance of salvation and genuine faith that could one day, even in the moment before they die, be taken suddenly so as "better to convict them, and leave them without excuse." For many, this is not an acceptable thought, and I cannot blame those who reject it. Yet they will hold onto Calvinism with no better option. Maybe Derek will return to his faith in the end? Maybe. Yet, I am certain that many before him and many after will embrace Christianity just as fervently and ultimately die in their unbelief. As Calvin said, "experience shows" this to be the case. 

Derek's dilemma of choosing to believe in an evil God with wicked intentions and a godless existence of freedom and personal responsibility is completely reversed from the truth. There is no real freedom to be found in atheism. From a naturalistic perspective, we are biological machines, the sum products of cause and effect extending backwards endlessly. To appeal to free will is to appeal to something that lies outside of natural processes, as apologist Tim Stratton demonstrates through his "freethinking argument." Instead, freedom of the will is something that is reflective of the image of God in man. We are granted the ability to choose, and the Bible consistently appeals to us to make the choice to believe in the one true God, and to act in obedience to Him. Freedom is only possible through God, and it saddens me that Derek has it backwards. He always has. He never "chose" to put his faith in Jesus Christ. He did not accept responsibility for it, and he does not accept responsibility for losing it. This is what happened to Derek Webb. 

My prayer is that Derek will allow his skepticism to extend to his Calvinistic presuppositions, and most importantly to his atheism. He once sang that "love is different than you think." I would like to challenge him to consider that maybe, just maybe, faith is different than you think. And consequently, God is much, much different than you think. You have a choice, Derek. Choose to believe in the goodness of God. Choose to believe that God loves you, because He is love (1 John 4:7-10). Choose life so that you may live (Deuteronomy 30:19). It's not too late to make faith your own.

Evidence for the Resurrection

“How do you know Jesus rose from the dead?” This is the central question of the truthfulness of Christianity. As the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15, “if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile.” Without the resurrection of Christ, there is no basis for Christianity. However, if Christ is risen, then Christianity is validated as true. Jesus Christ taught that He would rise from the dead, and in so doing would demonstrate that He was the Son of God. The question for us is, how can we know that He really did rise from the dead since we are two-thousand years removed from the event in question?

Our primary historical resources for the resurrection are the accounts we find in the New Testament. We have the eyewitness accounts found in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as the epistles of Paul and the other apostles. While skeptics may argue that these are biased sources, we must be prepared to accept that these are the earliest accounts, and represent those closest to the events in question. To toss them out merely on the basis that they side with the truthfulness of the resurrection is to show bias in favor of skepticism. If we are to do an honest investigation into the facts, we must investigate these sources, and then see if the accounts demonstrate authenticity.

Though exact dates are uncertain, the consensus of scholars is that the earliest account of the resurrection is given in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, which was written by Paul to the church in Corinth within 25 years of the resurrection. Here, Paul quotes an early creed of the Christian Church that was handed down to him, thus suggesting that it had been formulated many years before then. A majority of critics agree that this creed was likely received by Paul from Peter and James in Jerusalem in approximately 35 A.D., just a few years after the event in question. Therefore the details contained within it show that the Christian Church, from its beginning, proclaimed the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The theory that the resurrection was a myth that Christians developed well after the event is shown to be false, which is why even skeptical scholars wholeheartedly reject this explanation.

This raises an important question: if the Church was preaching the resurrection within a few years of Jesus' death by crucifixion, couldn't the claim have been easily refuted? All that would have to be done would be to produce the body, and in so doing, Christianity dies in infancy. This would have been an easy task for the Roman authorities or the Jewish leaders who had brought charges against Him. Instead, we find in Matthew 28:11-15 that they had conspired together to claim that the disciples had stolen the body. Why would they do this if they knew where the body was located, and could produce it? We must then conclude that there was no body to produce. Just as the gospels tell us, the tomb was empty.

Now, is it possible that the disciples did steal the body? They were preaching the resurrection, but could it be that they didn't really believe it, but were involved in a conspiracy? This is an interesting theory, but it fails on a number of counts. First of all, the disciples could not have been prepared to pull off such a remarkable hoax. They had just seen their Messiah crucified, and were no doubt extremely distraught and dejected. It seems unreasonable to imagine that in their time of mourning, they could have regrouped and refocused their energies on starting a new religion based on their leader, who they knew to really be dead. Also, if they were simply trying to start up a new religion, they wouldn't have appealed to the testimony of women, whom the gospels record as being the first witnesses to the empty tomb. Given that women at that time and in that culture were regarded as untrustworthy witnesses, the disciples would have certainly sought credibility by appealing to male witnesses only, unless this is how it really happened. What ultimately demonstrates this theory to be false is the willingness of these eyewitnesses to die for what they claimed to see. Liars do not make martyrs, and all of the disciples, with the exception of John, died as martyrs for their faith. This is why most critics of the resurrection are willing to grant that the disciples believed they had seen the risen Christ.

So now we have established that the gospel accounts of the empty tomb are accurate, and that the disciples of Jesus really did believe they saw Him risen from the dead. This leads us to a couple more potential objections. First, what if Jesus didn't really die on the cross? Either someone else was crucified in His place by mistake or He was taken down and buried before He died. This is an objection that is found in Islamic teaching, but is universally rejected amongst non-Islamic scholars. It is not taken seriously because we have enough knowledge of Roman crucifixion to know that the Romans were efficient in their execution methods. They made sure to get the job done right. Besides, had Jesus survived the crucifixion, He would have been in no shape on day three to rise up from His grave, roll away a giant stone from the entrance of the tomb, overpower the Roman guards waiting outside of it, and then appear to the women and His disciples as someone who was fully revived. If He managed to escape the tomb, He would have been in need of immediate medical attention.

The second, more common objection, is that the eyewitnesses to a risen Jesus hallucinated. Because they all desired to see their Master risen, their subconscious desires produced the image of a risen Christ. Mass hallucinations are extremely rare, but they are possible. However, the appearances of Christ do not fit with what has been seen in any other case. For starters, the sheer number of those reported to have had appearances is extraordinary. Going back to the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul states, “after that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.” This is significant because it makes an appeal to a great number of witnesses who are still living at the time of this letter. Had this been claimed many years later, it could not have been challenged, because there would be no witnesses to produce. Yet, there were in the early Church a great number of these witnesses who could still be called upon to give their testimony. It seems most reasonable to believe that Paul would not quote what could easily be refuted, but is making reference to real people who bore witness to the same event. Now, if these witnesses had all shared the same subconscious desire to see a risen Christ, that would still seem to be a possible, though highly unlikely, explanation for a mass hallucination. However, we also have the appearances to James and Paul. James, the half-brother of Jesus, was not a follower at the time of His crucifixion. Meanwhile, Paul was actively persecuting Christians. Neither of these two had any subconscious desire or expectation to see Him risen, and Paul in particular had every reason to desire not to see Him. These exceptions therefore invalidate the remote possibility of mass hallucination. We could go on in some depth to describe why such appearances do not meet the criteria of hallucinations, but at this point, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the reason why the eyewitnesses believed they saw a risen Christ is because they really did.

As we can see, the truth of the resurrection is the only explanation that makes sense of all of the evidence. It is evidenced in the lives of those who bore witness to it. The disciples were transformed from ordinary men like Peter, who denied that he knew Jesus three times, into people who boldly preached the gospel in hostile environments, facing imprisonment, beatings, and death. Paul was transformed from an enemy of the Church to a fearless missionary. As a result, Christianity grew outwardly and exponentially in the first three centuries amidst heavy persecution within the Roman Empire. It was not easy to be a Christian in those days, but for those who had come face-to-face with the truth, nothing else mattered. The emergence of Christianity in such a context would almost be a miracle in itself if it weren't for the miraculous event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It may not be easy to believe in miracles in an age of skepticism, but there are times when we must become equally skeptical of our presuppositions. We must allow the facts to speak for themselves, and the facts surrounding the resurrection of Christ have been speaking for two-thousand years now. No other event in history has so profoundly changed the world. Something significant happened in Jerusalem. I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the grave on the third day, and I believe an honest investigation into the evidence will lead you to the same conclusion.

The Importance of Names

Yesterday marked the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that took the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans. As is the case with each anniversary, the names of the victims were read one-by-one. This tradition not only emphasizes the magnitude of the lives lost, as it takes quite a long time to read that many names, but it also drives home the importance of each individual life. There is something powerful in a name. In that, we recognize the uniqueness of each person. As much as we all share in common, we also each bring something to this world that has never been replicated. When one of us is lost, he or she cannot be replaced.

This brings me to the idea of how we value life. About a month ago, a lion was killed in Zimbabwe. This lion had a name, which as I’m sure you are all familiar with by now. His name was Cecil. The world was united in outrage at the death of a lion who had a face, and most importantly, had a name. Had it been just any nameless lion, there would have been a fair amount of disgust at the idea, but somehow the fact that this lion had a name, and thus an individual identity, made his killing more upsetting.

A couple weeks ago, I lost a very special cat named Chloe. It was a terribly difficult decision to have her put to sleep, but she was clearly suffering. I adopted Chloe in the 2nd year of my marriage, and one of the first things we did for her was to give her a name. She was a special cat, and we honored her individuality with a name that not all cats share. Her life was of value to us. When I had to say goodbye, the loss was felt very deeply. Over the years, I’ve seen many dead cats on highways or in alleys, and while I felt some sympathy for them, their death never impacted me like the loss of my own cat. They were anonymous cats, indistinguishable from each other. How could I possibly feel as much pain over their loss as I did for Chloe?

This leads me to think about how much of an uphill battle we face in fighting for the rights of pre-born children. Because of how our natural feelings of empathy work, it is much harder to care about the lives of nameless children who we never met and whose losses most of us have not even indirectly felt in our lives. How much different then would it be if we knew the names of each of the 57 million American children who have died by abortion? How much would our perception change if those names were read aloud one-by-one on a yearly basis? That comes out to an average of over 156,000 for each day of the year, 6,500 per hour, or 108 names per minute. The reading of the names would never end. This is the magnitude of what we have done to our children. God told Cain that “the voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground.” How much then does the voice of the blood of 57 million children cry out to God?

How did this happen? How did we allow this into a nation founded on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all? Well, the devil is a deceiver, and he has been playing a long con on our society. It began with the lie, “did He really say?” We began to doubt that God meant what He said in His Word. He slowly embraced Darwin’s naturalism. We exchanged the Truth of God for a lie. We worshiped the creature, not the Creator. It is a good thing that we value animal life, but the funny thing is, we have not so much elevated animals as we have lowered humans to their level. This is what happens in Hinduism, but it is also the result of naturalism. Just as communism seeks to elevate the poor to the level of middle class, but ends up lowering the middle class to the level of the poor, we have done the same with human life. We are now no different from the animals. Therefore, if it is right to euthanize our pets, it is right to euthanize our parents. If it is right to abort the pregnancy of a cat, it is right to abort the pregnancy of a human.

The thing about naturalism is that it only elevates nature itself, not the individual things that compose it. What is happening in our society now as we allow our evolutionary thinking to evolve us, is that we are moving from a valuing of individual life to a valuing of the earth and the universe itself. We still love our animals because we are empathetic to the lives that impact our own, but we are beginning to resent humanity for what it is doing to nature. The life on earth is killing the earth. This is the end result of naturalism, or if you prefer, materialism. Everything ends in the material. And this is how the devil has tricked us into accepting abortion.

There is an especially vulgar word that begins with an F. It is not the one you think. This word is far more offensive because it is the most disgusting misrepresentation of the sanctity of God-given human life. The word I am speaking of is “fetus.” In this very word is the destruction of the individual, and the ultimate devaluing to pure material of our most precious and defenseless sons and daughters. We should not be surprised that the abortion industry is treating the bodies of dead children as material to be salvaged. By embracing the “F-word,” our society has taken a purely materialistic view of human life. It deprives humans of a name, a face, and a life. It is a disgusting-sounding word, and by no accident, is surprisingly similar to “fungus.” It is something we are repulsed by. Who would possibly want a doctor to tell them they have a fetus growing inside of them? It’s no coincidence then that many women, particularly those who fight most strongly for abortion, now view pregnancy as a disease. That which is growing inside of them is an enemy to their survival. It’s kill or be killed in the survival of the fittest. The devil is a master of language, and he has used it brilliantly. The very case for abortion is “pro-choice.” Who could possibly disagree with that? I love having choices. Therefore if I am not pro-choice, I must be anti-choice. What a horrible thing to be! The devil thrives on ignorance, and these terms are denials of reality. It’s not a “fetus,” it is a child. It’s not a “choice,” it is the taking of a human life.

We have lost touch with what is real. We need to recognize the value of all human lives, even those that are nameless. Our nation was founded on a “right to life,” though I’m not sure we’ve ever properly understood it. We tend to think of it as the right that God has given us to our lives. What many don’t realize is that the right to life is not ours. It is God’s. Life is a gift from God, but we don’t have a right to it. That is what makes it a gift. We are not entitled to anything from Him, even our existence. I don’t own my life or anyone else’s, but I am responsible to God for how I live and how I respect the lives of others. Life belongs to the Giver of Life, and this is what makes abortion a truly abominable act. It is not merely a crime of stealing life from a fellow human being, it is stealing life from God Himself. This understanding gives light to the gravity of the sin of murder.

Only God can give us life, and only God can rightfully take it away. We recognize the evil of what happened 14 years ago, and we acknowledge the names of those who died. In Revelation 3:12, God promises that believers will one day be given a new name. I believe that God has names for each of us, including those who have died from abortion. For Him, the names ring out endlessly. They never escape His mind. He loved them, just as the surviving family members loved the ones they lost on that horrible day. We have stolen what was His. How can we ever repay what cannot be replaced?

There’s Room Under The Bus

Have any of you noticed how incredibly uncool it is to be a Christian these days? Of course you have. We are constantly reminded of this by our modern “enlightened” culture. Lately, it seems that it’s become increasingly “cool” for otherwise uncool Christians to point their fingers at other Christians for their uncoolness. I see it quite often on my news feed from a certain unnamed website, as those more enlightened Christians continually throw their fellow Christians under the bus. I was reminded again of this growing hysteria while reading a newspaper clipping at my parents’ house over the weekend in which a pastor apologized for his sins against a certain group of people by lumping in all of the Church with himself in his confession. Where we were once “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,” it now seems we are very ashamed… and proud of it!  “There is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” except from our fellow church-goers.

This Christian shame is just a part of a growing shame industry. We’ve all heard of “white guilt,” since it’s not fair to others that some of us are born with a skin color (or lack of) that gives us advantages. We therefore must hate ourselves for how we are created. Now we have “Church guilt,” where we hate ourselves for who we belong to. First we spit on God’s image and then we spit on His bride. It is cool to hate the Church. Yet, the more cool it is to hate the Church in the eyes of the world, the more cool it really is to be the Church. We all remember the mentality of junior high and high school, where to be cool you did your best to be like the other cool kids. As we grow older, it becomes more apparent that our greatest respect and admiration comes for those who stand apart from the crowd. The imitators offer nothing truly remarkable. It is only those who go against the tide who make any impact. Many people today are under the delusion that to go against the tide is to go with it. That sounds ridiculous and self-contradictory, and it is. The “Christian rebel” who trashes the Church and calls for revolution doesn’t realize that he is being swept up by forces greater than himself. He is becoming one with the world, and is therefore becoming increasingly irrelevant to changing it.

That doesn’t mean that there is no room for counter-cultural voices within the Church. We recognize great figures in our history who made significant changes in the movement, or caused their fellow believers to see things in a different way. What they recognized though, is that the Church is the body of Christ. Jesus gave His life for His Church, so it must be of such importance that it is worth dying for. To be like Christ is to love the Church with your whole life. The great voices of Church history were motivated by a desire to strengthen the Church and restore it to its original purpose, to be the means to reach a dying world with the Gospel of the Kingdom. All I see in these contemporary voices is a desire to become one with the world and join them in their dying quests. Yes, we have our problems, and each of us individually are wretched sinners. Still, we are loved by our God who gives us a grace that sees beyond our many failings and manages to somehow use us to build His Kingdom. To be like Christ is to exhibit grace, yet these “enlightened” believers offer no grace to the less enlightened.

Christianity is counter-cultural, as it always has been. True Christianity has always stood in sharp contrast to its mainstream representation. As we see its influence in American politics and government fade, genuine Christianity will emerge. As it stands, the Christian Church remains against the tide. There are fractions that have been swept away and will continue to be swept away, but the true Church will remain. These times can be a bit frightening, but it is also quite exciting to see what God will do through His Church. As for the sell-outs, I will not condemn them, but I am concerned for them. I hope that they know and experience the grace of God, and that they would learn to reflect that grace to their fellow believers. As for me, when this life is over, I’d rather be the one under the bus than the one who put me there.