Evolution Is Most Certainly a Matter of Belief—and so Is Christianity

One of the most misleading headlines imaginable recently appeared over an opinion column published in USA Today. Tom Krattenmaker, a member of the paper’s Board of Contributors, set out to argue that there is no essential conflict between evolution and religious belief because the two are dealing with completely separate modes of knowing. Evolution, he argued, is simply “settled science” that requires no belief. Religion, on the other hand, is a faith system that is based in a totally different way of knowing—a form of knowing that requires belief and faith.   Continue at Al Mohler

The Church and Homosexuality: Ten Commitments

Of the many complexities involving the church and homosexuality, one of the most difficult is how the former should speak of the latter. Even for those Christians who agree that homosexuality is contrary to the will of God there is little agreement on how we ought to speak about homosexuality being contrary to the will of God. Much of this disagreement is owing to the fact that there are many different constituencies we have in mind when broaching the subject. There are various groups that may be listening when we speak about homosexuality, and the group we think we are addressing usually dictates how we speak.

• If we are speaking to cultural elites who despise us and our beliefs, we want to be bold and courageous.
• If we are speaking to strugglers who fight against same sex attraction, we want to be patient and sympathetic.
• If we are speaking to sufferers who have been mistreated by the church, we want to be apologetic and humble.
• If we are speaking to shaky Christians who seem ready to compromise the faith for society’s approval, we want to be persuasive and persistent.
• If we are speaking to liberal Christians who have deviated from the truth once delivered for the saints, we want to be serious and hortatory.
• If we are speaking to gays and lesbians who live as the Scriptures would not have them live, we want to be winsome and straightforward.
• If we are speaking to beligerent Christians who hate or fear homosexuals, we want to be upset and disappointed.

So how ought we to speak about homosexuality?  Continue at Kevin DeYoung

Contemporary Tolerance Is Intrinsically Intolerant

The notion of tolerance is changing, and with the new definitions the shape of tolerance itself has changed. Although a few things can be said in favor of the newer definition, the sad reality is that this new, contemporary tolerance is intrinsically intolerant. It is blind to its own shortcomings because it erroneously thinks it holds the moral high ground; it cannot be questioned because it has become part of the West's plausibility structure. Worse, this new tolerance is socially dangerous and is certainly intellectually debilitating. Even the good that it wishes to achieve is better accomplished in other ways.

Let's begin with dictionaries. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the first meaning of the verb "to tolerate" is "To respect (others' beliefs, practices, etc.) without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing. 3. to put up with; to bear; as, he tolerates his brother-in-law. 4. in medicine, to have tolerance for (a specified drug, etc.)." Even the computer-based dictionary Encarta includes in its list "ACCEPT EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS to recognize other people's right to have different beliefs or practices without an attempt to suppress them." So far so good: all these definitions are on the same page. When we turn to Encarta's treatment of the corresponding noun "tolerance," however, a subtle change appears: "1. ACCEPTANCE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS the accepting of the differing views of other people, e.g., in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views."  Continue at Don Carson

9 Dangers of the Altar Call

Some have quit calling people to walk the aisle and make a public decision for Christ because they think their theology implies that inviting people to respond to Christ is unnecessary.  Others have quit calling people to come down front because they think everyone within earshot is already saved.

Still, there are many churches out there that sing the last stanza of Have Thine Own Way just one more time as they wait for the convicted sinner to step out of the pew and into a new relationship with Christ.  But even though it is still somewhat popular, we think that the invitation system has done more harm than good among many evangelical churches.

1. The altar call too easily confuses the physical act of “coming forward” (walking an aisle) with the spiritual act of “coming to Christ” (repentance and belief). People are urged to come forward as if that coming forward is the critical element in being converted.  But what’s required for salvation isn’t walking an aisle.  It’s repentance from sin and belief in Jesus Christ (Mark 1:15).  Initial repentance and belief – conversion – can happen anywhere, in the pew or in the pub. Keep Reading...

The Appeal of Churches who Know What they Believe

The growth of theologically conservative churches and the corresponding decline of liberal churches has been the occasion of a lot of speculation over the years. 

Even sociologists have offered opinions. The findings usually suggest that people can't deal with the thoughtful subtleties and ambiguities of liberal churches. Therefore they flock to the so-called easy answers provided by conservative churches. It is reasoned that people feel "safe" with more rules so they prefer conservative churches. However, this assumes that conservative churches are more legalistic than liberal churches. But this is not at all the case. Liberal churches have the same capacity for legalism as their fundamentalist counterparts. The rules are simply different. Keep Reading...