In addition to a healthy theology of grief (last week), a healthy theology of death is also essential to being able to say “goodbye” well when the time comes. Having a “theology of death” may seem odd, morbid, and even wrong. Ours is such a life-affirming and life-focused culture that we rarely think of death. Therefore, it is not surprising that most of us don’t have a theology of death, much less a well-developed one. But this is exactly what we need in order to be able to say goodbye well.
We continue to search for a reason for the Las Vegas shootings. So far, no “traditional” reason has emerged. Last week I suggested that the reason may be no reason. I outlined a philosophy that is becoming increasingly popular in our culture: nihilism. Is this ringing any bells as we learn more and more about Stephen Paddock? Might it be that he had obtained all which he thought could bring him meaning “under the sun,” and found it was meaningless after all? Might he be someone who so thoroughly embraced the Enlightenment that he lived the nihilistic worldview consistently? And if so, what should we learn from this?
My brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew and his friend were on their way to the Life is Beautiful concert in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 1, 2017 when Stephen Paddock began shooting. Had they not been delayed while on their way by just a few minutes, they would have been in the line of fire. Though I am thankful they were running late, I continue to grieve over the 58 who were not so fortunate. In my grief, I ask the same question everyone else is asking: Why? The answer may be right in front of us, but it is not one we want to acknowledge.
What do talk shows, news reports, political debates and many conversations between two people who disagree have in common? Often people are not listening to but rather attacking one another. These are examples of a third way healthy conversations are derailed—though the ad hominem fallacy. In fact, this is so common that it may be the hardest of the three fallacies to spot. But we must learn to identify it and reject it if we want to have healthy conversations and come to agreement on the issues we care most about.
Good conversations can help us understand one another, find truth together, and flourish. Unfortunately, there are three ways healthy and profitable conversations can be derailed. The second wrong turn is the “Genetic Fallacy.” We hear it all the time and must avoid it at all costs. In this post I’ll define the genetic fallacy and illustrate ways it was used against Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights Movement, how I hear it in conversations about the Gospel, and how it underlies the charge of “homophobia.”
Recently a major credit card processor refused to handle further transactions that were gifts directed to a non-profit group. They said the organization’s view of family breakdown and the impact such a view has on children made it a “hate group.” Similarly, a firm that provides information about non-profits labeled one association a “hate group” due to the group’s traditional position on marriage (though the information company quickly retracted this assessment when critics challenged their arbitrary action).
Does the world need North Americans to continue sending missionaries worldwide to finish the task of seeing all people hear the gospel? Or have we done our part, and now it is time for those in other nations to finish the task in their homelands? A recent article taking the first position was criticized in a response in another journal here, highlighting the two opposing views. I just finished a book that charts a helpful “middle course” between the two.
Can we hope to find common ground in “the public square” over the critically important social issues of our day? Over the past seven weeks I’ve illustrated how the three different answers to “What are we” determines our answer to this question. But our view of what we are also determines our view of whether abortion and euthanasia are ever justified, whether the gospel makes sense, how Christians best grow in their faith, what constitutes “ministry,” and so much more. Let me explain…
It either happened this week 1,984* years ago or it didn’t. If it did, God came to earth and can provide the flourishing and eternal life He promised. If it didn’t, anyone who believes the Easter myth is a fool. The past four weeks I’ve responded to six common objections to Jesus’ bodily resurrection that first Easter morning. But there is a seventh objection worth considering…
Easter is fast approaching, so I’m discussing whether it is really worth celebrating. If it is based on a fact of history—Jesus’ resurrection—then everyone worldwide should celebrate it, because it proved Jesus is the One True God. If it is based on a lie—there actually was no resurrection—then Christianity is simply false and Christians are fools to follow this dead “savior”! So which is it? . . .
As we approach Easter, we are reminded that our faith stands or falls on whether Jesus rose from the dead. Either our faith in Jesus as God in flesh is founded on a verifiable fact of history, or we are following a false messiah who failed to prove his claim to be God. Last week I gave five evidences the tomb was really empty that first Easter morning. What is the best explanation of this fact? Besides Jesus’ bodily resurrection there are six other explanations often given. This week and next I’ll unpack these and show why they are inadequate to explain all the facts. The only adequate explanation of the empty tomb that first Easter morning is the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
In my last post, I shared the first way biblical truth always shows up in the movies we watch. Yet there are two more ways that we should notice as well. Each of these should regularly remind us of the Gospel in our own lives and give us “common ground” from which to discuss biblical truth with those around us.