[Updated 30/04/12: with the link to second series podcast feed]

In 2010 I provided some basic information for those among us who enjoy apologetics and have a desire to see it become a regular part of discipleship and training in their church, but were perhaps unsure how to get started. It was drawn largely from my own investigations and desire to do just that, but certainly not from my own experience. My intention was to help and encourage people like me, who enjoy this particular branch of evangelism and training, and think they might be able to serve their own church in this way.

Continuing in this vain, I am excited about to tell you about another resource that I have found very informative and practical.

Over the course of two months in 2010, Apologetics315.com released a series of 21 podcasts. The podcasts were simply narrated articles^[1]; articles written by regular folk from around the world (including Australia!) who wanted to share their experiences in starting an apologetics group in their own church. Apologetics315.com’s Brian Auten put it this way:

The goal of this project is a simple one: to share stories, experiences, and advice that will help Christians to start their own local apologetics initiatives. Whether you be a pastor, youth pastor, teacher, elder, or lay person, this series of short essays could hold the keys you need to get things started in your own local congregation.

The contributors to this project range from lay leaders to pastors, self-taught to formally trained. But they all share something in common: they are Christians who love Jesus, they have a passion to defend the Christian faith, and they have found an outlet for training and equipping others in the local church. As you read (or listen) you will hear them describe their situations, challenges, and testimonies as they helped initiate small groups, apologetics Sunday school classes, apologetics events, movie nights, and sermons.

I found it to be a very helpful resource that I have revised on several occasions as I prepare to introduce apologetics in my own church. And now, with the second series of podcasts on this topic to begin next week, Brian Auten is seeking more contributions to add to those collected for Series One:^[2]

Next week, part 2 of this series will launch, with even more essays from a variety of contributors. So why announce this now? Because you might have something to contribute. Do you run any type of apologetics group in your church? If you would like to contribute a short essay about your church-based apologetics group please contact info (at) apologetics315.com.

[Update: The podcast feed for the second series can be found here. Subscribe to it via iTunes and receive each new episode as it is released. Episode 1 - Why Apologetics Matters to Every Church and Every Believer - is now available. I hope you find them useful.]

1. The articles themselves are also freely downloadable in a variety of formats. Download the eBook [Kindle format | PDF | Mobi | ePub]
2. http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/04/how-to-get-apologetics-in-your-church.html

I have posted previously on The Ultimate Apologetics MP3 Audio Page by Apologetics.com and frankly, nothing can top that as a general resource for all things both audible and apologetic. But when we zoom in and have a closer look at some of those resources in more detail, we find little gems like Premier Christian Radio’s Unbelievable? podcast. [no, the question mark is not a typo]

Relatively unique in its style among many of the podcasts I have heard, host Justin Brierly (pictured), expertly moderates, what can be at times, a dramatic discussion, on a vast range range of hot topics concerning theists and atheists alike.

I knew I had discovered something special having listened to only one show; a  lively discussion on Intelligent Design and Evolution. I was to learn later that the program won a Gold Medal at the New York Festival Awards.

Justin Brierley, produced and presented the award winning show on evolution that features atheist Pete Hearty of the National Secular Society defending the theory of Evolution, while Peter Williams of the Damaris Trust argues for Intelligent Design.

“We chose this particular debate because it is timely.” Brierley said. “There are a number of court cases in the USA discussing what public schools should be teaching regarding evolution and similar heat is now being generated in the UK over schools that have included Intelligent Design on their syllabus.”

The evolution episode of Unbelievable has secured the programme it’s first award, within a year of going to broadcast.

Obviously thrilled, Brierley said, “For us to win an award so early on in the life of the show is wonderful, but for it to be a gold world medal at the New York Festival Awards is astounding.”

The Chief Executive of Premier Christian Radio, Peter Kerridge, said of the show, “Unbelievable is like nothing else on Premier.” Well, not only is it unlike anything on Premier Christian Radio, I haven’t heard anything quite like it anywhere. And I say that as someone who listens to a number of different podcasts, from Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason radio show to the thought-provoking Apologetics.com broadcast. Those have their niche and I think Unbelievable? have theirs. It certainly is a rare type of show.

Closer to home (my home, that is) fellow Aussie blogger, Stephen Cracknell, wrote a great article that captures the unique mood and style of the show, in words that I’m sure I would’ve used, if only I had written them first. And so I hope he doesn’t mind me closing by quoting him at length.

Just recently a few of us lads headed off to the Katoomba Men’s Convention – a long way from the Mid-North Coast (Coffs Harbour) but, hey, it was worth it.

On the way back home, my son Sam, plugged his iPod into the car’s speaker system and we all settled back (apart from the driver!) to listen to a discussion between a Christian and a non-Christian.

We were stunned! We were impressed! We were focussed!

The actual podcast we listened to was a somewhat tense discussion (at times) between Peter Hitchens (anti-theist Christopher Hitchen’s brother) and Adam Rutherford (atheist and editor of the science journal ‘Nature’).

Christian v non-Christian!

And that, essentially, is what Premier Christian Radio’s ‘Unbelievable?’ is about – provoking discussions between Christians and non-Christians.

…

Occasionally there is the Christian who gets grilled by a number of atheists (‘Grill a Christian’) and sometimes 2 Christians discuss their differences (e.g. is the King James Version the ‘best’ available English translation?).

But mostly, the very likeable Justin Brierley invites prominent Christians (e.g. William Lane Craig, James White, Os Guinness) to debate prominent non-Christians (e.g. John Hick, Dan Barker, Paul Davies).

Justin has that very healthy skill of knowing when to allow discussion (and passion) flow but also knowing when to include his thoughts and questions into the ‘debate’. He’s an intelligent guy, with sensitivity. These qualities help shape “Unbelievable?” as a really valuable podcast.

…

‘Unbelievable?’, I believe (couldn’t resist it!) is essential apologetics podcast listening – I really like it, my friends really like it and I’m sure you would too!

Why? Because there is nothing to hide behind!

‘Experts’ present their views but then must be prepared to defend them, publicly, – how good is that!

My References & Notes:

http://www.apologetics315.com/
http://www.premier.org.uk/
http://www.christianfaith.com.au/

Note: The show does also discuss/debate some topics within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. For example, as Stephen mentioned, “Is the King James Version the Best?” And another recent discussion that I found very interesting featured opposing views on how we should support Gay Christians. Titled “Ex-Gay and Gay-Affirming approaches to homosexuality – Two different approaches to supporting gay Christians”  with Jonathan Berry & Jeremy Marks.

Once upon a time in the now dying world of MySpace, I met a young Christian woman whose thoughts on the cover piece of ‘Hallelujah’ by Christian artist, David Gray, have stayed with me. With her permission, I am republishing her 2007 article so that you can benefit from her insight.

[Biblical citation from English Standard Version]

A BROKEN HALLELUJAH? – by LISA HINDS

My friend Be Too Real (www.myspace.com/betooreal) wrote a blog concerning the release of Cohen’s ‘Hallelujah’ by Christian artist David Grey. It is a hauntingly beautiful song (featured in Shrek) that plys every ounce of human emotion. With her permission I would like to bring it up on my blog also.

Hallelujah – Lyrics

I heard there was a secret chord
that David played and it pleased the lord
but you don’t really care for music, do you
well it goes like this the fourth, the fifth
the minor fall and the major lift
the baffled king composing hallelujah

hallelujah…

well your faith was strong but you needed proof
you saw her bathing on the roof
her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
she tied you to her kitchen chair
she broke your throne and she cut your hair
and from your lips she drew the hallelujah

hallelujah…

baby I’ve been here before
I’ve seen this room and I’ve walked this floor
I used to live alone before I knew you
I’ve seen your flag on the marble arch
but love is not a victory march
it’s a cold and it’s a broken hallelujah

hallelujah…

well there was a time when you let me know
what’s really going on below
but now you never show that to me do you
but remember when i moved in you
and the holy dove was moving too
and every breath we drew was hallelujah

well, maybe there’s a god above
but all I’ve ever learned from love
was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you
it’s not a cry that you hear at night
it’s not somebody who’s seen the light
it’s a cold and it’s a broken hallelujah

I grew up loving Jeff Buckley’s rendition of this song from when I was a teenager and into my early twenties. However, despite its beautiful sound, since I became a Christian I have found it very difficult and unsettling to listen to. To discover a Christian artist is covering this track without changing the lyrics is deeply concerning to me. This blog will briefly explore these concerns both theologically and also quite personally for me.

Read the rest of this entry

Just wanted to take a moment to let you know about an invaluable resource from which I have benefited for many years. It’s called BiblicalTraining.org. It’s free to join and access their huge library of audio lectures/courses on a range of topics.

The classes available for download from their site (some of which include prepared study notes – how cool is that!) are broken up into streams based on your level of progression through the curriculum. Here is a snapshot of a mere fraction of the available courses:

Now that I Believe. Your First Steps with God – Dr. Bill Mounce
How to Study your Bible (Hermeneutics) – Dr. Mark Strauss
The 52 Major Stories of the Bible – Dr. Bill Mounce
New Testament Survey – Dr. Craig Blomberg
Old Testament Survey – Dr. Miles Van Pelt
Biblical Theology – Dr. Miles Van Pelt, Dr. Craig Blomberg, Dr. Thomas Schreiner
Communicating the Gospel – Dr. Gary Parrett, Dr. Ron Pyle, Dr. Bryan Chapell
Systematic Theology – Dr. Bruce Ware
World Religions (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, African) – Dr. Timothy Tennent
Church History - Dr. Gordon Isaac
Greek Tools for Bible Study - Dr. Bill Mounce
Inductive Bible Study – Dr. George Guthrie
Apologetics – Dr. Ronald Nash
Advanced Worldview Analysis – Dr. Ronald Nash
History of Philosophy – Dr. Ronald Nash

If you do benefit from their resources, please consider a donation, as these courses are made freely available because of the generous donations of others.

Is it consistent, on the one hand, to hold to an evolutionary world view, and yet claim, on the other hand, that humans who are causing the extinction of other creatures are improperly interfering with the evolutionary process (e.g. natural selection, survival of the fittest) that’s been shaping the development of those creatures?

That was the question bumping around in my mind on Sunday evening after listening to an interview with Conservationist,  Dr. Samuel Turvey (pictured), concerning the extinction of the Baiji – also known as the Yangtze River Dolphin.

During my Sunday afternoon drive home a couple of days ago, I found myself inadvertently listening to a program called Earth Beat – a product of Radio Netherlands Worldwide – courtesy of ABC News Radio, Australia. During the program we learned that Dr. Turvey has spent quite a bit of time working to locate and preserve any remaining members of the species that had been in steep decline for several decades. As it turns out, he was too late.

The Earth Beat website says that Dr. Turvey describes the demise of the dolphin as “a national tragedy and an international disgrace.” [emphasis mine]

Elsewhere, in several articles citing the paper co-written by Dr. Turvey concerning the extinction of the Baiji (a paper subsequently published in the Royal Society Biology Letters journal), he is also quoted as saying, “This extinction represents the disappearance of a complete branch of the evolutionary tree of life and emphasises that we have yet to take full responsibility in our role as guardians of the planet.”

Now I want you to keep in mind that the broader context of this story is an evolutionary world view. That’s critical context, given that we are dealing with the attempted conservation of a species that has arguably been eradicated by the industrialisation of the Yangtze River.

So here’s the remark that really caught my attention. Earth Beat host, Marnie Chesterton, says:

Read the rest of this entry

What a big question. A question that I wager almost all of us have struggled with at some time. I certainly do not intend to probe the full depth of this question here – at least not in one article. And nor do I think I would be capable of doing it justice, as to study this question only raises a multitude of others that need to be addressed – Who/What is bad? Who/What is good? Why should we expect only good things to happen to good people? Is suffering bad? Is there an objective purpose to our existence? And the list goes on.

Instead, my goal here is far more modest. To share with you a reflection that was motivated by a brief conversation with a friend of mine. A non-Christian as far as I know – yet not someone who I have any reason to think is at all averse to a Christian world view – who, due to some recent personal events, found herself asking, “Why do terrible things happen to the very best of people?”

And I thought, what a question! And then I thought, what an opportunity! And so I began to wonder, if I’m going to respond to that, I don’t merely want to sympathise with her or provide shallow comfort – I suck at that anyway. Instead, I wanted her to think about the question she asked in a deeper way. I don’t know if this is the best way to put it, but as Christians, I think we do have deeper answers to these questions than non-believers. We have a way of looking at the world that many others haven’t considered.

So I rephrased her question from a broader perspective. “Or, why do bad things happen, at all?” I suggested.

“Too true,” she agreed.

At this point another of her friend’s weighed in. “I completely agree. There’s no rhyme or reason,” she said. “The jails are full of much better candidates for some of this stuff. It seems unfair.”

I took this as an opportunity to offer some deeper observations.

“To reflect on events as being good or bad kind of implies that there’s a purpose to life, I think. So when we despair over bad things happening to nice people, we are implying that their purpose is not being fulfilled. In other words, we have an idea that life does have an objective purpose and that death or suffering unfairly prevents us from achieving that purpose. And that, to me, is quite an interesting reflection to explore.”

But I didn’t want to leave it at that. And so I continued. “Do human beings actually have an objective purpose in life, one that is marred by suffering and death? Or is our purpose merely subjective or illusory?”

Presupposing a certain discomfort with the questions, I apologised. “Sorry, I didn’t mean to get all deep on you guys. I just find these natural intuitions that human beings have to be a curious thing, and yet many of us are unable to make sense of them.”

At this point I think the gig was up. Duane was getting all religious again. Well, I wasn’t really. But I didn’t quite know how else to interpret the silence. Perhaps they were concerned where I was heading with this. I’d like to think it was because of the gravity of their thoughts. But I let it rest at that, praying for another opportunity to take every thought captive, in the hope that they may be put into service to point the way to our Lord and Saviour.

My  esteemed blogging colleague, David Smart (aka ‘Ryft’), has written on two recent occasions now^[1], about a novel approach to the reading of the creation account in Genesis 1. It is a view promoted by John Walton in his book, The Lost World of Genesis One (2009).

I must be clear from the outset that this is not a book review. I have not read the book and must therefore rely on secondary citations and explanations of his thesis from people like David, and others. Yet, my attempts at digesting the idea have thus far been only moderately successful and the concepts presented still lack coherence in my own mind. To be as gracious as possible, I must at this point attribute this apparent incoherence to my own limitations. But I certainly look forward to further clarification.

On the surface, I can relate to objections from those who want to reject Walton’s arguments on the basis of historical theology. That is, if the early church fathers never thought Genesis 1 means what Walton thinks it means, how is it that we should now trust Walton’s interpretation? Well, we should trust it on the basis of a demonstrably sound hermeneutic I guess. This approach must necessarily presume nothing of what people like Augustine, Basil, Aquinas, Origen, etc., thought about Genesis, but focus on the Scripture itself. However, Walton’s conclusion then tends to require us to consider that the people who lived in the first few centuries after Christ lacked the recently recovered knowledge that Walton claims now makes it possible to receive this revelation in a new light. That at least, should give us pause. But just how long this ancient knowledge has been lost to us I do not know. Perhaps The Lost World of Genesis One has those answers.

Many of the online reviews of Walton’s book that I skimmed were quite positive on balance. But one review that has helped me get a foothold on this topic and  clear away some of the smog, is a critical piece by Dominic Statham, who wrote in the December 2010 edition of the Journal of Creation (JoC).^[2,3] (Note: All quoted material in this article comes from Statham’s review, unless stated otherwise. Any errors are most likely my own.) And of course, if Statham has misrepresented Walton in any way, my apparent moment of clarity may again be overcome by the smog. But let’s press on in hope.

Read the rest of this entry

… It was my sin.

Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”

In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.

Matthew 27:37-42 (New International Version)

It wasn’t the nails that held him there, but, as the famous John Newton hymn goes, “It was my sin that held him there, until it was accomplished. His dying breath has brought me life….” Despite the mocking challenge of the chief priests to get down and save himself, he stayed on the cross. He stayed there, held, not by nails, but by his own will.

“…I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

John 10:17-18 (New International Version)

Therefore, be thankful this Easter, for your Lord who laid down his life has risen for you who trust in him.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 (New International Version)

Yes, he is risen!

The heart of this post, I hope, can be summarily found in a statement by James Emery White. “What decisively marks a Christian mind is that it is informed by revelation … and then proceeds to think in light of that revelation.” – White, J.E., Serious Times, (Inter Varsity Press, 2004), p.104

With that said I just want to make it clear that my main goal in this post is to demonstrate the natural consequences of biblical compromise. So while I do make many statements against an evolutionary worldview, my intention is simply to highlight the compromise position of the piece for Christian readers – being that it is allegedly written from a Christian’s perspective – and not to engage in great detail on the finite details of the evolutionary worldview. Therefore I do not intend to allow (or argue against) conclusions drawn by non-Christians, who do not accept such authority in the first place and have their own a priori materialistic paradigms and philosophies that will not, by definition, permit some of the conclusions I have made.^[1] Those discussions belong in a separate area.

The article (written a few years ago now) by Peter Sellick is titled “Intelligent Design – Damaging Good Science and Good Theology” – Friday, 9 September 2005. But it does represent a growing view among some evangelical Christians. For example, the recent book by Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? 

I have not dealt with every comment in Sellick’s article because it’s just too long. But I think I have captured and responded to the main points.

According to the On Line Opinion webpage, Peter Sellick is currently an Anglican deacon working in Perth (Western Australia) with a background in the biological sciences. This, I am sure, makes him far more qualified than I to speak on theology or science, but I humbly offer this criticism as one who cares about the truth of Scripture.

The idea of intelligent design is that the universe, particularly the life contained therein, is too complex to have happened by chance as the theory of evolution would have it.

A more complete representation of Intelligent Design (ID) would also mention the observation of what appears to be irreducibly complex systems and specified information with those systems.

Therefore its sole basis lies in a negative:

Keep in mind that this claim is right at the beginning of Sellick’s article and he immediately poisons the well. To the contrary, as many in the ID movement have pointed out, it is not some fall-back position that people cling to because they’re blinded to the wisdom of an evolutionary worldview. It is based on a positive: an innate ability to discern design in our world. It is supported by a historical knowledge of cause and effect, acknowledging that it is most reasonable to think that the source of information and complexity contained in living systems is due to the actions of an intelligent agent. This is a completely reasonable premise upon which ID can stand. It certainly does not lie ‘in a negative’.

On the other hand, evolution by natural selection (which Sellick seems to support) is a dysteleological process seen to act on systems already possessing the information and complexity that it is claimed to have produced, and therefore provides no reasonable basis to explain the origin of these systems in the first place.

the failure to imagine how natural selection could arrive at the complexity of life we see all around us.

Imagination isn’t the problem. Rationality is. Put simply, many people think it is more reasonable that complex information-bearing systems are the product of intelligence rather than the result of random mindless forces. If observation counts for anything in science, natural selection is extremely limited in what it can achieve. (See for example Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution). It simply acts on pre-existing complex systems. It cannot create them or add information to them. In fact, it is the contention of ID-ists like Phillip Johnson that natural selection has no demonstrable creative power at all.

“Darwinian theory insists that natural selection is a creative force of immense power … We have already seen that the hypothesis of creative natural selection lacks experimental support” [chapters 2 and 3] “and that it is disconfirmed by the fossil record. The molecular evidence adds further doubt … The hypothesis that natural selection has the degree of creative power required by Darwinist theory remains unsupported by empirical evidence … [But] Darwinist know that the mutation-selection mechanism can produce wings, eyes, and brains not because the mechanism can be observed to do anything of the kind, but because their guiding philosophy assures them that no other power is available to do the job. The absence from the cosmos of any Creator is therefore the essential starting point for Darwinism.” – Johnson, P.E., Darwin On Trial, (Inter Varsity Press 1993, 2nd edition), p. 95, 98, 117.

Read the rest of this entry

[Last updated by Duane: 12 April 2011]

Every year as Easter approaches, you can be sure to find all sorts of opportunistic and inane stories in the main stream media (MSM) concerning the Christian world view. This annual religious tradition – referred to by some as “Christian bashing”, and having taken place for many years now – has left in its wake, a grand corpus of sorts; a body of writing that cannot be considered Christian thought. But can perhaps be loosely referred to as Neo-Christianity.

A few years ago, for example (cue the looney tunes music), the Sydney Morning Herald published an article suggesting that Moses was on drugs when he allegedly met with God on Mount Sinai and earlier when he spoke with God in the burning bush. The punch line in this particular story: The author of the theory “experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations,” after taking drugs!

A year before that, we had James Cameron claiming that he had discovered the very tomb of Jesus himself, bones and all.

During the lead up to Easter in 2009, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) aired a two-part Zeitgeistian program on “The Real Jesus” where the Christian record of Jesus’ life is challenged by examining similar parallels in the accounts of other ancient figures such as Horus, Mithras, Krishna and the Buddha.

Bill Muehlenberg has been observing this annual phenomenon of Easter attacks on Christianity (and for the most part, only Christianity) for some time. Take for example this summary of some of the programs aired by the ABC via its religious program, Compass.

I have already mentioned Easter 2009 and Easter 2006. How about a story on the “three faces of Christmas” – another interfaith push on Christmas, 2007; a three part religion hatchet job by Robert Winston (no friend of Christianity) over Easter 2007; a segment on “the real Mary” (we are told she was the “first apostle”) in Christmas 2004; “Did Jesus Die?” which questions his death, Easter 2004; “Children of Abraham” three common faiths, Easter 2002; “Testing Faith” critics assail Christianity, Christmas 2001; “Lives of Jesus” – another quest for the “real Jesus. Christmas 1999; etc.

- Bill Muehlenberg, The ABC’s War on Christianity

See also, More Artistic License, More Christ-Bashing.

Read the rest of this entry