No Higher Call by Candice Watters on 03/03/2009 at 9:07 AM

I'm working on a review of Voddie Baucham's new book, What He Must Be...if he wants to marry my daughter. (You'll see that soon over on Boundless.) But I couldn't wait that long to talk about page 36. This is where Baucham really gets into the heart of marriage and intentional protracted singleness. He kicks the chapter off with a quote from Martin Luther about the benefits of marrying young,

Some thoughtful people have turned their own experiences into a fine and noble proverb and have said, "Early to rise and early to take a wife a man will not regret throughout his life." Why? Well, this mode of life makes for people who keep a healthy body, a good conscience, possessions, honor and friends.

Baucham would know. He grew up surrounded by divorce, remarriage, more divorce, illegitimacy, and more. Speaking about the offspring (38) of his male first cousins, he writes, "This number is quite illusive since no two people in our family have the same count for the number of children [they've] fathered out of wedlock." Thankfully for his own children, he has managed not only to stay married, but to make his marriage a model for multigenerational faithfulness. Marriage is, he says, a high calling. Perhaps the highest.

I have never met more young men and women with a desire to serve the Lord than I have in recent years. However, most of them are willing to do anything God asks as long as it does not involve growing up, settling down, and pouring themselves into the ministry of marriage. I use the term ministry purposefully. I believe marriage is a ministry. Unfortunately, it is one to which few acknowledge a call these days. It seems that some believe that marriage is somehow beneath other callings. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is perhaps no higher calling.

"What about pastors and missionaries," you say? "Aren't those higher callings?" Baucham answers directly,

I do not believe it is necessary to rank marriage and ministry any more than I would rank eating and drinking. Both are essential. My point is simply this: it is wrong to argue that marriage is somehow less important than ministry. Marriage is ministry.

There is more, much more, in this book about singleness, and more importantly, about how to marry well. But that will come later. For now, I found it worthwhile to quote a respected Christian leader who is doing his part to esteem marriage and remind us that God's design for marriage is far loftier than we often remember. I'm hopeful that books like What He Must Be will be a help to all the Christian singles who are still hoping to get married.

No Higher Call by Candice Watters on 03/03/2009 at 9:07 AM

I'm working on a review of Voddie Baucham's new book, What He Must Be...if he wants to marry my daughter. (You'll see that soon over on Boundless.) But I couldn't wait that long to talk about page 36. This is where Baucham really gets into the heart of marriage and intentional protracted singleness. He kicks the chapter off with a quote from Martin Luther about the benefits of marrying young,

Some thoughtful people have turned their own experiences into a fine and noble proverb and have said, "Early to rise and early to take a wife a man will not regret throughout his life." Why? Well, this mode of life makes for people who keep a healthy body, a good conscience, possessions, honor and friends.

Baucham would know. He grew up surrounded by divorce, remarriage, more divorce, illegitimacy, and more. Speaking about the offspring (38) of his male first cousins, he writes, "This number is quite illusive since no two people in our family have the same count for the number of children [they've] fathered out of wedlock." Thankfully for his own children, he has managed not only to stay married, but to make his marriage a model for multigenerational faithfulness. Marriage is, he says, a high calling. Perhaps the highest.

I have never met more young men and women with a desire to serve the Lord than I have in recent years. However, most of them are willing to do anything God asks as long as it does not involve growing up, settling down, and pouring themselves into the ministry of marriage. I use the term ministry purposefully. I believe marriage is a ministry. Unfortunately, it is one to which few acknowledge a call these days. It seems that some believe that marriage is somehow beneath other callings. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is perhaps no higher calling.

"What about pastors and missionaries," you say? "Aren't those higher callings?" Baucham answers directly,

I do not believe it is necessary to rank marriage and ministry any more than I would rank eating and drinking. Both are essential. My point is simply this: it is wrong to argue that marriage is somehow less important than ministry. Marriage is ministry.

There is more, much more, in this book about singleness, and more importantly, about how to marry well. But that will come later. For now, I found it worthwhile to quote a respected Christian leader who is doing his part to esteem marriage and remind us that God's design for marriage is far loftier than we often remember. I'm hopeful that books like What He Must Be will be a help to all the Christian singles who are still hoping to get married.

Comments

[1. Sara said the following at 10:02 AM on Mar 3:]

1

Maybe you're misrepresenting his arguments, but from what you've quoted, he hasn't proven anything on this page 36, he's just made claims over and over again.

"X is the greatest thing, X is so noble; some people discount X but truly X is just as honorable..."

That's preaching to the converted in its purest form.

I've never understood how ministering to a middle-class family--whose children may or may not go on to be useful, and whose children may or may not go on to be Christians who praise God--could 'rank' up there with serving the most urgently needy among us.

Having children within marriage *creates new needs* in an already needy world! I don't see how that's a "blessing".

[2. Ashley Harris said the following at 10:16 AM on Mar 3:]

2

Sara,

It sounds like you are saying there is no value in ministering to one's own family because middle-class children are not "needy" and there is no guarantee that they will serve the Lord. Am I misunderstanding you?

There is no guarantee that AIDS orphans will come to know to the Lord through ministering to their poverty and medical needs, but should we not still serve the least of these? And when Jesus talks about the "least of these"/"little ones," isn't He talking often about children? And wouldn't that apply to middle-class children as well?

Who are we to assign value to people? Aren't all people valuable because they bear the image of God?

I don't mean this to be offensive to you, but could this mindset that serving the poor and "needy" above our families is contributing to the breakdown of the family?

[3. Ted Slater said the following at 10:23 AM on Mar 3:]

3

I'd like to reiterate what Voddie Baucham says, that marriage is no less important than what we think of as "ministry." Indeed, it *is* ministry.

He is *not*, of course, saying that marriage is somehow a more lofty ministry than others, that if you are unmarried, you are necessarily falling short in your ministry. He's simply clarifying that marriage is no less of a ministry than others. Similarly, other ministries are no less ministry than marriage. Paul's ministry, for example, was not somehow defective because he remained single throughout his life.

Baucham is trying to balance a fallacy that's entered our thinking about marriage, that it signifies a giving up on pursuing God and godliness.

If you're single, and feeling a bit discouraged, please click over to today's featured Boundless article, "One Single Day."

[4. kaj said the following at 11:16 AM on Mar 3:]

4

So "marriage is ministry," according to Voddie Baucham, but then the "One Single Day" admonishes us, "I can glorify God by seeking His Kingdom first, and marriage second."

I'm just plain confused here over perceived mixed messages.

[5. Julia H said the following at 11:19 AM on Mar 3:]

5

I am becoming increasingly frustrated by comments on this blog that imply that wealthy people do not need to be ministered to, or that only poor people are worthy of outreach. Is this a common attitude/belief in young Christians? I was under the impression that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and that in Christ there is no "rich or poor" and that we are all created equal. Wealth is not a measure of what makes us "truly needy." We are all in need of the Saviour.

[6. Alison said the following at 11:20 AM on Mar 3:]

6

Sara (1)

I believe in this fallen world their are two types over poverty. A financial poverty and a poverty of spirit. Some people fall in more than 1 category. Many in the middle class may not be financially poor, but their is often found a poverty of spirit. In recent years I have had a heart for the middle class. If you look around many of the pews in churches in middle class communities sit empty. Families are often too "busy" on Sundays to attend church. A healthy loving family in a middle class community can model God's love in a powerful way. Just because someone is middle class doesn't mean they don't need a savior. Its often the leaders in these communities that have a great impact on our country. These are often the members of our society who are our doctors, lawyers, politicians, engineers, CEOs, accountants. I pray for more Godly Families to crop up in these communities. Christians need to have influence in these neighborhoods.

[7. Texas Craig said the following at 11:24 AM on Mar 3:]

7

I disagree with the title "No Higher Call." But, instead of arguing over it, I will throw out this challenge to those who want to defend it:

Lay out the Biblical mandate that marriage is a ministry that we are called to. I certainly agree with the stewardship principle and that man has been given dominion over the earth, hence the original "be fruitful and multiply" directive. But, is there anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus (or any of the writers) directed us specifically to marry and have kids?

I certainly am aware of all kinds of other directives given to us (go into all the world, preaching, baptizing, caring for the least of us, caring for widows and orphans, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, caring for the sick, etc.). But, I am not aware of any such directives for marriage. Perhaps I have just missed them. But, until I see a Biblical directive, I would not use the term "calling" in regard to marriage.

[8. dana111 said the following at 11:37 AM on Mar 3:]

8

I am a single women who does not feel discouraged AT ALL by Voddie Baucham's views of marriage and children. God is in the process of completely renewing my mind when it comes to family and ministry. I was one of those single people who believed that you either serve God or get married- there was nothing in between. However, no where in the Bible is marriage and family seen as a "lesser" ministry than serving the poor and the needy. Also, marriage and ministry can go hand in hand. Why did Paul require deacons in the New Testament church to be the "husband of one wife"? Why does Paul ask in 1 Corinthians 9: 1-5:

"Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

To me, this scripture shows that marriage and ministry are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, was MARRIED. He had a wife (who, along with her husband, suffered martyrdom for her confession of Jesus Christ). He freely served God with her by his side, and she followed him wherever he went.

Sorry, Sara, but no where in the Bible does God command us not to have children because of the world's "neediness." In my opinion,and correct me if I am wrong, you are reading your own hurt and your own hatred of children and marriage into Voddie's writing, and, possibly, into the Word of God. In the book of Jeremiah, the children of Israel where in exile, forced to move from Jerusalem to Babylon. However, even in the midst of the ungodly Babylonians, the Lord tells them to:

"Build houses and dwell in them; plant gardens and eat their fruit. Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters—that you may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the LORD for it; for in its peace you will peace."- Jeremiah 29

So, no, marriage and serving God are not two ideas that are diametrically opposed to each other. The Bible shows several instances when they can and do go hand in hand.

God Bless!

[9. dana111 said the following at 11:41 AM on Mar 3:]

9

To Texas Craig (7)-

How do you feel about unmarried Christians who say that singleness is a "calling?" I haven't seen any Biblical directive for that, but I know there are many single Christians who are adamant about their particular "calling."

[10. Texas Craig said the following at 11:45 AM on Mar 3:]

10

Alison and Julia:

I do not disagree that everyone needs Jesus. I have been on 3 mission trips to China and I have met people who genuinely do not know anything about Jesus. Yet, here in the U.S., information about Jesus is available everywhere, bibles are in every hotel room, and people can flip on their TV and see evangelists or pastors all the time.

I was convicted by a passage I read before my first trip to China. To paraphrase, "What right do people have to hear the gospel for the 3rd or 4th time, when there are people in the world that have never heard it once?" To me, it is a question of opportunity. Strangely, many of the same people who will castigate the poor in our country for not taking advantage of the opportunities given to them will also want to continue trying to share the gospel with many middle class or wealthy people who have not taken advantage of the spiritual opportunities all around them.

I am not someone who advocates caring only for the poor. But, I do advocate caring for the most needy. When it comes to physical needs, the most needy are those without material possessions (including food, shelter, etc.) and without opportunities to reasonably gain them. When it comes to spiritual needs, it is those without salvation AND without reasonable opportunities to hear the gospel.

Of course we should always be a light wherever we are, so that our witness will naturally happen to our neighbors and co-workers if we are just following Christ by our life.

[11. Rachael said the following at 11:46 AM on Mar 3:]

11

That's great that Ted pointed out that: "He is *not*, of course, saying that marriage is somehow a more lofty ministry than others, that if you are unmarried, you are necessarily falling short in your ministry."

Because... it kind-of sounds like it from the title and another area of this post and from his words: "There is perhaps no higher calling."

But, good thing he's not doing that...though that may be true for some/many...and I think it's sad if it makes single people feel less worthy or that they are less happy than they'd be if they are married. Even just today, I got a message from someone, and included in her message was:

"How you enjoying the married life? You better love it because some of us aren't so lucky. :) Just kidding...sort of."

...There's some kind of something about that tone, whether or not she wants to be married now.

Marriage is ministry, or it should be. But I think it's all too easy to put too many high expectations into marriage and the spouse. Or to have the subconscious outlook that 'Marriage is everything and should supply my every need and if it doesn't I'll be disappointed', or... something...Too easy to put too much of the heart deposit into that when utmost fulfillment should be found in God.

I wonder if more often a healthy outlook of marriage should be promoted than marriage itself. And that's probably one thing that Focus on the Family does or tries to do...

Our highest calling is to be how God wants us to be in all circumstances, and if marriage is part of that, then that's included, and it's it's not, then, it's not...

[12. Sara said the following at 11:50 AM on Mar 3:]

12

Hi Ashley

The main difference between middle-class children and someone else's orphan is that *the middle-class children don't exist until you make them*.

It isn't a matter of choosing between your children and other needy children. If you already have children, by all means take care of them. What I'm saying is that I feel a person should make sure the needs of real, already-extant children are taken care of before creating new needs in the world.

I wouldn't say any one child is more valuable than any other child, but I *would* say that any one child is more valuable than an unfertilized egg in my belly.

Another point is that as long as you take care of people who already exist, you aren't creating the potential for another human to go to hell. Nobody knows what percent of Christian-raised kids end up being saved, but I doubt anyone believes it's 100%. Even if it was 99% (unlikely), by having kids you'd be putting another human being at risk of eternal suffering.

I don't understand why people don't take that consideration a LOT more seriously before they have kids! It seems odd that God would want more mouths to praise him if the cost might be seeing another human go to hell, even if that human is someone who's obstinate, hard-hearted, or whatever.

I CAN NOT GET OVER how much obstinacy or hard-heartedness is punished in the Bible! Don't get me wrong; I think those are terrible faults, but you'd think, say, a month of cruel torture would do it.

Nope! Murderers like David and Moses feel no pain after death; hard-hearted atheist aid workers get infinite years of torture. All because God created the world in such a way that 'justice' demands perfect atonement. What a way to create justice!

Julia H.,

About poor vs. wealthy neediness, the thing is that money-poor people do tend to have more urgent problems. You can house a sick heart in a healthy body for quite awhile, but a healthy mind in a sick body can last only do long.

I'm not saying that kids' worth corresponds to a sliding scale of parental income!

[13. Rachael said the following at 11:55 AM on Mar 3:]

13

Julia H (5),

Yes, ABSOLUTELY we are all in need of the savior, and I have reflected upon the serving the rich vs. poor issue...I put up a blog post here, including a couple of snippets from other blogs and a poem by Karsten Piper:

http://reicheru.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/everyones-needy/

Regardless of however my heart has been pulled, I do understand that we are all needy, and that it would be good if we reflected Christ to all around us regardless of their social status.

[14. Matt from DC said the following at 12:01 PM on Mar 3:]

14

Sara,

You say, 'Having children within marriage *creates new needs* in an already needy world! I don't see how that's a "blessing".'

You may not understand how having children is a blessing, but God is clear in His Word when he says that it is. See Psalm 127 for the text.

I am left with a few questions from your statement:

* If having children creates needs then is it selfish?

* If having children isn't a blessing why would God command us to do it?

* If ministry to the family unit is less worthy than other ministry then why does Paul equate failing to provide for your immediate family to denying Jesus Christ?

1 Timothy 5:8 "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

* Should the middle-class stop having children and ministering to them in lieu of reaching the "most urgently needy among us"?

* When you identify this group of people "the most urgently needy among us" who are they?

Is your answer as simple as not a middle-class family. That is what you have written, I just find it hard to believe. I find my answer in Luke 10:29-37.

Thank you for your time.

[15. Catherine said the following at 12:03 PM on Mar 3:]

15

I am so happy you are reviewing this book! it has been sitting on my amazon wishlist for about a week. I do agree with your "no higher call" title. Its sad that I have only come to appreciate the idea that it is in our family that we learn to serve like Jesus FIRST. I have always thought of christian service as being primarily outside of the home- probably because traveling to exotic places and helping the truly impoverished seems more exiciting. It is too hard to forget that learning to serve at home within our own families is the central way that we grow in Christ. How could the church have taught me so little over the years on how to be a good daughter, a good sister, a good wife, a good mother? These are difficult skills that, when done rightly, can truly change the broken world we live in today.

[16. Matt from DC said the following at 12:29 PM on Mar 3:]

16

Texas Craig,

God gave to our father Noah the command to be fruitful and multiply. Even though the New Covenant does not affect this ancient directive does not mean it does not belong among other Biblical imperatives. The only alteration in the New Testament about this is Paul's defense of the spiritual gifting of singleness.

It is possible that I can give a better response if you provide an acceptable definition of ministry.

[17. Leah W said the following at 12:33 PM on Mar 3:]

17

kaj, you said you're confused because the messages seem to contradict one another. (And I can see that.) But I actually see that they go hand in hand.

Baucham says that marriage is a ministry. (which I had never really thought about, but, yeah... I see that!) Then Elisabeth sd in "One Fine Day" that marriage should come second to your relationship with God. That's true with *any* ministry! Whether that be marriage, parenting, missions, pastoring, ect.

The thing that I got from Elisabeth was that she had put her desire for marriage above what God wanted for her life. And it was after that that she learned she needed to put God first and marriage second. (God is not to take a second seat to *any*one or *any*thing.) I'm sure in that respect both Mr. Baucham and Ms. Adams will agree.

Speaking as a young single woman (whose mother, grandmothers, sister, aunts, cousins, ect) were married *long* before my age, I can understand where Elisabeth's questions come from. (I've also asked God, "If I eventually *do* get married and have kids, will I be able to keep up with them???" :D) But I get all kinds of frustrated when I hear people in the church say that people my age who aren't married are single because we're "too picky" or "afraid", or worse "don't think it's important". I think marriage is not only important, but *vital*!!!!

However in my case, my own single-status has *nothing* to do with "fear of commitment" or any other fear! (Am I picky? Well that depends. I measure a man by the Word of God. So... am I being too picky?) :) A long time ago I put into practice what Elisabeth was talking about (God before marriage/dating). I didn't date a lot when I was a teen and still don't. Not because I don't want to get married, but because I am waiting on God. I openly admit that while I'm pushing 30 I just don't have a persistant desire to be married... yet. (The desire is there every now and then, but when I pray about it, I get a peace and move on with the ministry God has laid on my heart.)

I like the fact that Elisabeth pointed out that we singles have more time for intercession (and ministry in general, I think. :D). So we don't have to mope around all the time. We can use the desires (she listed more than a few) and channel those into ways to minister to others.

I have to commend Boundless for linking these two articles. I think they balance one another out. They are from two completely different ends of the spectrum of marriage and that allows for a fuller discussion.

(Hope I didn't ramble on too long. :D)
Leah W.

[18. Texas Craig said the following at 12:34 PM on Mar 3:]

18

Dana111 (9):

My response is that I generally do not think that singleness is a "calling" either. But, having said that, I am cognizant of verses like Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Corinthians 7. You can read those passages for yourself and decide what they mean.

[19. Texas Craig said the following at 12:38 PM on Mar 3:]

19

As a clarification of my earlier comments, please understand that I agree that, ONCE WE HAVE DECIDED TO ENTER MARRIAGE, we should see our marriage and family as part of our mission field/area of ministry. My disagreement is with the idea that the decision to enter into marriage is a calling or a ministry by itself.

[20. Nathan said the following at 12:39 PM on Mar 3:]

20

Could the title "No Higher Call" be a reason for singles feeling snubbed?

The blog posts here on Boundless constantly and consistently make marriage out to be much more than it actually is.

And I personally found the article "One Single Day" to be kind of silly. I don't get the mindset of striving to marry well while getting through the pain of the in-between years. I guess I see it as one dimensional. There are many paths that one can live their life, no? It seems the church focuses on only one and marginalizes or totally brushes off those that can't or don't want to live their life on that specific course.

Singles are often labeled as selfish, but the married crowd that focuses solely on how to be in a marriage, how to get married, and how to make everyone like themselves while rejecting other "life trajectories" is self centered, too.

It's this mindset that makes being a single in church very difficult. Marriage is glorified to the point where singles are left in the dust, considered "less than" and "encouraged" to improve their state by getting married. Let's stop idolizing marriage and loathing singleness, please!!

[21. a sassy sister said the following at 12:47 PM on Mar 3:]

21

Rachel, #11:
Well said.

[22. Rachael said the following at 12:49 PM on Mar 3:]

22

Sara wrote: "by having kids you'd be putting another human being at risk of eternal suffering.

I don't understand why people don't take that consideration a LOT more seriously before they have kids!"

I see your point...but ultimately God knows and in control of whether or not He gives the gift of life...salvation does not rest in the parents' hands.

[23. Tara said the following at 12:54 PM on Mar 3:]

23

"I don't understand why people don't take that consideration a LOT more seriously before they have kids!"

It's called faith. Faith in God that He is looking out for the spiritual health of our (future) children. And it's hope that they will follow Him. Why did God create humans in the first place if He knew we were only going to fall away and hurt & anger Him (& each other)? It's a mystery to me so I can only call it Love.

I do believe in responsible family planning but at some point you just need to trust God that He loves your child more than you ever could & He will watch over them and call them to Him. Ultimately though, the fate of the child's soul is between him/her & God.

[24. Tami said the following at 1:15 PM on Mar 3:]

24

I agree with others who have said the title is off putting to unmarried folk desiring marriage... i.e., a large portion of your readers.

I don't think the title is reflective of what Baucham is saying, and it also implies that if you're not married then you're somehow missing God's best. That is an -ouch- for those who aren't married but desire to be, and does add to the feeling of being an outsider, pressing one's nose against the glass of a warm, glowing house.

I've been reading Boundless long enough to know that's not your intent, but it *is* how the title (but not, in my opinion, the article!) come off.

I say, not the article, because Candice *does* say, "intentional protracted singleness." Not simply "singleness."

Honestly, if I heard there was an article called "No Higher Call" but didn't see the book cover or know the contents, I would have thought it was about living out *whatever* God has given you this day, living out that upward call of Christ Jesus.

[25. Andrea-Elena said the following at 1:26 PM on Mar 3:]

25

Sara,

Since God has given you a passion for the fatherless, the weary, the downtrodden, the poor, wonderful! Be a good steward of that passion and of the opportunities He shows you to care for others.

But remember that not everyone is given the same passion in areas of ministry and missions.

Doing Kingdom work requires all of God's children to be about what He prompts them to do. One person cannot do it all. But the entire world-wide body of Christ, through the ages, can -- because it is He who works in us.

Another point is that as long as you take care of people who already exist, you aren't creating the potential for another human to go to hell.

1. God authors life.

2. I don't create the potential for another human to go to hell. You don't. Parents don't. After Adam and Eve, the potential is there, period. Each human being has a choice to obey God or rebel. Each naturally chooses to rebel. By faith, he/she must come to God. Christ is the way provided. The only way.

3. Our responsibility is not to save people. We cannot save people. God saves people. Our responsibility is to spread the good news that salvation is available.

4. We don't send people to hell. Humans stand condemned already. God just lets them have the consequences of their choices. And the choice is available to all: choose Christ or rot in hell. It's pretty simple.

Nobody knows what percent of Christian-raised kids end up being saved, but I doubt anyone believes it's 100%. Even if it was 99% (unlikely), by having kids you'd be putting another human being at risk of eternal suffering.

No. Each human does that on his own.

By trying to conceive, we are merely playing our part in making conditions ripe for life to be created. WE do not create it! God does! (Psalm 139) We are to play our parts in nurturing life, protecting life, and so forth.

I don't understand why people don't take that consideration a LOT more seriously before they have kids! It seems odd that God would want more mouths to praise him if the cost might be seeing another human go to hell, even if that human is someone who's obstinate, hard-hearted, or whatever.

I don't think God ever revoked His command that ALL living things reproduce. It's in their design.

I CAN NOT GET OVER how much obstinacy or hard-heartedness is punished in the Bible! Don't get me wrong; I think those are terrible faults, but you'd think, say, a month of cruel torture would do it.

By whom? God? God doesn't cruelly torture. He withdraws His hand of protection and allows people to feel the consequences their choices create, allowing His RIGHTEOUS wrath to have sway.

God isn't some sadistic tool who gets His jollies from hurting people.

But yeah, you'd think that after being warned that invaders would come, the people of OT days would have turned away from false gods and returned to the one true God. But they didn't.

Nope! Murderers like David and Moses feel no pain after death; hard-hearted atheist aid workers get infinite years of torture. All because God created the world in such a way that 'justice' demands perfect atonement. What a way to create justice!

Don't forget that He Himself made propitiation for that atonement.

I mean, GOD ALMIGHTY who created the heavens and the earth, who sustains all life, and who alone deserves praise ... gave up His glory, His position, to come in FLESH and dwell among us and then BE the perfect sacrifice that no amount of "spotless" lambs or calves could ever provide.

And Moses and David, despite their sins, did walk by faith, looking forward to the promised Lamb -- who was spoken of from the time of the fall onward.

NONE of us deserve that grace, mercy, and compassion. Doesn't matter what we did. But He gives it anyway.

No amount of good deeds gets a person "close enough" to God's perfection. But in Christ, His perfection is credited to us.

And remember ... in contrast to the countless years we will spend in eternity, our days here on earth are but a blink of an eye. So ... our physical needs, while real and strong and important, are not the MOST important. Our spiritual needs are.

So ... it doesn't matter really whether you birth children or care for others' children or both. "What matters is faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6b, HCSB). Loving people and sharing/illuminating the truth of Jesus Christ are what matter -- those important things still matter ... because all human beings matter. He says so.

Pitting one group (middle-class children of a 2-parent home) against another (children with less-than-ideal home situations, of whatever "stripe") and saying that one group is needier than the other is really not productive at all.

We all stand needy, needier than we could ever really fathom -- for our Father, our Savior, our Lord, our Counselor, our King.

[26. Elisabeth said the following at 1:27 PM on Mar 3:]

26

Kaj, a clarification might be that *when they are in conflict* I seek God's Kingdom first, and marriage second. But usually they're not in conflict; they're complementary.

Thanks for the encouragement, Leah W. I might add that I'm not afraid to vigorously honor the things that God honors (including marriage), as long as it's Him I see in it. The more I see God, the less temptation there is to put anything above Him. I'll simply delight in it as another lampstand on which to shine His light!

Nathan, thanks for your candidness. My article was written for singles who are marriage-minded, but it could also be for anyone who feels called to a ministry that they have not yet stepped into - for unknown reasons that are out of their control. Ultimately, it's about dealing with the disappointments of life in a fallen world and the mystery of God's sovereignty.

It reminds me of II Cor. 4:

"For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair..."

[27. Kyndra said the following at 1:28 PM on Mar 3:]

27

Wow! Amazing how this is the same sort of stuff my mom has been telling me forever! lol. :)
I can't wait to read the rest of your review, Candace. I've always said that the man I marry will have to be amazing. He's got to meet not just my father's approval (hard enough on its own, but that of my five brothers, five sisters, and mother. A daunting task to be sure!

[28. saidahwk said the following at 1:49 PM on Mar 3:]

28

I *love* Voddie Baucham. He spoke at my school my freshman year of college and it was seriously amazing.

[29. Megan said the following at 2:41 PM on Mar 3:]

29

I love Boundless.

With that said, I feel like I need to say that this article leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The subjectivity is almost too much to handle.

Why are we talking about this author’s view on marriage, singleness, and the level of importance of God's calling? I am in no way saying these are invalid points of discussion, but the whole thing seems a little subjective; anyone else with me?

Candice quotes (from Baucham), "I have never met more young men and women with a desire to serve the Lord than I have in recent years. However, most of them are willing to do anything God asks as long as it does not involve growing up, settling down, and pouring themselves into the ministry of marriage."

That's a very powerful, blanketing, and, what I feel, unnecessary statement. Since when does *not* getting married constitute *not growing up*. Baucham first gives what seems to be a compliment to young people, then chops their legs off by saying that we've refused to grow up. It also seems as if Baucham believes that marriage is the only way to ACT on serving the Lord. Note when she gives the aforementioned compliment, he says young people have desire to serve, but then are only willing to serve when God doesn't ask them to get married.

Here's what I'm getting at: I don't get it. I’m having a hard time reconciling that “calling to singleness” to “growing up = marriage”.

[30. Sara said the following at 2:50 PM on Mar 3:]

30

Tara and Rachael,

Millions of parents who have chosen to have children and who have put those children's fates in the hands of God have [ostensibly] had their children go to hell. Why would you choose to have faith in a god like that?

If God had designed justice such that nobody was ever tortured for an infinite amount of time, would you think that was a bad god?

Unless you're fatalists, faith on your part must involve judging among gods, else you wouldn't know whether to continue practicing Christianity, or whether you should maybe go to a synagogue next weekend.

I can't fathom how the infinite-torture part of God's creation could be considered optimal, let alone praiseworthy! If you say, "It's not my choice, it's the Spirit's choice", you're still choosing to believe in your ability to feel the Spirit! (In contrast, I believe that what I used to call 'the Spirit's leading' was entirely a matter of strong emotions)

Matt

- If you already have a family, then absolutely you’re doing the wrong thing if you neglect them to ‘go help the poor’; I’m talking about making the decision to have a family in the first place.

- I’d say that the “most urgently needy among us” are people in severe physical pain, I guess, or people experiencing extreme injustice. It would be wonderful if everyone who had, say, existential problems could be ministered to, but there isn’t enough help to go around and I support a triage system.

- Yes, I think people should stop having kids. No, I don’t think that’s necessarily Biblical. I don’t agree with the Bible in a lot of ways. I’d love to, but I haven’t been able to in good faith for a long time. I’m not a Christian.

- Ha, thank *you* for your time : )

Andrea-Elena,

I'm very familiar with all those verses and arguments; they mostly presuppose Christianity. When you say, "God doesn't cruelly torture", to me, creating a world with the *potential* for even one person (even just Jesus, say), to be tortured is a horrible, horrible abuse of power.

Unthinkable. If I was all-powerful, the last thing that would enter my mind is to create a system whereby I "required justice" from my inferiors on pain of death.

It blows my mind how some Christians accept this, and *then* turn it around as a positive thing, like, "Wow! What a wonderfully upside-down world we live in! What a crazy unfathomable and awesome God! What a wonderfully radical faith I need to have to believe it!". Unbelievable.

[31. dana111 said the following at 2:53 PM on Mar 3:]

31

Personally, I think Dr. Baucham's goal, if you actually listen to some of his sermons, is to challenge the cultural and societal assumptions concerning and marriage and family that have been ingested by the church. I don't think he intentionally wants to make singles mad. However, he does want single Christians to question the "bill of goods" that we have been sold, i.e. marriage is not important, marriage is for the needy, singleness is a more "spiritual" state than marriage, the most important thing for a woman to do EVER is have a career and work 40 hours a week, etc.

I have listened to several of his sermons. Some of them hurt, especially the ones about submission and the role of women and men in the home, but he makes sure to temper his sermons with scripture. If you want to be challenged, check him out and see for yourself if what he says can be backed up with the Word.

[32. Candice Watters said the following at 3:06 PM on Mar 3:]

32

FWIW, the title "No Higher Call" is a quote directly from Baucham (which appears further down in this blog post). He says of marriage, "There is perhaps no higher calling." (Emphasis added).

Thanks to all of you who are defending my post and/or Baucham, but not my title, they are one and the same.

[33. Ted Slater said the following at 3:35 PM on Mar 3:]

33

Sara -- you puzzle me. Sometimes you talk about your church, or quote Scripture as though you see it as having some authority. Other times you express distain for those commended in Scripture and even for God Himself, confessing a distrust of His goodness and faithfulness.

Are you really this conflicted?

[34. Andrea-Elena said the following at 3:58 PM on Mar 3:]

34

Sara,

I apologize for assuming you were a Christian. I often forget that the participants here come from a variety of viewpoints.

Your questions and ponderings are not illogical for whatever your belief system is. (I describe it that way because I do not know to what faith/belief you ascribe.) I remember asking very similar questions when I was in college. (Lots of meaty philosophical discussions then!)

Hmm... A hypothetical: If you were all powerful and all knowing and decided to create sentient beings, what parameters would you set on those beings?

And... not hypothetical... just about what you think/believe...
What do you see as the purpose of human beings? That is, why are we here?

[35. NeedACatchyName said the following at 3:58 PM on Mar 3:]

35

The points about marriage being a ministry and the need to hold it in high regard are well taken, but I still don't like this idea that "there is perhaps no higher calling" than marriage. I'm not really sure how you can compare one calling to another, for that matter. Scripture never actually gives any sort of hierarchy for "callings," so I don't think there's really any way to rank one calling ahead of another. I mean, if one person is called to be serve God as a pastor, another as a missionary, still another as a mother, and then another person as a janitor, how do you determine who has the "higher" calling? As long as each is using the tools and abilities that God has given them to serve the Lord and others in accordance with Scripture, I don't see how you can call one calling "higher" than the other.

We are called to turn away from our sins, believe in Christ, accept his gift of salvation, and live our lives in accordance with Scripture. Beyond that, I don't think there is any "higher" calling.

[36. Melissa said the following at 4:04 PM on Mar 3:]

36

To Sara (and other readers):

I have a few questions: where do children come from, or better put, WHO do children come from? I'm glad that someone on here has already quoted the 127th Psalm...children are a BLESSING from God. Remembering that God is the creator of everything (including you), who are we to judge the who/what/when/where/why of any of God's creation??

In fact, I have done some research on the declining population growth in our country (mostly due to abortions and the use of contraceptives), and many demographers have expressed concern that future generations could be faced with some ugly economic ramifications because people today aren't having enough children.

Also, it has been said that the main cause of poverty is not overpopulation or a lack of food (presently there is enough food being produced to feed the entire world) but oppressive governments and social hierarchies that prevent people from being able to access to their basic needs. In other words, more children being born here is unlikely to have much (if any effect) on the dire situations in other parts of the world. In fact, it could have a positive effect because then there would be more people that God could use to help put an end to social injustices abroad.

We need Christians to get married and have children! As others have stated, many believers came to know Christ and were discipled into mature believers at home through their parents. Having children and raising them in the Truth is an investment in the next generation that God will use to continue taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth! It is true that not all will believe and receive salvation, but only God knows who, and it is not our place to hinder or eradicate something He by His word considers a blessing as a result. Many of those new souls will come to know Him, and God will use many of them to further His kingdom.

Here's another question (that thankfully a few others have already posed): who's to say that being married and serving the world's poorest have to be polarized?

I almost pick up on this whole attitude by many of the responses to this blog that if you get married, then it kills God's ability to use you as a pastor or as a missionary or any other kind of commended ministry. But that's simply not true!

Guess what! The vast number of people I personally know who have given up all their Western comforts to go serve the world's poorest and neediest (both physically and spiritually)longterm are married, and many of them have their own children! This is not to undermine those who God uses who are single (praise the Lord for them too!) but I tell you this fact to speak from my own personal observation that in no way does being married and having children have to conflict with serving the world's most needy.

I'm one of those people...I'm getting married in 2 months, AND I have a desire to both have children of my own (Lord willing) AND to reach the poor overseas. Can I do both? Absolutely! In fact, my future husband and I are excited about the prospect and we're trusting God to work out all the details and to provide for ALL of our needs (as He promises in Matthew 6 to do).

True, there are passages like 1 Cor 7 which point to the benefits of singleness, and it is true that if you do get married you are faced with a whole new set of responsibilities that you wouldn't have if you were single (such as caring for your own children and your spouse) that might make your ministry seem more challenging.

But single missionaries who go overseas to serve the Lord can be faced with difficulties of their own too that can also make ministry challenging. Statistics have shown that many become lonely and as a result are more likely to come home sooner (and many who don't wind up meeting their spouse on the mission field and end up getting married!!). There are many places where due to the cultural climate, it is more difficult to serve single (I had this problem myself in a particular country I've had a heart for). While I believe that God could have still used me in that location as a single woman, due to the culture I strongly believe that I can have a more significant impact as a married woman.

What I am saying is that either way (whether married or single), there will always be challenges; they just manifest themselves in different way. But the exciting thing is that God is not limited...He can use anyone to reach the world's poorest with a beating and willing heart, whether they are married, single, with kids, or without!!!

The important thing is to be obedient and to follow God no matter what He would call you to do in whatever stage of life you're in. If the Lord is calling you to to go serve the world's poor overseas as a single woman, then by all means GO! But that doesn't mean that God is going to call everyone to serve the world's poor in the life stage that you are in, and that others who don't share your calling should be criticized. We need people to go reach the unreached but we also need godly mothers to have and raise the next generation. And sometimes God will even call these Godly mothers to do both! (to go overseas to the unreached AND raise Godly children)

Remember Romans 12:4-5:

For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

[37. Rachael said the following at 4:06 PM on Mar 3:]

37

Sara,

Man does have some level of responsibility in coming/responding to God, but, at the same time, it is God who predestines, who chooses His own. I don't know how it works, but I believe that predestination is clearly a Biblical concept.

And as in Romans 9..."Has the potter no right over the clay"?

Yes. We all deserve eternal punishment, but out of His mercy, a few are saved. Is it unfair? No. It's gracious. Fairness would mean sending us all to hell as we all sin.

[38. Ted Slater said the following at 4:11 PM on Mar 3:]

38

NeedACatchyName (#35) -- I tend to agree with you that there doesn't seem to be a hierarchy in Scripture for "callings." Indeed, many of those who are seemingly lowest are to be most esteemed.

I want to interpret Voddie's and Candice's words **extremely literally** -- that there is "no higher calling" than marriage. They are not saying that there is any "lower calling than marriage," just that we should be careful not to demote marriage below other callings.

I've found that being a husband and father within marriage is probably not much different from being a pastor -- the congregation is just smaller and more intimate, and I bear perhaps more responsibility for my congregation than a pastor does for his.

It's really indisputable, though, that my marriage is a very intense 24/7 ministry -- to my wife, to my kids, and through my family to those around us.

[39. BDB said the following at 4:12 PM on Mar 3:]

39

This reminds me of something my pastor says from time to time. When people tell him, "My calling is to my family," he responds, "You don't understand what a calling is."

Indeed, I'm surprised to see marriage juxtaposed with missions. All the missions-oriented people I know are much more marriage-oriented. I think the experience of being called out of a comfortable middle-class existence in their own culture really makes them feel how alone they are in their calling. Many other cultures are much more marriage-oriented than middle class America.

Everyone I know who has a clear sense of what God is calling them to do wants to do it WITH someone, rather than alone. Especially if that calling takes them out of a comfy existence.

[40. Andrea-Elena said the following at 4:20 PM on Mar 3:]

40

NeedACatchyName:

Perhaps "no higher calling" is a way for us Christ-followers to remember that investing in a spouse and in children is a high calling, not only for what it means in the Kingdom but also for what it means for human society/civilization. Is marriage a higher calling than others? May or may not be. I agree with you -- it's not productive to try to quantify the callings and make comparisons-contrasts.

But... it is higher than the esteem it's given by many in the world today. And... I don't know that on earth... in the scheme of all human organizations, that there really is a higher calling. In what other way can a human being participate so closely in what God does.

Remember that creation came first. Before God was in the business of saving and redeeming, He was in the business of creating.

And it is the value He places on His created ones that dictates the importance of saving them.

Saving doesn't mean much if what is being rescued, protected, and preserved has little or no value.

[41. Mrs. Spit said the following at 4:25 PM on Mar 3:]

41

I have to confess, I was a bit perplexed. Marriage as a ministry? A sacrament - absolutely (if that's your type of theology, it happens to be mine)

But a ministry? And "perhaps the highest calling?" It seems to me that our highest calling is to lead lives that are pleasing to God.

Some of us will marry, some won't. Some will be blessed with children, some won't. Some will go and work in another country, doing explicitly Christian work. Some of us will glorify God in jobs that aren't explicitly Christian. That's not a ministry, that's our duty as Christians. It's what we are all called to do. Ministry strikes me as a more optional thing.

I'm always a bit surprised by articles like this. I think that most people will marry. I think that most people, where the option is open to them, should marry. But I don't know about calling it a ministry. I think being married well is a duty, not a vocation.

[42. Melissa said the following at 4:38 PM on Mar 3:]

42

Sara,

I also apologize for assuming you were a Christian. My above response to you was written under the assumption that you were (and you posted saying you werent in the time that I was writing my response).

Your viewpoint makes a lot more sense to me now that I know that you are not a Christian. I don't mean to say that it makes sense in that I am more likely to agree with it, but that I can better understand why you would have that viewpoint. If you don't believe in the God of the Bible, then why would you agree with what He says about children being blessings and such? I don't expect non-Christians to would have the same worldview as Christians. In fact, I would expect those worldviews to differ significantly. I know that my worldview was definitely a lot different before I was a believer than it is now.

I hope, though, by my post and by the posts of others you can better understand the worldview of what Christians believe about children, marriage, ministry. Since you're reading Boundless, I am assuming that you are seeking, and that you would like to have a faith that you can believe in. I'm praying that here on Boundless or wherever else you may also be seeking, that the Lord will show you that Truth and that you can come to know Him personally!

[43. Sara said the following at 4:40 PM on Mar 3:]

43

Ted,

There’s no conflict in my beliefs; I'm an athiest.

Fwiw, I used to be a very ‘devout’ Christian (though at the time I would definitely not have dared called myself devout!). I miss that, and I’m still very interested in everything ‘religious’, and I read the Bible a lot, and so on.

I think you’re asking if I’m being fake when I quote scripture.. not at all! I remember very vividly what it’s like to believe in scripture, and it’s nice to speak the ‘mother tongue’ again, now and then, to people who were like me. Also I care about whatever other topics come up along with the religious stuff—procreation, environmentalism, and so on—and I like talking about those things, too. I disagree with most things that are posted here, and that makes it more interesting, and makes me want to write back.

Andrea-Elena,

Your hypothetical questions… I wouldn’t create any sentient—or at least self-aware—beings at all. Not worth it. And I would make myself non-sentient, too, as soon as possible! I’m no Buddhist, but I totally get the appeal of ‘heaven’ being nothingness: appealing in comparison to this world, I mean. Not appealing as an ideal! In that way, it’s kind of depressing.

I don’t agree with the premises of the question, “What’s the purpose of life?”. I don’t think there’s any over-arching anything in the world, no ‘upper layer’ of meaning. Things just *are*.

[44. Andrea-Elena said the following at 4:46 PM on Mar 3:]

44

Mrs. Spit:

Ministry is not merely a vocation or a set of vocations.

Ministry is activity: administering God's grace. (Merriam-Webster shows one meaning of the word minister [verb form] to be "to furnish a benefit." Grace certainly is a benefit!)

Since every Christian is to apply grace to every situation, to every person, then every Christian is a minister... one who furnishes a benefit. (We are the conduit, not the creator, of grace, of course.)

Ministry takes many forms, one of which is marriage.

All of life can be ministry -- applying grace. And it should be.

Blessings! =)

[45. Matt from DC said the following at 5:01 PM on Mar 3:]

45

Sara,

I'm just curious, what happened to bring you from your original convictions to where you are now?

Also, what do you believe about God now? To be clear, I mean God who revealed Himself to humanity in the Bible.

I applaud your bravery for sharing part of your personal story in an internet forum like this.

[46. Andrea-Elena said the following at 5:07 PM on Mar 3:]

46

Sara,

If things just are, then why do human beings ask about the reasons for things... and argue, debate, even kill one another over the reasons for things?

Why isn't creating beings worth it?

Interesting... if heaven is nothingness, then how will you know that it is nothingness when you get "there"? And how could you enjoy it?

Hypothetically speaking, if heaven is nothingness and if nothingness is better than this world, then I wonder that more people don't commit suicide.

So... why would you want to be nonsentient? If you weren't sentient, you couldn't enjoy the difference between being sentient and not being sentient.

You seem to point toward a benefit that is not a benefit at all. It's nihilistic.

If you don't mind my asking (and of course, if you don't wish to reveal, that's OK; you're certainly free to keep your privacy in the matter).... Why did you reject Christianity? What brought you to believe that there is no god/God?

[47. Sara said the following at 5:07 PM on Mar 3:]

47

Melissa #36,

You point out that “the main cause of poverty isn’t overpopulation but oppressive governments and social hierarchies that prevent people from being able to access to their basic needs”, and mention how having more children could help put an end to social justices abroad, and also say, “what I am saying is that either way (whether married or single), there will always be challenges”

For those very reasons, I say, “enough is enough”:

There have been loving, intelligent, innovative, and dedicated humans on this earth for thousands of years. And yet, Hiroshima: 1945. Peace is not going to happen in this world. I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe in heaven, so I think people should stop procreating.

Rachael,

I can’t believe that you think people deserve *eternal* punishment for temporal acts! Or eternal damnation for their ancestors’ acts.

I can’t believe you’re not grieving for your belief in a God that would see fit to create a world where eternal damnation was even possible! Is this the height of his creative abilites? People say, “But with no pain there’d be no appreciation of pleasure”. That’s true in *this* world, but it wouldn’t be true if the designer had made a gentler world in the first place.

Giant leaps of faith in this area always strike me as sadly tacked-on, sort of, not glorious solutions to the problem. In the meantime, I'd choose not to worship this kind of god.

[48. Nathan said the following at 5:37 PM on Mar 3:]

48

I am the most important person in the universe. And by saying that I mean everyone is of equal importance because I didn't say someone was of lesser value than me.

C'mon. Aren't you guys supposed to be the ones with the better communication skills? Just own up that, "There is no higher calling than marriage," was poorly phrased and go on instead of defending the indefensible. I guess I can count it as you revealing your hand. At least I know what you really think of me, at least when you compare yourself to me. . .

[49. Jeremy said the following at 5:59 PM on Mar 3:]

49

Sara,

Your complaint seems to boil down to "if I were God, I would do things differently, therefore God is not good." That seems to me exactly backwards. If indeed there is a God (and there is ample evidence for his existence), then it would seem most appropriate for our driving motivation to be to conform ourselves to his nature and wishes. As "luck" would have it, we also have ample evidence for the veracity of Scripture, which reveals his nature and wishes.

What you are saying about the nature of God might be a valid complaint if Christians were inventing a notion of God which you wished to attack, but that is not our claim. Our claim is that God's nature exists independent of our own desires.

You think the existence of hell is unfair and extreme. You imagine you might do things differently if you were God. That is all well and good ... but you are not. I would urge you to examine your heart and attitudes towards God, because ultimately he does not need your approval, but you desperately need his.

[50. Ted Slater said the following at 6:44 PM on Mar 3:]

50

Nathan (#48) -- if you changed that to "I am the most important *human* in the universe" I might be more inclined to be convinced by your argument. Hm. But even that is an unbiblical perspective. We are not to "think of yourself more highly than you ought" (Romans 12:3). Indeed, it might be good to take on the attitude of Paul, who considered himself "the worst of sinners" (1 Tim. 1:16), or of Jesus Himself, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (Phil. 2:6).

FWIW, I don't so much care for the phrase, "There is no higher calling than marriage." That's not necessarily the way I'd put it. See my comments #3 and #38 for my "take" on this concept.

[51. Anne said the following at 6:54 PM on Mar 3:]

51

It seems like anymore all these articles on boundless are about if you are not married than you must be somehow sinning. Just because people now wait until they are a little more secure money wise is not a bad thing. Now I am not talking about delaying marriage for a long period of time. Personally, I think a marriage will have a better start if you are less worried about money. Also, does boundless understand how bad the economy is right now. People can not afford to get married, buy a house, and do all the other things couples could usually do. And then boundless has all these articles that mothers should not work outside the home, which there is nothing wrong with this, but it is just making people feel guilty who are working outside the home during this bad economy. Not to mention some women can balance outside work and family. Honestly, you are not anymore Christian if you pick one lifestyle or not. You can be a Christian, wait to get married to after you go to college or some other type of training, space out your children (and still consider them a blessing), and decide for yourself whether you want to work outside of the home or not. I thought boundless was supposed to be a Christian site directed towards living a Godly life. But, it seems like you make a formula for a good Christian to follow. This formula involves marrying young, not using forms of birth control, not waiting a couple of years to have children, homeschooling them, and working in the home. I have been very discouraged lately with the blog posts.

[52. Beth said the following at 7:22 PM on Mar 3:]

52

It hasn't been mentioned in this blog that people like Mr. Baucham believe that when two people gets married that a father passes the authority over to the groom. Sorry but this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Women are not a piece of property.

[53. Eric M. said the following at 7:23 PM on Mar 3:]

53

Sarah (43):

There may not be any conflict in your beliefs, but there would seem to be some in your statements. Perhaps I am misreading them. If this is the case, I beg your pardon and ask that you please be patient in correcting me. In comment 43 you state:

"I don’t think there’s any over-arching anything in the world, no ‘upper layer’ of meaning. Things just *are*."

If that is the case, I am curious as to why you are acting as though things in the Universe ought to be a certain way. In comment 12 you state:

"I CAN NOT GET OVER how much obstinacy or hard-heartedness is punished in the Bible! Don't get me wrong; I think those are terrible faults, but you'd think, say, a month of cruel torture would do it.

Nope! Murderers like David and Moses feel no pain after death; hard-hearted atheist aid workers get infinite years of torture. All because God created the world in such a way that 'justice' demands perfect atonement. What a way to create justice!"

You are implying by these statements that some standards exist whereby someone can judge or discern that obstinacy or hard-heartedness are "terrible faults" and that "torture" is a bad thing. In your previous posts you wish to alleviate suffering and wonder why people would not consider a god who allows suffering and hell to exist to be a "bad god." All of these value judgments require a set of values to exist.

To judge such diverse circumstances as the character and state of other people, the nature of justice and the character of God, these values, these ideas about how the world 'ought to be' must be over-arching. And yet you claim that no such over-arching principles exist. Now either they do, or they don't (or there is some sort of 'lower layer' of meaning which could be read into your statement about an 'upper layer' of meaning. I don't see how any layer of meaning can provide real meaning and not be over-arching to some degree. Otherwise it is merely a collection of words with associated feelings and implications, lacking content.)

If over-arching principles about how the world ought to be exist, then the question becomes similar to, though not exactly, what Andrea-Elena asked you. What is (are) your basis for these judgments and where do you derive it from?

If over-arching principles do not exist and things simply *are* then why care so much about changing them? Without these principles there is no basis for talk of 'terrible' or 'wrong' behavior, or 'justice' for that matter. Why get in a huff about it?

I would also add that it strikes me as insincere for you to use Scripture as though it had authority, when you don't actually believe that it does. I'm glad the memory of what it was like to believe in Scripture stays with you. That being said, in a forum of discussion, where at least part of the goal is to seek the truth, the two are not the same thing.

Then again, I may simply be in the wrong forum!

[54. farmer Tom said the following at 7:47 PM on Mar 3:]

54

Well,

thanks for being honest Sara,

but then, if you're the same Sara that I've tangled with before, I'm not surprised by your confession, ....

I wonder how long before you take your professed beliefs to their logical conclusion?

I also wonder how your parents feel about your anti theology? Do you suppose they wish they had never brought you into the world, or are they brokenhearted that their child has rejected the Creator God and His gift of eternal life through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Of course anyone who would reject the greatest act of love in history, Christ dying for the sins of mankind, will only have contempt for the love of someone so worthless and mundane as a parent. In fact it is a simple logical step from a general disregard for human life, to an active hatred for parents who brought you into this world.

"Better that I should never have been born" is that it?

Seems to me like you've forgotten an important Biblical truth Sara,

I John 4

7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

11Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

12No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

I love you Sara, but more importantly God loves you and to prove it, He sent Jesus Christ to the Cross of Calvary to prove it.

I'll be praying that you reconsider your professed position, after all, while you may not like the idea of eternal punishment, you said,

I can’t believe that you think people deserve *eternal* punishment for temporal acts! Or eternal damnation for their ancestors’ acts.

I would remind you that Scripture teaches that you have a free will, which enables you to criticize, disagree with or even hold contempt for the God of the Bible. But you'd better be right. Because, if you're wrong, then you face the very condemnation you are complaining about.

If Jesus Christ was a lunatic or a liar, and His life was a waste of time and space, then I still have had a good life before I die. If on the other hand, He was Lord of the Universe, and you are wrong, the consequences of your unbelief are too horrible to contemplate.

So if you're gonna be an atheist, you better be sure, because in the end we are all gonna find out.

[55. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 8:22 PM on Mar 3:]

55

Sara,

I am curious-- what is the origin or basis of the standards that you are using to evaluate the Biblical God? In an atheist system of ethics, aren't moral statements/questions of seeming outrage such as "How could a loving God do (insert action here)" merely a matter of personal taste or opinion? How could they be anything more?

[56. Nathan said the following at 8:59 PM on Mar 3:]

56

Well, if there is no higher calling than marriage, then the call to marriage must be either equal to or higher than Jesus call to die on the cross. Umm. . .

After we wrap this up, let's argue about who will be the greatest in the Kingdom of God.

[57. Candice Watters said the following at 9:15 PM on Mar 3:]

57

Don't shoot the messenger. "No higher calling" is Baucham's phrase. I just quoted his book, What He Must Be ... if he wants to marry my daughter.

[58. Sara said the following at 9:23 PM on Mar 3:]

58

Jeremy,

Any argument that you might have, I think, is 'guilty' of the same thing that mine is: everything boils down to an "I".

What if your friend believed in the Hindu gods? That wouldn't be sufficient for you to believe in them, of course. But what if your friend told you that it didn't matter what *your* beliefs and desires were; that you were looking at it all backwards: you had to focus on what *Braman* would have for you.

I doubt you'd feel 'stuck' in this case. You'd take the focus off of Braman and put it on your own proofs and experiences of the god *you* believe in. Notice you're not directly thinking of God here! You're thinking of *your own* beliefs. For example, the beliefs that God's nature exists independent of your own desires, and that we desperately need his approval, and so on.

You might better have said that you, not we, have "ample evidence for God's existence" and "ample evidence for the veracity of Scripture", because I definitely do not.

We have very different beliefs, but we both use the same method in coming to them. We ask something along the line of, 'what seems right to me?' It seems right to you that we should seek the will of God, not our own will. Or, it seems right to you that we don't choose God, God chooses us. There's no getting out of the "I" trap.

[59. Vanessa said the following at 9:42 PM on Mar 3:]

59

#29 - I agree with the author's statement about young people more interested in serving God without being married. Honestly, most of the people my age (29 and holding!) talk about marriage as something their parents did and they want to do eventually...but most of them are too busy having fun with roommates, getting degree after degree without really committing to anything, "hanging out" with friends. Then, they run in charity 5k races or volunteer at the church soup kitchen and claim that they're serving God better as a single than they could as a married person. Maybe that is the case, but mostly, I feel that it is selfish. People my age are notoriously selfish as a generalization. Everything is about "me me me me me." Then, we try to soothe our conscience by volunteering and say that makes it all better.

Honestly, I know only one unmarried man who has expressed an intense urge to get married. Most men I know *say* they want to get married, but never pursue a relationship past friendship with any woman. People my age ARE more likely to be super-involved in ministry or volunteerism...while shirking "grown up" lives by continuing to live like college-age kids - multiple roommates, housing several separate lives under one roof. Not wanting to take responsibility for anyone but themselves, they build up invisible walls of isolation. One of the things I hate most about roommates is the extreme separation of lives. We label all our food in the fridge or pantry (having our own shelves), we lock our doors, we don't share anything but space. It's so unrelational, but it is pseudo-relational. It's a poor imitation/substitution for a family.

I can't WAIT to get this book.

[60. Rachael said the following at 10:46 PM on Mar 3:]

60

Hi Sara,

I believe that people deserve eternal punishment because of for example, the verse that says: "for the wages of sin is death"

Do I like eternal damnation? No. But am I not going to believe in God because I don't like that? No.

Hey Sara,

I notice that you wrote: "I miss that, and I’m still very interested in everything ‘religious’, and I read the Bible a lot, and so on."

-->That's so cool you still (if you meant it in the present tense) read the Bible a lot.

If you miss your "Christian" days...does part of you long for that again but you feel you can't because you don't like who God is?

Or I suppose there's more to it than that.

I guess, if I 'decided' not to believe anymore, I think I'd wonder about the following:

What IF the Bible were true and I'll be eternally damned? That would be so scary!

I'd feel the loss is far greater to choose not to believe than to believe.

Could you try to put your feelings aside and approach the Bible as objectively as you can? I suppose it's impossible for us to ignore our feelings entirely, but maybe you could try to weigh the validity of the Bible as a whole, though I suppose maybe you have...

And another thing...think about the creation of the world, though perhaps you look at it through the lens of evolution as you feel you're an athiest now. But if you ever accept the notion of a creator...doesn't it make sense that that creator would want to be a personal being involved in people's lives? Wouldn't it make sense for that being to be perfect?

Anyway, I can't rationalize everything or argue with fine logical arguments but I just thought I'd mention those thoughts...

And, I've recently been reading (quickly) through Ezekiel. I don't understand everything in there, and haven't been trying to comprehend everything in there, but, I like 37:23b. And 36:26. And 34:15-16. And please note part of 33:11: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked"

God does not take pleasure from people's eternal damnation...

Do we understand all things of God? Of course not.

Think about Peter: "To whom else should we go?"

I was listening to a couple seconds of Horatius Bonar recently, or maybe I read it, but I think in his writing he was talking about turning to God in our sinful state.

I can't pretend to know you or your situation. But I do know what it's like to feel so far from God, I'd say 'sinful', but I don't want to accuse you of being so even though I believe we all are. I suppose you feel far from God as you feel you don't believe in God...

I'm really not trying to be mean but just sharing my thoughts...I think when we feel stuck in sin we can feel helpless. What do we do when we're at the bottom? What then? is there hope for us? Yeah, there is. In the Ezekiel 36:26 verse I mentioned above, it says: "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."

I feel like I have a heart of stone to some degree -- stuck in certain sins. Also recently my attention has been drawn to where Peter tells Jesus to "depart from me, for I am a sinful man" (in Luke 5:8). Peter said that! Even Peter didn't feel worthy! But a couple verses later, right after Jesus said to him, "Do not be afraid," he "left everything and followed him."

Anyway, I guess I'm hoping something here will help you, but in part I'm repreaching to myself. I really can feel dead in my sin, helpless. But it's in those moments I should really come to God.

John 5:39-40 is so interesting: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

Very fascinating to me, maybe because I feel I've recently been kind-of speed soaking the Word while neglecting to give God my heart and be open to His transforming power...

Anyway I'm rambling, but in short I'd like to say that if you ever find yourself in time of despair and long for God again, don't be afraid to go back, as. you. are....

[61. Kelly said the following at 1:23 AM on Mar 4:]

61

Sara said:

"by having kids you'd be putting another human being at risk of eternal suffering. "

Wow. This really hit me hard. Sara, a lot of what you say are things I truly struggle with and I appreciate you bringing them up in discussion.

One thing that has been said to me is that "hell" is more accurately "separation from God", which in itself is torturous. I tend to hope that the Biblical descriptions of hell are an attempt to illustrate what that separation is like, rather than people actually being burned for eternity.

Either way, it does my head in, that God could allow one of his children to be in pain forever. And it breaks my heart knowing that some of my friends will end up in that state.

[62. Charlotte C. said the following at 6:29 AM on Mar 4:]

62

Seems like an interesting book.....

There are so many Christian books I haven't read that seem interesting. I hope this review is enjoyable.. I'll be waiting :D

[63. Ashley Harris said the following at 8:50 AM on Mar 4:]

63

Anne,

Did you read yesterday's article, Suzanne's blog post, or any of Ted's comments?

[64. Tami said the following at 9:43 AM on Mar 4:]

64

Candice, thanks for dialoging with us. :)

Baucham *does* add the word "perhaps" before stating there may be "no higher calling," which makes the statement a little more open and less conclusive.

I am definitely not arguing that marriage is not a high call. But a definitive statement that there is no higher calling -- when the Bible clearly states that our ultimate aim is to look at Christ and follow whatever path He's laid out for us -- and that many of us would like to *follow* that call to marriage but aren't there (and who knows, may not be?) -- is what people are tripping over and/or finding discouraging.

[65. Jeremy said the following at 10:08 AM on Mar 4:]

65

Sara,

"We have very different beliefs, but we both use the same method in coming to them. We ask something along the line of, 'what seems right to me?'"

I agree with the essence of what you are saying, although the way that is phrased comes off a bit relativistic. We do each need to examine the evidence and suitability of belief systems in order to try to align ourselves as closely as possible with reality. And if indeed your dispute lies more with the evidence for the truth of Christianity than with the nature of the God we preach, then that is a different discussion.

But based on my experience with people and also your previous comments here, it doesn't seem like that is true. It seems like the Christian claims about God himself and the responsibility that would lay on your shoulders are what bothers you. That is certainly something valid to talk about, but the point I was trying to emphasize is that ultimately, if the Christian belief system is true, in a significant sense it does not really matter if we don't like or don't approve of God, and that attitude is one we should strive to change -- to bring more in line with reality, if you will.

[66. Matt from DC said the following at 10:11 AM on Mar 4:]

66

Kelly,

The doctrine of Hell is a hard one to swallow. The Bible is clear enough about what it is though. Here is something from Isaiah 66: "As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure. 23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the LORD. 24 "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."

Also, from Revelation 20:15: "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

Hell is described as a lake of unquenchable fire for those who do not believe.

All are not children of God. Only those who believe. John 1:12 "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God".

Warn your friends. Warn your family. If they die apart from Christ or if Christ returns to gather His own they will be judged for their sin by the Righteous One.

[67. Sara said the following at 10:13 AM on Mar 4:]

67

Eric 53,

My statements don’t act as if I believe that the universe should be a different way, they either refer to how I think the way a hypothetical Christian who already believes in universal morality should maybe think differently, or they refer to my own moral beliefs, which are ‘conventional’. I mean conventional technically, as in, humans make and agree to strive towards moral conventions because it suits their needs (eg, reducing global pain and such). I don’t know if I think there’s some kind of non-material moral realm yet, fwiw.

Do you want me to quote Scripture less? It’s no less my book than yours!! I know what you mean—you don’t want me to give my arguments fake sway by quoting it like I believe it. I think I'm being pretty up front. It's habit to "just quote the Bible", especially when I'm talking to Christians. I quote the Bible occasionally in 'real life', and non-Christians don't take it like I've converted!

Farmer Tom 53,

-My parents aren’t Christian (I “got it” from a grandparent), but they feel bad for me that I’ve ‘lost my faith’. My Dad thinks I ought to ‘just believe’ even if it’s intellectually repugnant to me.

"Better that I should never have been born" is that it?” -–absolutely. I’m sorry I feel that way.

-I’m not rejecting any great act of love that I believe actually happened

- I haven’t ‘forgotten’ 1 John; it’s ‘lovely’ (sorry for the triviality), but I don’t believe it’s basis.

-the ‘Pascal’s wager’ thing applies equally to you, if you ‘risk’ rejecting Allah, Judaism, &c.

[68. dana111 said the following at 11:12 AM on Mar 4:]

68

To Sara,

My heart hurts for you. Do you truly believe it would have been better for you not to have been born? I pray that you find your worth in the love of Jesus Christ. You are fearfully and wonderfully made, and God loves you with an undying, everlasting love. He loved you enough to send His Son to die on the Cross for your sins. If you turn to Him, He promises to never leave you or forsake you. He knows everything about you- your hopes, your fears, your anger, your love, your past, your present, and your future. He wants you to be with Him for eternity, and He has blessed you with the opportunity to hear from all of the witnesses on this blog. I pray that you keep returning to this site, and that you read the comments and the posts about Jesus Christ and see His love for you.

Yes, Hell is real. And yes, "good" people do go to Hell for their sins. We ALL deserve to burn in Hell for eternity for our sinful nature. Yet, even in the midst of a sinful, broken world, Jesus came down, died, and rose again. And God still speaks.

Bless you!

[69. Texas Craig said the following at 12:25 PM on Mar 4:]

69

Sara:

Your position seems somewhat ironic to me. On the one hand, you express a rejection of God, in part, because it appears you believe that a kind, loving God would not be so random and arbitrary with allowing suffering, injustice, etc. in the world. But, by rejecting God, you are accepting a world that is even more unjust than the one the Christian believes in. In essence, the Christian knows that God will judge injustice and wipe away every tear in the end. On the other hand, in your view, there is no ultimate justice or joy -- hence the world as you see it is even more bleak and unjust than the one where a righteous God will correct things at the end. That, to me, seems ironic.

It is my prayer that you will know the One who made you, and will have the assurance that He is just and loving--even when we cannot put together all that happens in this life. For, like Paul, I can genuinely say that I know Him in whom I have believed - and He is good.

[70. Candice Watters said the following at 2:26 PM on Mar 4:]

70

Beth (52), why do you equate authority with property? President Obama is my political authority at present, but I am NOT his property! Just curious.

[71. Beth said the following at 2:44 PM on Mar 4:]

71

I meant by the commit that Baucham's view that women should go from the authority of their father to the authority of their husband that it sounds like what people used to think when women had dowries. The usage of the words like tranfer of authority do sound like the women is being considered a piece of property. It seems like more people are considered about a husband's authority than a president's authority however.

[72. Sara said the following at 3:47 PM on Mar 4:]

72

Hi Christopher,

Right, my bases are things like reason and personal taste and experience, connected to things like not wanting to feel pain and survival and social drives and so on… that’s all I think anyone has. Those are powerful things, though, because no matter how a person arrives at a conclusion, if they act on it, that can be important and powerful.

Hi Rachael,

I remember what it’s like to feel far from God, and separated from him because of sin. Perhaps interestingly, atheism feels nothing like that! It’s like me asking you if you feel far from Zeus: it doesn’t ring any emotional chord in you at all (apart from nostalgia maybe, if you used to worship him)

Yes, as you graciously suppose, there’s more to why I don’t believe that just the fact I don’t like the idea of eternal punishment for non-eternal acts—the eternal punishment thing just happens to be what we’ve been talking about in this thread.

You ask, “What IF the Bible were true and I'll be eternally damned? That would be so scary! I'd feel the loss is far greater to choose not to believe than to believe.” As I wrote above, the same argument could be made for risking being non-Hindi, non-Muslim, or whatever.

Those are great verses, especially the Ezekiel and Luke ones; they bring back strong memories.

Ezekiel 36, “I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh”, used to be the kind of loving and refreshing verse I’d delight in finding—it reminds me a bit of the Wizard of Oz.

I have to say--perhaps harshly--that looking back, I think some of my own tormenting over my stony-heartedness was a bit self-indulgent. How would you react if someone said, “Well, you can’t be *too* stony-hearted if you’re that sensitive to your own sins, and if you care so much about righteousness!” If you don’t humbly agree, but choose to keep groveling in the dirt, isn’t that a little self-indulgent? I’m Bible-quoting out of context again, but it makes me think something like, for goodness’ sake, you’ve been healed: Arise and walk!

Luke 5:8, where Peter tells Jesus to “depart from me, for I am a sinful man”… Wow, isn’t that the human condition in a nutshell, in a lot of ways! When what’s best for us is right before our eyes, free for the taking, yet we’re still so hung up on ourselves that we can’t just reach out and take it! (I know, from your perspective, it’ll seem very ironic for me to write something like that…)

That John 5:39-40 one reminds me of times I’d feel convicted over being too intellectual about things… I always had trouble feeling personally connected to God, and sometimes wondered if my interest in academics and Bible study was a distraction from the Devil. [Ha, this is how long it’s been… I forget if Christians typically capitalize ‘devil’ or not.]

[73. Sara said the following at 4:21 PM on Mar 4:]

73

Jeremy,

“It seems like the Christian claims about God himself and the responsibility that would lay on your shoulders are what bothers you [more than] the evidence for the truth of Christianity”

I’d definitely say that misrepresents me. It would be a whole other conversation, but if I had to make a short list of the ‘real’ reasons I reject Christianity, it would include things under the headings of psychology, redaction criticism, world religions, I guess. I’m also sympathetic to the psychoanalytic notion that our reasoning tends to just fall in line with what we desire to believe.

Dana111,

I remember feeling just how you do… I remember listening to a Nirvana song and actually crying because Kurt’s “Come as you are” song was SO close to the hymn “Just As I Am”, except that it lacked Jesus! It upset me because he was already dead at the time, and I thought, If he’d only heard the Word! Also, he had that song “Jesus don’t want me for a sunbeam”, and the mocking song “Lake of Fire”, and those songs broke my heart too because I saw a definite interest there, but it was too late.

It’s a little awkward reading what you wrote. How would you react to, say, an old-school Catholic nun crying over your soul? I guess you'd feel a bit of pity for her, a bit puzzled, and then you'd remember what *you* believe.

Texas Craig,

I think you’ve got me a bit wrong, fwiw: Those aren’t the reasons I reject God—they’re just what we’ve happened to be talking about. And in rejecting God, I don’t accept the world: I think it would be wrong of me to bring more kids into the world. True, I haven’t ‘checked out’, but that’s just because I think it’s wrong to hurt other people, and because I’ve got a stubborn will to live that I blame on evolution.

For me personally, I would say that my philosophy is more bleak than how my actual life plays out! It’s just that I can’t rejoice in my own happiness and freedom unless EVERYONE on Earth can be happy and free. It’s like, imagine you were eating an ice cream cone while standing next to a guy who’d just got his hand caught in a lawnmower blade. You’d have to be in denial to enjoy the ice cream. Or something like that.

[74. Andrea-Elena said the following at 4:55 PM on Mar 4:]

74

Sara,

No, it wouldn't be in denial to still enjoy ice cream. It would be ignoring the man's pain if you didn't throw down the ice cream and go to help him. Someone else's pain doesn't negate my pleasure... merely just means that I am to lay down my temporary pleasure for another's good. But I have the belief that all human beings have worth (b/c God made them and He says they have worth...they are worth something to Him), so another's life, when in jeopardy or in hurt, is worthy, to me, of my care, concern, help, intervention, whatever.

But what tells another person to feel the same way you do about the hierarchy of pleasures and pain as you describe? I mean, some people's highest pleasures come from inflicting pain on others (ahem, Hitler and his minions). Where does one draw the line?

So... how are you going to help EVERYONE in the world be happy and free? Especially if one person/group's idea of being happy and free just so happens to infringe or even take away from another's happiness and freedom?

I agree with the others that you are appealing to a set of standards that have no actual basis. And "they just are" is not a basis.

So... evolution is what keeps you willing yourself to live -- to do what?? Doesn't evolution still include the idea that the strongest go on to survive, thrive, and reproduce?

[75. Rachael said the following at 6:03 PM on Mar 4:]

75

Sara,

You wrote: "but choose to keep groveling in the dirt, isn’t that a little self-indulgent? I’m Bible-quoting out of context again, but it makes me think something like, for goodness’ sake, you’ve been healed: Arise and walk!"

I like that: "Arise and walk!" It's easy to forget the having been healed part and how God has the power to heal again and again. I do believe groveling in the dirt is self-indulgent. But it's easy to do.

Regardless of my feelings, though, I believe the Bible is true, and it frames the way I look at life and the world. Every single moment, in practice? No. I would like it to be, but I often look through my own "near sighted glasses", so to speak, instead of the eternal lens through which I long to look. Still, though, that lens is there even if I don't pick it up each and every moment.

I like having those sturdy glasses that won't break no matter how many times I drop them to the ground...

But it's not a matter of 'like'. It's a matter of, what do I believe is true? I believe the Bible is true, and in the Bible it shows Jesus as the only Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one can come to the Father except through Him.

[76. Leah said the following at 6:56 PM on Mar 4:]

76

Sara- I'm not sure why you're even bothering to comment here. You don't share our worldview, so I don't see what on earth you think you're going to achieve. We have different opinions on what will happen to us in eternity, so of course our opinions on how to live while we're on earth will differ.

God made a perfect world with humans who had the ability to make their own choices. We have chosen wrongly. Would you rather God created us to be robots who automatically followed his will? That's like programming your friends to like you. Would you really want to be friends with someone, knowing they're not your friend by choice but because you've forced them to be?

And would you really prefer heaven to be "nothingness" rather than a perfect world where you can enjoy God and other people for the rest of eternity?

Re the OP: Great post, really great. People need to understand marriage is a ministry. I have problems with people who say they make sacrifices within their marriage or family to support the father/mother in their "ministry". (eg. a father taking a non-paying ministry job, forcing the mother into taking a fulltime job to support the family). I feel the bible says that your marriage and your family is your #1 ministry (if you're married with a family!) Other "ministries" should be sacrificed before this one, your most important.

NB: I am not commenting on whether marriage is *the* most important ministry. It certainly isn't *the* most important for everybody. Not everyone will be married, and that's how God intended it. This doesn't make their ministries less important. Different people have different ministries. Eg, a man can never be a women's ministry leader, so it will never be his #1 priority, however for a middle-aged single woman it might be. In the same way, not everyone will get married, so marriage will not be the #1 ministry for all people. However, I do believe the bible says that for people who do choose marriage, it is their #1 ministry.

megan (29) - I don't see your problem with the article. Baucham is not saying "not getting married" = "not growing up". He's saying that many of the young people he's come in contact with really want to "serve" but don't want to do several things to achieve that: among those several things is getting married and growing up. And he certainly never said that's what ALL young people are like. If I said "I've come across many young people who left the church, citing a lack of unity within their church", does that mean ALL young people have left the church and ALL churches don't have unity? No.

[77. Adam said the following at 8:11 PM on Mar 4:]

77

Sara,

Right, my bases are things like reason and personal taste and experience, connected to things like not wanting to feel pain and survival and social drives and so on… that’s all I think anyone has. Those are powerful things, though, because no matter how a person arrives at a conclusion, if they act on it, that can be important and powerful.

Anyone has this? The fact of the matter is that what many homosexuals do is extremely painful. Yet, they desire it. I remember reading about a man who paid a cannible to kill him and eat his body. There are several virgins who belong to satanic cults that desire to be sacrificed to Satan. Even something as common as someone who is willing to fall on a grenade in order to save their fellow soldier is someone who is willing to experience pain.

Furthermore, what would happen if tomorrow everyone wanted to feel pain, and did not want to survive? Would that mean that all of the sudden murder would be acceptable? You see, given your standards of morality on the basis of personal taste, even if everyone holds them today, the fact that people could change tomorrow means that there is not some unchanging standard for morality.

Even worse is the fact that there are many times in society where we believe that we must cause pain. It might hurt a child to go get his basic shots, but does that mean that we should not get him his basic shots just because it might hurt him? We also agree that a policeman should be able to wound a criminal with his gun in order to stop and attempted robbery.

You say that you think everyone has these feelings. Does a child in the womb have these feelings? Do you believe that it is wrong to cause pain to a child in the womb?

You see, morality cannot be derived from our own personal tastes, experiences, or social drives because we do not all have the same tastes, experiences or social drives. The question then becomes as to why we should uphold your tastes over the tastes of anyone else I have mentioned in this post.

I don’t agree with the premises of the question, “What’s the purpose of life?”. I don’t think there’s any over-arching anything in the world, no ‘upper layer’ of meaning. Things just *are*.

Sara, but the problem is, when you take this "brute facts" approach to the world, then you have to admit that all of your reasoning ends up being irrational at base. You get to a certain point in your reasoning, and they you say "it is just that way." Let me ask you how you would like it if I said, "God exists, and the scriptures are inerrant, and it is just this way." At least when I get to God, I can submit my mind to his mind, and he tells me what I need to know about the world through his infinite knowledge of the world. However, when you get to the bottom of your reasoning, and you are just left with these brute facts, how can you avoid mixing irrational thinking with rational thinking, and thus, ending up in a self-contradiction?

God Bless,
Adam

[78. Bethany Pledge Erickson said the following at 12:19 AM on Mar 5:]

78

Candice,

So "No Higher Calling" is not a Candice Watter original. Ted Slater wouldn't put it that way. Thanks, but someone chose it for the title of the post. Would someone please just take responsibility and apologize for the unfortunate phrase?

[79. Theo K said the following at 3:49 AM on Mar 5:]

79

Sara,

The only thing that should concern you regarding Christianity is to try to discern the truth of the gospel. “Gospel”, as I am sure you already know, means Good News. It has to do with historic facts. And a concise definition of these historic events can be found here:

“Now I declare to you, brothers, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.” 1 Corinthians 15:1-18

If the Gospel is the truth, if Christ was indeed raised from the dead, everything else is absolutely and completely irrelevant. This is it. It either happened or it didn’t. If it did, it changes everything. If it didn’t, well then, no need to bother, really!

Indeed, that is exactly what Apostle Paul is teaching:

If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain. 15 Yes, we are found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn’t raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead aren’t raised, neither has Christ been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. 18 Then they also who are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable. 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruits of those who are asleep.” 1 Corinthians 15:14-20

No resurrection equals no Christianity. As simple as that. And the most critical question that you have to answer for yourself is this:

“Who do you say that I am?” Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:15

He predicted his death and resurrection. He was either a liar, a fool, or He was telling the truth and His resurrection is the great proof that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. You either hate Jesus Christ or fall at His feet and worship Him. No other choice is left open.

Simon Peter gave the right answer, and he now enjoys eternal life, savoring the glory of Jesus Christ for ever, in unspeakable, endless joy. To him, indeed the Gospel is GOOD news:

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16.

Choose wisely. Choose Life:
“The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who disobeys the Son won’t see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” Gospel of John 3:36

[80. Ted Slater said the following at 8:55 AM on Mar 5:]

80

Bethany Pledge Erickson (#78) -- again, let me implore you to read what I've written in comment #3 and in comment #38. I've hyperlinked them so all you have to do is *click*.

It really feels like you're reluctant to reevaluate your initial (mis)interpretation of what we've said, that you prefer some caricature of Boundless, rather than wrestle with the balanced, radical, counter-cultural messages we promote.

Yes, I would not have used the phrase "No Higher Call" as the title for this post if I had written it, because I'm come to see that too many people could (and do) easily misinterpret that to mean something we're not saying. I probably would have gone with something more like "Family is no less a ministry opportunity than church" or "Priest of the home is no less a calling than pastor of a church." Of course, those titles are a bit clumsy, and not direct quotes from the author of the book being discussed.

[81. Sara said the following at 1:20 PM on Mar 5:]

81

Just responding to Theo K,

Once and for all, the C.S. Lewis "Liar and fool/Saviour of the world" false dichotomy has got to go!

A third option is so simple: the gospel writers were fully aware of OT writings, and of course knew about Jesus' death and believed that he'd been resurrected (just as other Messiah claimants' followers believed in *their* resurrections), and they wrote the story of the Jesus they believed in to fit those prophecies.

(By tradition, Greco-Roman biographies--which the gospels strongly resemble--weren't written journalistically but rather with the aim of capturing the essence of a person often through made-up but true-to-character stories. (I'm getting this from books about ancient literary genres.))

You might say something about how the early disciples' martyrdom proves their belief. Sure it proves their belief, but it doesn't prove the basis of that belief. In the modern world, similarly, you aren't convinced by mass cult suicides or by radical Islamic suicide bombers.

"You either hate Jesus Christ or fall at His feet and worship Him. No other choice is left open."

Lots of options are left open: indifference, curiosity, academic study, pleasure reading, etc. etc. etc.

[82. Ashley Harris said the following at 2:13 PM on Mar 5:]

82

Sara,

I'm curious what/if any apologetics books you read before you decided you were an atheist. Chesterton? The Universe Next Door? Case for Christ?

[83. Sara said the following at 3:06 PM on Mar 5:]

83

Ya, I used to read some of those...Case for Christ, Orthodoxy, Only a Carpenter, [had to google this one] That's Just Your Interpretation by Paul Copan, a lot of CS Lewis, I forget what others... I didn't really like apologetics books because I thought they downplayed the importance of faith and of how God chooses us not, the other way around.

[84. Texas Craig said the following at 3:33 PM on Mar 5:]

84

Sara (#83) wrote:

"I didn't really like apologetics books because I thought they downplayed the importance of faith and of how God chooses us not, the other way around."

Can you explain that? At first glance, it appears you are saying that they downplay predestination and that bothered you, which would be an odd comment from a non-believer.

BTW, many Christians do not believe in predestination of all believers, so that is really a debatable issue within orthodoxy. Some believe it, others believe in free will. Regardless, I am just curious about what you were saying there.

[85. Sara said the following at 6:05 PM on Mar 5:]

85

Texas Craig, I was talking about what I thought of apologetics when I was still a Christian.

Adam,

In short, there's no need for an unchanging standard of morality. Look at the legal system over the years: laws change because our opinions change, and there's conflict, but basically it still functions. We CAN decide to act on beliefs even if they aren't rock-solid. Even if morality is relative, we can--and do--act provisionally. I agree that the certainty that comes with believing in God is a lot less unsettling.

Leah,

The more different people's worldviews are, the more they should talk. Echo chambers are boring.

God's only 2 choices were making us--rational humans--, or making pre-programmed robots? That's putting a huge limit on God!

An eternity in paradise, and nothingness, both seem like OK options to me. I don't believe in heaven though.

Andrea-Elena,

Of course I'm not going to help everyone, and of course, even if I tried, my idea of 'help' might not match up with theirs.

The basis of my standards is just "it makes sense to me". I think that's the basis of your standards, too. Christianity feels right for you, or, it seems right to you that God chose you and that you're able to feel the Holy Spirit.

Not all evolved creatures "survive, thrive, and reproduce". 'Evolution' isn't a life plan, it's a description of what sometimes happens.

[86. Kelly said the following at 6:33 PM on Mar 5:]

86

Just wanted to say thanks to Matt from DC for your response. :)

[87. Theo K said the following at 3:05 AM on Mar 6:]

87

Sara,

You are missing the point.

The point is that the historic event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ either happened, or it didn’t. I am convinced that it did. And the challenge for you is to try to discern the truth of the Gospel. Failure to do so, (I am convinced) will lead to your eternal ruin.

So it all has to do with what *you* think about Jesus Christ. He clearly affirmed His deity. He again and again foretold His death and resurrection. You will be held responsible for rejecting His claims (if what He said is true, obviously).

Basically what you said is that Jesus’ disciples made it all up. So they are either fools or liars. But their written testimony does not allow anyone to honestly accuse them as either fools or liars. This is just wishful thinking from those who hate the light and want to remain in the darkness.

Have a careful look at the following links. I do wish and pray that God will open your eyes to the incredible beauty, majesty, eternal glory of Jesus Christ. The savoring of His glory is the only thing that can deeply and truly satisfy every heart’s longings and desires.

Eight Reasons Why I Believe That Jesus Rose from the Dead – John Piper

http://operation513.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-there-historical-evidence-for.html "> Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? This points to:
http://www.operation513.com/audio/apologetics/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf ">William Lane Craig vs Dr. Bart D. Ehrman Debate

Evidence for the Resurrection – Josh McDowell

[88. Sara said the following at 9:55 AM on Mar 6:]

88

Theo K,

“basically you said that Jesus’ disciples made it all up. So they are either fools or liars”

I don’t agree with that. My best guess is that they believed in Jesus’ resurrection, and they believed that he was the Messiah. They weren’t eyewitnesses, though, and they wrote their biographies of Jesus to fit with the prophecies, and to fit with their ideas of what the Messiah must certainly have been like.

Even the gospel writers themselves don’t claim to be eyewitnesses. Luke 1:1-2, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.”

Saying 'eyewitnesses' already assumes that the resurrection is true. It's better to ask "did they *think* they were eyewitnesses to a resurrection. But:

Josh McDowell’s most ridiculous assumption is that, if people who were alive at the time of Jesus’ death believed in the resurrection, and were willing to die for it, then the resurrection must be a historical fact. That makes no sense. Islamic extremists are plenty willing to die for their beliefs. Does that say ANYTHING about the truth of those beliefs? No.

Briefly put, I think all of Josh McDowell’s arguments rest on false premises. For example, he assumes that the NT writers’ motives were journalistic, and he also assumes they were direct eyewitnesses. I don’t. He also assumes that history can determine miraculous facts, even though history deals strictly with the material. And he bases his other arguments on the ‘facts’ of the tomb being empty, the stone being moved, etc. That’s circular. You have to already believe that the NT is accurate to believe that.

I’ve read the debate between Craig and Ehrman, and I think Ehrman made the stronger case. I’m assuming you think Craig made the stronger case.

[89. Adam said the following at 1:04 PM on Mar 6:]

89

Sara,

Islamic extremists are plenty willing to die for their beliefs. Does that say ANYTHING about the truth of those beliefs? No.

The difference is the fact that the disciples themselves would have had to have made it up. The Muslim extremists did not create Islam. They are not the first ones to profess that Islam is true, nor the last. However, according to you, these disciples claimed that they saw, touched, and ate dinner with the resurrected Jesus, but were only lying about it, and then, apparently, went out and were willing to die for something that they knew they had made up on the spot. That doesn't make any sense.

Now, I don't necessarily agree that the resurrection argument is a good argument. I mean, one could just as easily say that the resurrection of Jesus is one of those wierd things that happens in this world, and that some day we will have a naturalistic explaination for why it is that sometimes dead corpses rise from the grave. Hence, it is really the issue of naturalism vs. supernaturalism. That is why I would rather recommend the following website of Sye TenBruggencate:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

The real problem is that the atheistic and naturalistic history of an Ehrman or any other person who assumes a naturalistic view of history cannot account for even the absolute truth that they need to do their scholarship. That is the real issue, and issue of presuppositions.

God Bless,
Adam

[90. Theo K said the following at 6:40 AM on Mar 9:]

90

Sara,

The disciples (John, Peter etc) claimed to be eye-witnesses. So if you don’t agree with them you are calling them liars. Just mentioning this to make sure we are on the same page.

2 Peter: 1:16-22 : Peter claims to be an eye-witness of the transfiguration.
1 John: John claimed to have seen and touched the Word:

“That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we saw, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life 2 (and the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us); 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us. Yes, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 And we write these things to you, that our joy may be fulfilled.” – 1 John 1:1-4

Concerning the events of the crucifixion and the resurrection, John claims to be an eye-witness to:

1) the crucifixion
2) the discovery of the empty tomb
3) Jesus’ post-mortem appearances

“However one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 He who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, that you may believe.” John 19:34-35
“They both ran together. The other disciple outran Peter, and came to the tomb first.
5 Stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths lying, yet he didn’t enter in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the cloth that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So then the other disciple who came first to the tomb also entered in, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they didn’t know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” John 20:4-9

“Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Don’t be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.” 30 Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:27-31

The gospels are historical documents and this is how their authors demand that they be read. So, either the authors are telling the truth and are in fact eye-witnesses, or they are liars.

Concerning the debate,

Graig summarized the historical FACTS that he wanted to evaluate as follows:
“there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of scholars: Jesus’ burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.” (page 7)

And even Ehrman himself didn’t really dispute these facts:
“And in fact Dr. Ehrman has himself come to re-think his position on these issues. Inconsistencies in the details notwithstanding, he now recognizes that we have “solid traditions,” not only for Jesus’ burial, but also for the women’s discovery of the empty tomb, and therefore, he says, we can conclude with “some certainty” that Jesus was in fact buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb and that three days later the tomb was found empty” (page 7)

So the rest of Graig’s effort was to provide the best explanation of these facts. And to anyone who is able to get rid of his/her bias against the supernatural the best explanation, the only explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

Quoting Graig again: “This, of course, was the explanation that the eyewitnesses themselves gave, and I can think of no better explanation. The Resurrection Hypothesis passes all of the standard criteria for being the best explanation, such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth. Of course, down through history various alternative naturalistic explanations of the resurrection have been proposed, such as the Conspiracy Hypothesis, the Apparent Death Hypothesis, the Hallucination Hypothesis, and so on. In the judgment of contemporary scholarship, however, none of these naturalistic hypotheses has managed to provide a plausible explanation of the facts. Nor does Dr. Ehrman support any of these naturalistic explanations of the facts.” (Page 8)

Ehrman does not accept the resurrection as the best explanation because the resurrection is a miracle, and Ehrman denies the possibility of establishing a miracle. As simple as that.

So if you think that Ehrman made the better case, this is because you share with him the same presuppositional bias against the supernatural. I don’t know what events in your life established and reinforced this bias. I just hope that at least you will come to a point that you will see you have this bias and don’t go on thinking that you are “objectively evaluating evidence”.

I know that you won’t like what I am about to say, but the truth is that the reason people don’t believe is not because of lack of evidence. The issue isn’t intellectual. The problem is moral. As Jesus said:
“For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.
19 This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed.” John 3:17-20

I do hope that God will open your eyes to see the glory of Christ in the Gospel. And then you will stop hating the light. Then it will be true for you as well the saying of Jesus:
“But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God.” John 3:21

[91. farmer Tom said the following at 12:14 PM on Mar 9:]

91

90. Theo K,

Atta Boy!!! Bravo!!!! Encore!!!

AMEN

Sara I prayed all weekend about what to say to you and had no peace about writing anything.

Theo K has nailed it, hit a grand slam.

The person and work of Jesus Christ rises or falls on one and one thing only. His bodily Resurrection.

Either Christianity is true, or your other option is to prove it false, and that is very simple. Produce the body. Where's the body today Sara? Those who claim Christianity is false have had two thousand years to come up with the body. Why do you want to believe that the Resurrection is not real, when the evidence clearly points to an event so shocking and amazing that it changed the course of the world from that day forward?

Spineless cowards like Peter were willing to be crucified upside down rather than recount his declaration that Jesus of Nazareth had risen from the dead. Acts 2:32

32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

You are a smart young lady Sara, but either you are wrong or Peter is? Are you really willing to say that you know more about the events surrounding the life and times of Jesus Christ, than the Apostle Peter who spent 3 years of his life with Jesus? Are you so sure of your own knowledge about the events in and around Jerusalem on or about the time of one A.D. that you can reject as lies the accounts of eyewitnesses to those events?

[92. Sara said the following at 7:03 PM on Mar 9:]

92

Adam, Theo K, farmer Tom,

My arguments were written under the assumption that the gospels were written by the disciples, because that’s what a lot of [non-historian] Christians believe. Personally, I don’t believe that any of the NT was written by Jesus’ apostles; instead I think the gospel writers composed their books entirely from other written sources and from stories that were going around at the time. At the very least, the titles like ‘Matthew’ and ‘Mark’ weren’t added until around 300 AD, and they weren't written until after decades after Jesus' death.

Even many conservative scholars don't believe, for example, that Paul wrote all of the Gospels that carry his name, or that 'Matthew' and 'John' were the same Matthew and John who knew Jesus. For some examples online, try picking a book of the Bible, and looking up different discussions about its authorship; it gets really involved and it's very interesting.

Anyway for these reasons, questions about whether the Gospel writers were 'liars' for calling themselves eyewitnesses don't apply for me.

Adam,

Why do you think that atheists need an account of absolute truth to do their scholarship? Can’t they use a conventionalist logic or something else as a base? If you’re refering to total skepticism, where the response to every single assertion—religious or otherwise--is “why?”, all the way to infinity, then I’d agree that you’re right, there’s no solid base for any belief. Skepticism isn’t productive for explaining much else of anything, though.

Theo K

Concerning the debate, and the Christian summary of the debate:

I still don’t get why you and the summary writer are calling Jesus’ post-mortem appearances and so on ‘historical facts’? We’ve got some gospels and epistles written decades after Jesus’ death, and one Jewish historian’s records about Christians. That’s hardly enough proof to call a resurrection a ‘historical fact’, although I do agree that we’ve got as much evidence for Jesus’ death, at least, as we have for lots of other historical events. I find it strange that the longest account of the empty tomb is found in the newest gospel, the gospel of John! Also, an obvious point: if it was just women who saw the empty tomb, then obviously the person writing about it wasn’t there.

-You’re wrong that Erhman “doesn’t dispute these facts”. What he doesn’t dispute is the *tradition of believing* these facts. I mean, I, too, agree that there are ‘solid traditions’ of believing in the resurrection. I don’t believe that traditions are necessarily based on truths, though.

I very much agree with you about people having biases against or towards believing in supernatural events, and that a lot of that isn’t a matter of intellect. You say, “The issue isn’t intellectual. The problem is moral”, but then you go on to quote John. Again, believing that the gospels are authorities IS an intellectual issue, else you wouldn’t be able to defend you’re belief in it against belief in the Quran or other sacred writings. Even the ideas behind the saying “It isn’t intellect, it’s all about being chosen by God: it’s all His doing, not mine” come from Scriptures that you believe in for some *reason*.

Farmer Tom,

Produce the body? Neither of us have any way of knowing what happened to it. I could just as easily ask you to produce a VHS tape of Jesus’ assumption into Heaven.

I think it’s impossible to prove that Christianity is false, just as it’s impossible to prove that there isn’t a God. The fact that Christianity ‘changed the course of the world’ is true, but of course other faiths did, too!

Even assuming that the book of Acts is perfect journalism, Peter’s martydom proves nothing except the strength of his own beliefs. Where, outside of the NT books themselves, are you getting the idea that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses?

[93. Matt from DC said the following at 9:37 AM on Mar 10:]

93

Sara,

I want to answer two of your statements and one of your questions with a link [http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html].

The above link to a document called the Muratorian Fragment is a list of most of the New Testament books dated 125 AD, states that the disciple John authored the gospel attributed to him, and provides an extra-Biblical document for eyewitness authorship.

[94. Adam said the following at 10:59 AM on Mar 10:]

94

Sara,

Can’t they use a conventionalist logic or something else as a base?

The reason is because scholarship presupposes that there are true statements and false statements, and these statements correspond to reality. If some form of absolute truth, lets say, the laws of logic, are simply conventional, then no one can know whether or not they tell us anything about reality.

For example, given what you have said about conventionalist absolute truth, on convention you are right about Jesus' resurrection, on convention I am wrong about Jesus' resurrection. However, that doesn't tell us anything about reality.

In fact, someone could make up totally different conventions, and I would be right about the resurrection, and you would be wrong.

Also, if the laws of logic are conventional, then you might have all different kinds of approaches to logic throughout the world. One society might accept that premise x and premise ~x can be true at the same time, in the same sense, and another society might reject that premise x and premise ~x can be true at the same time, in the same sense.

The short answer to what you are asking is that conventions cannot function in the place of absolute truth because their is no way to know if these conventions correspond to reality.

God Bless,
Adam

[95. Sara said the following at 2:50 PM on Mar 10:]

95

Matt,

I've never heard of that, but just looking up about it online, I don't see its value for what we're talking about. Of course it's true that a lot of NT books were accepted by Christians even before 125 or 175 AD.... but so were a lot of other books! If I prove that some early Christians accepted the Gospel of Thomas, or the Acts of John, would that make you edit your Bible?

There are lots of eyewitness accounts in the so-called extra-canonical gospels and acts and epistles, too. The 'extra-canonical' labels came a long time after Jesus and all who knew him were dead.

Matt,

when you're saying "If some form of absolute truth, let's say, the laws of logic, are simply conventional, then no one can know whether or not they tell us anything about reality",

it depends on what you mean by reality: if you mean some kind of purely objective reality that's totally uninfluenced by the structures of our perceptual apparatus and YET to which we somehow have access (??), then you're right, I think that kind of reality would be unknowable.

You talk about how one culture might do logic one way, and another culture some other way. But look at mathematics: it's pretty much the same the world over, and new 'discoveries' keep building on old ones; there aren't huge shifts in math like there are in biology, say.

You might say that this is because there's an objective, non-material realm of mathematical truth just waiting to be discovered--lots of people would agree. And then again lots of people instead think that maths are similar because all humans are prone to the same sort of abstract reasoning.

The 'but mere conventionalism could make killing people OK' argument is quite true in a way right now. Some people think abortion is horrible, others think nothing of it; some people honour suicide, others abhor it.

Even supposedly-absolutist Christianity shifts like this: in the NT, slavery is so much accepted that Jesus and Paul outline moral codes for it, taking it for granted as an institution. Paul asked for Philemon's release with nary a bad word to the slave master. Imagine what would happen if your minister preached on 'How to be a good prostitute' or 'How best to commit adultery'? You wouldn't like it, even if he excused himself by saying, 'Well, I hope prostitution will end, but in the meantime, it's important for prostitutes to submit to their masters!'.

Yet the NT outlines 'how best to be a slave master and a slave.' Morality changes, even within the church. I don't find that weird or surprising.

[96. Sara said the following at 3:11 PM on Mar 10:]

96

Matt,
one other thing, the writer says that his church also accepts the Apocalypse of Peter! What do you make of that? Look it up; it's an interesting book: it, too, includes direct quotes of Jesus by an eyewitness.

[97. Adam said the following at 5:11 PM on Mar 10:]

97

Sara,

it depends on what you mean by reality: if you mean some kind of purely objective reality that's totally uninfluenced by the structures of our perceptual apparatus and YET to which we somehow have access (??), then you're right, I think that kind of reality would be unknowable..

The real question that has to be asked, then, is how you know that your senses give you an accurate view of reality. It sounds like your worldview is reducing to a kind of idea found in "The Matrix." Our senses are or may be in some sense tainting reality, and we have no way of knowing what reality is.

Also, I never said that there are different approaches to logic. I said, if you are arguing that the laws of logic are conventions rather than universal laws, then one might see all kinds of different approaches to logic. It might be that, in some cultures, it would be acceptable to say both, "It is the case that my car is in the parking lot," and also, "It is not the case that my car is in the parking lot." If you believe that the laws of logic are conventional, then there is nothing to prevent that.

However, as you have pointed out, with both logic and mathematics, they both have extremely high predictability to the point where they don't really differ from culture to culture. How can that be if the laws of logic are conventional?

Also, I would point out that perception cannot be universal in character. You say that the laws of logic and mathematics are universal, but no one has universal perception. If the laws of logic are not universal, then it would seem that you would have to grant that, tomorrow, it might be possible for premise x and ~x to both be true at the same time and in the same sense. In fact, you may even have to grant the possibility that a self-contradiction could be true on the back side of the Horsehead Nebula, since none of us has ever examined the backside of the Horsehead Nebula. You see, if you loose the universality of the laws of logic, it effects everything from the study you are doing right now, to astronomical studies yet to be undertaken.

That is why I said that one must be able to account for absolute truth in order to be able to do scholarship. If you cannot account for it, then your scholarship is sound and fury signifying nothing.

Finally, the slavery of the Hebrew/Christian tradition was much more of a kind of indentured servitude, rather than the kind of slavery we saw in the nineteenth century in America. While that kind of slavery did go on in the Roman empire, it was not that way in Jewish and Christian circles, as the Torah had laws concerning slavery.

God Bless,
Adam

[98. Theo K said the following at 3:37 AM on Mar 11:]

98

Sara,

“instead I think the gospel writers composed their books entirely from other written sources and from stories that were going around at the time.”

As I have shown you, the gospel writers claim to be eyewitnesses. So what you are doing is: reading the gospel of John (for example), seeing that the author claims to be an eyewitness, and then deciding that he is a liar, that he in fact wasn’t there, that he composed the book years later in such a way in order to try to deceive his readers by falsely (according to your way of reasoning) claiming that he was an eyewitness.

“Also, an obvious point: if it was just women who saw the empty tomb, then obviously the person writing about it wasn’t there.”

Where does that come from? Please read again the following passage, which I had quoted before:
“They both ran together. The other disciple outran Peter, and came to the tomb first. 5 Stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths lying, yet he didn’t enter in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the cloth that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So then the other disciple who came first to the tomb also entered in, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they didn’t know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” John 20:4-9

Obvious point? John was there, so was Peter (at least according to the author of the gospel of John – the other disciple is accepted to be the author).

“I still don’t get why you and the summary writer are calling Jesus’ post-mortem appearances and so on ‘historical facts’?”

“Now I declare to you, brothers, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.” A Corinthians 15:1-8

500 witnesses are good enough for me. This letter was written when most of them were alive, and people doing a simple research could find them and inquire about the events. It would be very simple for the opponents of the Gospel to try to silence Paul that way. But they couldn’t. From day one, in Jerusalem, the city where all these events took place, the disciples were boldly preaching the historic fact (the good NEWS) that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. And no one was able to silence them…

Also, “because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.
By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. " – from the Josh McDowell link.

This is good enough for me…

“a lot of that isn’t a matter of intellect. You say, “The issue isn’t intellectual. The problem is moral”, but then you go on to quote John.”

Finally, what I said was:
“the truth is that the reason people don’t believe is not because of lack of evidence. The issue isn’t intellectual. The problem is moral.”

What I meant was that people don’t want to believe DESPITE the facts. That all the facts are there and every neutral observer (if there ever was such a thing) would come to the obvious conclusion. This is what I mean when I say the issue isn’t intellectual. That if people weren’t morally bankrupt they would see the revelation of God in nature and in His Word, the Bible. This is what I mean when I say the problem is moral: That creation and the Bible proclaim the glory of the Creator God every single day and still people refuse to believe because of their moral rebellion and corruption.

[99. Sarah P. said the following at 8:59 AM on Mar 11:]

99

Sara, why are you here? I for one welcome you and your questions... but I want to know 'why.' Are you arguing just to make people run around in circles, or are you hoping to find something? What do you want from us?

I understand the intellectual struggles. I wrestled with the question of the canon for at least a year. After that I wrestled with God Himself because I couldn't see him, feel him, touch him, or hear him. Or so it seemed.

May I suggest Augustine's Confessions? He might appeal to you, since he was an intellectual who learned to believe in God intellectually, through the teachings of Ambrose.

You remind me of Job, who also crumbled under heavy pain and declared, "Let the day perish wherein I was born" (Job 3:3). His friends were rebuked for judging him in his agony. And in the end, God answered Job. His only answer was Himself:

"Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it" (Job 40:2).

There are two steps to believing in the Christian God, and people normally get hung up on one of them. You have to believe that: (1) God exists; and (2) He is essentially good. "He that cometh to God must believe that he is/exists, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Heb. 11:6).

If God exists and created all things, He has the right to do whatever He wants. Most religions understand this part. The second question, then, concerns His nature. Caught up in our pain and suffering, it is natural to conclude that God must be evil. Fickle. Bloodthirsty and cruel. And Jesus Christ is the only answer to that.

Sounds like you are caught up on both of those questions. Am I right?

[100. Sara said the following at 9:35 AM on Mar 11:]

100

Adam - we're going in circles...I don't see what problem you have with a morality that isn't grounded in a theory of the absolute, but that's socially maintained. Look at law: it's all human and often made for no other reason than practicality (i.e., let's not drive drunk because we can get hurt that way, and most of us agree--like any animal--that we'd rather not get hurt) and it's different in different countries, and it changes a lot through the years: but it works decently well. You learn the laws, and accept the consequences as a citizen. People still break the law sometimes, but people break their personal moral codes too.

I never said that my senses give me an accurate view of non-subjective reality. There’s no way I could ever know if a reality existed apart from what my senses are able to pick up and how my perception orders things, so it’s a moot point.

That doesn’t mean my thoughts can’t still be well-ordered: they can have the orderly shape that my perception gives them. I’m thinking Kant here. You haven’t read any Kant. Even if you don’t agree with him--he held views opposite to yours--you have to understand him to understand what philosophers have been saying for the last 200 years about what we’re talking about: knowledge and reality. You’re stuck in the Enlightenment. :(

I didn’t mean to say that the laws of logic are only conventional, I meant that they might match up with the form of human perception and therefore they might be universal *in humans* (not necessarily in relation to a possible objective reality ‘out there’). Again, I’m thinking of Kant’s views of mathematics.

Sure, self-contradiction could be true somewhere else: but I’d never know it because my head couldn’t wrap itself around a particular instance of it.

----

About slavery, that’s good to distinguish modern slavery from Bible slavery, and point well taken. I don’t know that NT-style ‘indentured servitude’ is something that present-day Christians could accept, though. I doubt you’d be OK with your father having bodily control over someone who owed him work, and who only owed him this work because he was the son of another of your father’s slaves. Isn’t that the insitution that Jesus was upholding? Maybe things like freedom and equality on Earth aren’t a necessary part of morality from a Christian point of view. It’s an interesting question: could someone be a perfect Christian and also help maintain class inequality and racial segregation, for example? Maybe they could.

[1. Sara said the following at 10:02 AM on Mar 3:]

1

Maybe you're misrepresenting his arguments, but from what you've quoted, he hasn't proven anything on this page 36, he's just made claims over and over again.

"X is the greatest thing, X is so noble; some people discount X but truly X is just as honorable..."

That's preaching to the converted in its purest form.

I've never understood how ministering to a middle-class family--whose children may or may not go on to be useful, and whose children may or may not go on to be Christians who praise God--could 'rank' up there with serving the most urgently needy among us.

Having children within marriage *creates new needs* in an already needy world! I don't see how that's a "blessing".

[2. Ashley Harris said the following at 10:16 AM on Mar 3:]

2

Sara,

It sounds like you are saying there is no value in ministering to one's own family because middle-class children are not "needy" and there is no guarantee that they will serve the Lord. Am I misunderstanding you?

There is no guarantee that AIDS orphans will come to know to the Lord through ministering to their poverty and medical needs, but should we not still serve the least of these? And when Jesus talks about the "least of these"/"little ones," isn't He talking often about children? And wouldn't that apply to middle-class children as well?

Who are we to assign value to people? Aren't all people valuable because they bear the image of God?

I don't mean this to be offensive to you, but could this mindset that serving the poor and "needy" above our families is contributing to the breakdown of the family?

[3. Ted Slater said the following at 10:23 AM on Mar 3:]

3

I'd like to reiterate what Voddie Baucham says, that marriage is no less important than what we think of as "ministry." Indeed, it *is* ministry.

He is *not*, of course, saying that marriage is somehow a more lofty ministry than others, that if you are unmarried, you are necessarily falling short in your ministry. He's simply clarifying that marriage is no less of a ministry than others. Similarly, other ministries are no less ministry than marriage. Paul's ministry, for example, was not somehow defective because he remained single throughout his life.

Baucham is trying to balance a fallacy that's entered our thinking about marriage, that it signifies a giving up on pursuing God and godliness.

If you're single, and feeling a bit discouraged, please click over to today's featured Boundless article, "One Single Day."

[4. kaj said the following at 11:16 AM on Mar 3:]

4

So "marriage is ministry," according to Voddie Baucham, but then the "One Single Day" admonishes us, "I can glorify God by seeking His Kingdom first, and marriage second."

I'm just plain confused here over perceived mixed messages.

[5. Julia H said the following at 11:19 AM on Mar 3:]

5

I am becoming increasingly frustrated by comments on this blog that imply that wealthy people do not need to be ministered to, or that only poor people are worthy of outreach. Is this a common attitude/belief in young Christians? I was under the impression that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and that in Christ there is no "rich or poor" and that we are all created equal. Wealth is not a measure of what makes us "truly needy." We are all in need of the Saviour.

[6. Alison said the following at 11:20 AM on Mar 3:]

6

Sara (1)

I believe in this fallen world their are two types over poverty. A financial poverty and a poverty of spirit. Some people fall in more than 1 category. Many in the middle class may not be financially poor, but their is often found a poverty of spirit. In recent years I have had a heart for the middle class. If you look around many of the pews in churches in middle class communities sit empty. Families are often too "busy" on Sundays to attend church. A healthy loving family in a middle class community can model God's love in a powerful way. Just because someone is middle class doesn't mean they don't need a savior. Its often the leaders in these communities that have a great impact on our country. These are often the members of our society who are our doctors, lawyers, politicians, engineers, CEOs, accountants. I pray for more Godly Families to crop up in these communities. Christians need to have influence in these neighborhoods.

[7. Texas Craig said the following at 11:24 AM on Mar 3:]

7

I disagree with the title "No Higher Call." But, instead of arguing over it, I will throw out this challenge to those who want to defend it:

Lay out the Biblical mandate that marriage is a ministry that we are called to. I certainly agree with the stewardship principle and that man has been given dominion over the earth, hence the original "be fruitful and multiply" directive. But, is there anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus (or any of the writers) directed us specifically to marry and have kids?

I certainly am aware of all kinds of other directives given to us (go into all the world, preaching, baptizing, caring for the least of us, caring for widows and orphans, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, caring for the sick, etc.). But, I am not aware of any such directives for marriage. Perhaps I have just missed them. But, until I see a Biblical directive, I would not use the term "calling" in regard to marriage.

[8. dana111 said the following at 11:37 AM on Mar 3:]

8

I am a single women who does not feel discouraged AT ALL by Voddie Baucham's views of marriage and children. God is in the process of completely renewing my mind when it comes to family and ministry. I was one of those single people who believed that you either serve God or get married- there was nothing in between. However, no where in the Bible is marriage and family seen as a "lesser" ministry than serving the poor and the needy. Also, marriage and ministry can go hand in hand. Why did Paul require deacons in the New Testament church to be the "husband of one wife"? Why does Paul ask in 1 Corinthians 9: 1-5:

"Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

To me, this scripture shows that marriage and ministry are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, was MARRIED. He had a wife (who, along with her husband, suffered martyrdom for her confession of Jesus Christ). He freely served God with her by his side, and she followed him wherever he went.

Sorry, Sara, but no where in the Bible does God command us not to have children because of the world's "neediness." In my opinion,and correct me if I am wrong, you are reading your own hurt and your own hatred of children and marriage into Voddie's writing, and, possibly, into the Word of God. In the book of Jeremiah, the children of Israel where in exile, forced to move from Jerusalem to Babylon. However, even in the midst of the ungodly Babylonians, the Lord tells them to:

"Build houses and dwell in them; plant gardens and eat their fruit. Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters—that you may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the LORD for it; for in its peace you will peace."- Jeremiah 29

So, no, marriage and serving God are not two ideas that are diametrically opposed to each other. The Bible shows several instances when they can and do go hand in hand.

God Bless!

[9. dana111 said the following at 11:41 AM on Mar 3:]

9

To Texas Craig (7)-

How do you feel about unmarried Christians who say that singleness is a "calling?" I haven't seen any Biblical directive for that, but I know there are many single Christians who are adamant about their particular "calling."

[10. Texas Craig said the following at 11:45 AM on Mar 3:]

10

Alison and Julia:

I do not disagree that everyone needs Jesus. I have been on 3 mission trips to China and I have met people who genuinely do not know anything about Jesus. Yet, here in the U.S., information about Jesus is available everywhere, bibles are in every hotel room, and people can flip on their TV and see evangelists or pastors all the time.

I was convicted by a passage I read before my first trip to China. To paraphrase, "What right do people have to hear the gospel for the 3rd or 4th time, when there are people in the world that have never heard it once?" To me, it is a question of opportunity. Strangely, many of the same people who will castigate the poor in our country for not taking advantage of the opportunities given to them will also want to continue trying to share the gospel with many middle class or wealthy people who have not taken advantage of the spiritual opportunities all around them.

I am not someone who advocates caring only for the poor. But, I do advocate caring for the most needy. When it comes to physical needs, the most needy are those without material possessions (including food, shelter, etc.) and without opportunities to reasonably gain them. When it comes to spiritual needs, it is those without salvation AND without reasonable opportunities to hear the gospel.

Of course we should always be a light wherever we are, so that our witness will naturally happen to our neighbors and co-workers if we are just following Christ by our life.

[11. Rachael said the following at 11:46 AM on Mar 3:]

11

That's great that Ted pointed out that: "He is *not*, of course, saying that marriage is somehow a more lofty ministry than others, that if you are unmarried, you are necessarily falling short in your ministry."

Because... it kind-of sounds like it from the title and another area of this post and from his words: "There is perhaps no higher calling."

But, good thing he's not doing that...though that may be true for some/many...and I think it's sad if it makes single people feel less worthy or that they are less happy than they'd be if they are married. Even just today, I got a message from someone, and included in her message was:

"How you enjoying the married life? You better love it because some of us aren't so lucky. :) Just kidding...sort of."

...There's some kind of something about that tone, whether or not she wants to be married now.

Marriage is ministry, or it should be. But I think it's all too easy to put too many high expectations into marriage and the spouse. Or to have the subconscious outlook that 'Marriage is everything and should supply my every need and if it doesn't I'll be disappointed', or... something...Too easy to put too much of the heart deposit into that when utmost fulfillment should be found in God.

I wonder if more often a healthy outlook of marriage should be promoted than marriage itself. And that's probably one thing that Focus on the Family does or tries to do...

Our highest calling is to be how God wants us to be in all circumstances, and if marriage is part of that, then that's included, and it's it's not, then, it's not...

[12. Sara said the following at 11:50 AM on Mar 3:]

12

Hi Ashley

The main difference between middle-class children and someone else's orphan is that *the middle-class children don't exist until you make them*.

It isn't a matter of choosing between your children and other needy children. If you already have children, by all means take care of them. What I'm saying is that I feel a person should make sure the needs of real, already-extant children are taken care of before creating new needs in the world.

I wouldn't say any one child is more valuable than any other child, but I *would* say that any one child is more valuable than an unfertilized egg in my belly.

Another point is that as long as you take care of people who already exist, you aren't creating the potential for another human to go to hell. Nobody knows what percent of Christian-raised kids end up being saved, but I doubt anyone believes it's 100%. Even if it was 99% (unlikely), by having kids you'd be putting another human being at risk of eternal suffering.

I don't understand why people don't take that consideration a LOT more seriously before they have kids! It seems odd that God would want more mouths to praise him if the cost might be seeing another human go to hell, even if that human is someone who's obstinate, hard-hearted, or whatever.

I CAN NOT GET OVER how much obstinacy or hard-heartedness is punished in the Bible! Don't get me wrong; I think those are terrible faults, but you'd think, say, a month of cruel torture would do it.

Nope! Murderers like David and Moses feel no pain after death; hard-hearted atheist aid workers get infinite years of torture. All because God created the world in such a way that 'justice' demands perfect atonement. What a way to create justice!

Julia H.,

About poor vs. wealthy neediness, the thing is that money-poor people do tend to have more urgent problems. You can house a sick heart in a healthy body for quite awhile, but a healthy mind in a sick body can last only do long.

I'm not saying that kids' worth corresponds to a sliding scale of parental income!

[13. Rachael said the following at 11:55 AM on Mar 3:]

13

Julia H (5),

Yes, ABSOLUTELY we are all in need of the savior, and I have reflected upon the serving the rich vs. poor issue...I put up a blog post here, including a couple of snippets from other blogs and a poem by Karsten Piper:

http://reicheru.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/everyones-needy/

Regardless of however my heart has been pulled, I do understand that we are all needy, and that it would be good if we reflected Christ to all around us regardless of their social status.

[14. Matt from DC said the following at 12:01 PM on Mar 3:]

14

Sara,

You say, 'Having children within marriage *creates new needs* in an already needy world! I don't see how that's a "blessing".'

You may not understand how having children is a blessing, but God is clear in His Word when he says that it is. See Psalm 127 for the text.

I am left with a few questions from your statement:

* If having children creates needs then is it selfish?

* If having children isn't a blessing why would God command us to do it?

* If ministry to the family unit is less worthy than other ministry then why does Paul equate failing to provide for your immediate family to denying Jesus Christ?

1 Timothy 5:8 "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

* Should the middle-class stop having children and ministering to them in lieu of reaching the "most urgently needy among us"?

* When you identify this group of people "the most urgently needy among us" who are they?

Is your answer as simple as not a middle-class family. That is what you have written, I just find it hard to believe. I find my answer in Luke 10:29-37.

Thank you for your time.

[15. Catherine said the following at 12:03 PM on Mar 3:]

15

I am so happy you are reviewing this book! it has been sitting on my amazon wishlist for about a week. I do agree with your "no higher call" title. Its sad that I have only come to appreciate the idea that it is in our family that we learn to serve like Jesus FIRST. I have always thought of christian service as being primarily outside of the home- probably because traveling to exotic places and helping the truly impoverished seems more exiciting. It is too hard to forget that learning to serve at home within our own families is the central way that we grow in Christ. How could the church have taught me so little over the years on how to be a good daughter, a good sister, a good wife, a good mother? These are difficult skills that, when done rightly, can truly change the broken world we live in today.

[16. Matt from DC said the following at 12:29 PM on Mar 3:]

16

Texas Craig,

God gave to our father Noah the command to be fruitful and multiply. Even though the New Covenant does not affect this ancient directive does not mean it does not belong among other Biblical imperatives. The only alteration in the New Testament about this is Paul's defense of the spiritual gifting of singleness.

It is possible that I can give a better response if you provide an acceptable definition of ministry.

[17. Leah W said the following at 12:33 PM on Mar 3:]

17

kaj, you said you're confused because the messages seem to contradict one another. (And I can see that.) But I actually see that they go hand in hand.

Baucham says that marriage is a ministry. (which I had never really thought about, but, yeah... I see that!) Then Elisabeth sd in "One Fine Day" that marriage should come second to your relationship with God. That's true with *any* ministry! Whether that be marriage, parenting, missions, pastoring, ect.

The thing that I got from Elisabeth was that she had put her desire for marriage above what God wanted for her life. And it was after that that she learned she needed to put God first and marriage second. (God is not to take a second seat to *any*one or *any*thing.) I'm sure in that respect both Mr. Baucham and Ms. Adams will agree.

Speaking as a young single woman (whose mother, grandmothers, sister, aunts, cousins, ect) were married *long* before my age, I can understand where Elisabeth's questions come from. (I've also asked God, "If I eventually *do* get married and have kids, will I be able to keep up with them???" :D) But I get all kinds of frustrated when I hear people in the church say that people my age who aren't married are single because we're "too picky" or "afraid", or worse "don't think it's important". I think marriage is not only important, but *vital*!!!!

However in my case, my own single-status has *nothing* to do with "fear of commitment" or any other fear! (Am I picky? Well that depends. I measure a man by the Word of God. So... am I being too picky?) :) A long time ago I put into practice what Elisabeth was talking about (God before marriage/dating). I didn't date a lot when I was a teen and still don't. Not because I don't want to get married, but because I am waiting on God. I openly admit that while I'm pushing 30 I just don't have a persistant desire to be married... yet. (The desire is there every now and then, but when I pray about it, I get a peace and move on with the ministry God has laid on my heart.)

I like the fact that Elisabeth pointed out that we singles have more time for intercession (and ministry in general, I think. :D). So we don't have to mope around all the time. We can use the desires (she listed more than a few) and channel those into ways to minister to others.

I have to commend Boundless for linking these two articles. I think they balance one another out. They are from two completely different ends of the spectrum of marriage and that allows for a fuller discussion.

(Hope I didn't ramble on too long. :D)
Leah W.

[18. Texas Craig said the following at 12:34 PM on Mar 3:]

18

Dana111 (9):

My response is that I generally do not think that singleness is a "calling" either. But, having said that, I am cognizant of verses like Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Corinthians 7. You can read those passages for yourself and decide what they mean.

[19. Texas Craig said the following at 12:38 PM on Mar 3:]

19

As a clarification of my earlier comments, please understand that I agree that, ONCE WE HAVE DECIDED TO ENTER MARRIAGE, we should see our marriage and family as part of our mission field/area of ministry. My disagreement is with the idea that the decision to enter into marriage is a calling or a ministry by itself.

[20. Nathan said the following at 12:39 PM on Mar 3:]

20

Could the title "No Higher Call" be a reason for singles feeling snubbed?

The blog posts here on Boundless constantly and consistently make marriage out to be much more than it actually is.

And I personally found the article "One Single Day" to be kind of silly. I don't get the mindset of striving to marry well while getting through the pain of the in-between years. I guess I see it as one dimensional. There are many paths that one can live their life, no? It seems the church focuses on only one and marginalizes or totally brushes off those that can't or don't want to live their life on that specific course.

Singles are often labeled as selfish, but the married crowd that focuses solely on how to be in a marriage, how to get married, and how to make everyone like themselves while rejecting other "life trajectories" is self centered, too.

It's this mindset that makes being a single in church very difficult. Marriage is glorified to the point where singles are left in the dust, considered "less than" and "encouraged" to improve their state by getting married. Let's stop idolizing marriage and loathing singleness, please!!

[21. a sassy sister said the following at 12:47 PM on Mar 3:]

21

Rachel, #11:
Well said.

[22. Rachael said the following at 12:49 PM on Mar 3:]

22

Sara wrote: "by having kids you'd be putting another human being at risk of eternal suffering.

I don't understand why people don't take that consideration a LOT more seriously before they have kids!"

I see your point...but ultimately God knows and in control of whether or not He gives the gift of life...salvation does not rest in the parents' hands.

[23. Tara said the following at 12:54 PM on Mar 3:]

23

"I don't understand why people don't take that consideration a LOT more seriously before they have kids!"

It's called faith. Faith in God that He is looking out for the spiritual health of our (future) children. And it's hope that they will follow Him. Why did God create humans in the first place if He knew we were only going to fall away and hurt & anger Him (& each other)? It's a mystery to me so I can only call it Love.

I do believe in responsible family planning but at some point you just need to trust God that He loves your child more than you ever could & He will watch over them and call them to Him. Ultimately though, the fate of the child's soul is between him/her & God.

[24. Tami said the following at 1:15 PM on Mar 3:]

24

I agree with others who have said the title is off putting to unmarried folk desiring marriage... i.e., a large portion of your readers.

I don't think the title is reflective of what Baucham is saying, and it also implies that if you're not married then you're somehow missing God's best. That is an -ouch- for those who aren't married but desire to be, and does add to the feeling of being an outsider, pressing one's nose against the glass of a warm, glowing house.

I've been reading Boundless long enough to know that's not your intent, but it *is* how the title (but not, in my opinion, the article!) come off.

I say, not the article, because Candice *does* say, "intentional protracted singleness." Not simply "singleness."

Honestly, if I heard there was an article called "No Higher Call" but didn't see the book cover or know the contents, I would have thought it was about living out *whatever* God has given you this day, living out that upward call of Christ Jesus.

[25. Andrea-Elena said the following at 1:26 PM on Mar 3:]

25

Sara,

Since God has given you a passion for the fatherless, the weary, the downtrodden, the poor, wonderful! Be a good steward of that passion and of the opportunities He shows you to care for others.

But remember that not everyone is given the same passion in areas of ministry and missions.

Doing Kingdom work requires all of God's children to be about what He prompts them to do. One person cannot do it all. But the entire world-wide body of Christ, through the ages, can -- because it is He who works in us.

Another point is that as long as you take care of people who already exist, you aren't creating the potential for another human to go to hell.

1. God authors life.

2. I don't create the potential for another human to go to hell. You don't. Parents don't. After Adam and Eve, the potential is there, period. Each human being has a choice to obey God or rebel. Each naturally chooses to rebel. By faith, he/she must come to God. Christ is the way provided. The only way.

3. Our responsibility is not to save people. We cannot save people. God saves people. Our responsibility is to spread the good news that salvation is available.

4. We don't send people to hell. Humans stand condemned already. God just lets them have the consequences of their choices. And the choice is available to all: choose Christ or rot in hell. It's pretty simple.

Nobody knows what percent of Christian-raised kids end up being saved, but I doubt anyone believes it's 100%. Even if it was 99% (unlikely), by having kids you'd be putting another human being at risk of eternal suffering.

No. Each human does that on his own.

By trying to conceive, we are merely playing our part in making conditions ripe for life to be created. WE do not create it! God does! (Psalm 139) We are to play our parts in nurturing life, protecting life, and so forth.

I don't understand why people don't take that consideration a LOT more seriously before they have kids! It seems odd that God would want more mouths to praise him if the cost might be seeing another human go to hell, even if that human is someone who's obstinate, hard-hearted, or whatever.

I don't think God ever revoked His command that ALL living things reproduce. It's in their design.

I CAN NOT GET OVER how much obstinacy or hard-heartedness is punished in the Bible! Don't get me wrong; I think those are terrible faults, but you'd think, say, a month of cruel torture would do it.

By whom? God? God doesn't cruelly torture. He withdraws His hand of protection and allows people to feel the consequences their choices create, allowing His RIGHTEOUS wrath to have sway.

God isn't some sadistic tool who gets His jollies from hurting people.

But yeah, you'd think that after being warned that invaders would come, the people of OT days would have turned away from false gods and returned to the one true God. But they didn't.

Nope! Murderers like David and Moses feel no pain after death; hard-hearted atheist aid workers get infinite years of torture. All because God created the world in such a way that 'justice' demands perfect atonement. What a way to create justice!

Don't forget that He Himself made propitiation for that atonement.

I mean, GOD ALMIGHTY who created the heavens and the earth, who sustains all life, and who alone deserves praise ... gave up His glory, His position, to come in FLESH and dwell among us and then BE the perfect sacrifice that no amount of "spotless" lambs or calves could ever provide.

And Moses and David, despite their sins, did walk by faith, looking forward to the promised Lamb -- who was spoken of from the time of the fall onward.

NONE of us deserve that grace, mercy, and compassion. Doesn't matter what we did. But He gives it anyway.

No amount of good deeds gets a person "close enough" to God's perfection. But in Christ, His perfection is credited to us.

And remember ... in contrast to the countless years we will spend in eternity, our days here on earth are but a blink of an eye. So ... our physical needs, while real and strong and important, are not the MOST important. Our spiritual needs are.

So ... it doesn't matter really whether you birth children or care for others' children or both. "What matters is faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6b, HCSB). Loving people and sharing/illuminating the truth of Jesus Christ are what matter -- those important things still matter ... because all human beings matter. He says so.

Pitting one group (middle-class children of a 2-parent home) against another (children with less-than-ideal home situations, of whatever "stripe") and saying that one group is needier than the other is really not productive at all.

We all stand needy, needier than we could ever really fathom -- for our Father, our Savior, our Lord, our Counselor, our King.

[26. Elisabeth said the following at 1:27 PM on Mar 3:]

26

Kaj, a clarification might be that *when they are in conflict* I seek God's Kingdom first, and marriage second. But usually they're not in conflict; they're complementary.

Thanks for the encouragement, Leah W. I might add that I'm not afraid to vigorously honor the things that God honors (including marriage), as long as it's Him I see in it. The more I see God, the less temptation there is to put anything above Him. I'll simply delight in it as another lampstand on which to shine His light!

Nathan, thanks for your candidness. My article was written for singles who are marriage-minded, but it could also be for anyone who feels called to a ministry that they have not yet stepped into - for unknown reasons that are out of their control. Ultimately, it's about dealing with the disappointments of life in a fallen world and the mystery of God's sovereignty.

It reminds me of II Cor. 4:

"For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair..."

[27. Kyndra said the following at 1:28 PM on Mar 3:]

27

Wow! Amazing how this is the same sort of stuff my mom has been telling me forever! lol. :)
I can't wait to read the rest of your review, Candace. I've always said that the man I marry will have to be amazing. He's got to meet not just my father's approval (hard enough on its own, but that of my five brothers, five sisters, and mother. A daunting task to be sure!

[28. saidahwk said the following at 1:49 PM on Mar 3:]

28

I *love* Voddie Baucham. He spoke at my school my freshman year of college and it was seriously amazing.

[29. Megan said the following at 2:41 PM on Mar 3:]

29

I love Boundless.

With that said, I feel like I need to say that this article leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The subjectivity is almost too much to handle.

Why are we talking about this author’s view on marriage, singleness, and the level of importance of God's calling? I am in no way saying these are invalid points of discussion, but the whole thing seems a little subjective; anyone else with me?

Candice quotes (from Baucham), "I have never met more young men and women with a desire to serve the Lord than I have in recent years. However, most of them are willing to do anything God asks as long as it does not involve growing up, settling down, and pouring themselves into the ministry of marriage."

That's a very powerful, blanketing, and, what I feel, unnecessary statement. Since when does *not* getting married constitute *not growing up*. Baucham first gives what seems to be a compliment to young people, then chops their legs off by saying that we've refused to grow up. It also seems as if Baucham believes that marriage is the only way to ACT on serving the Lord. Note when she gives the aforementioned compliment, he says young people have desire to serve, but then are only willing to serve when God doesn't ask them to get married.

Here's what I'm getting at: I don't get it. I’m having a hard time reconciling that “calling to singleness” to “growing up = marriage”.

[30. Sara said the following at 2:50 PM on Mar 3:]

30

Tara and Rachael,

Millions of parents who have chosen to have children and who have put those children's fates in the hands of God have [ostensibly] had their children go to hell. Why would you choose to have faith in a god like that?

If God had designed justice such that nobody was ever tortured for an infinite amount of time, would you think that was a bad god?

Unless you're fatalists, faith on your part must involve judging among gods, else you wouldn't know whether to continue practicing Christianity, or whether you should maybe go to a synagogue next weekend.

I can't fathom how the infinite-torture part of God's creation could be considered optimal, let alone praiseworthy! If you say, "It's not my choice, it's the Spirit's choice", you're still choosing to believe in your ability to feel the Spirit! (In contrast, I believe that what I used to call 'the Spirit's leading' was entirely a matter of strong emotions)

Matt

- If you already have a family, then absolutely you’re doing the wrong thing if you neglect them to ‘go help the poor’; I’m talking about making the decision to have a family in the first place.

- I’d say that the “most urgently needy among us” are people in severe physical pain, I guess, or people experiencing extreme injustice. It would be wonderful if everyone who had, say, existential problems could be ministered to, but there isn’t enough help to go around and I support a triage system.

- Yes, I think people should stop having kids. No, I don’t think that’s necessarily Biblical. I don’t agree with the Bible in a lot of ways. I’d love to, but I haven’t been able to in good faith for a long time. I’m not a Christian.

- Ha, thank *you* for your time : )

Andrea-Elena,

I'm very familiar with all those verses and arguments; they mostly presuppose Christianity. When you say, "God doesn't cruelly torture", to me, creating a world with the *potential* for even one person (even just Jesus, say), to be tortured is a horrible, horrible abuse of power.

Unthinkable. If I was all-powerful, the last thing that would enter my mind is to create a system whereby I "required justice" from my inferiors on pain of death.

It blows my mind how some Christians accept this, and *then* turn it around as a positive thing, like, "Wow! What a wonderfully upside-down world we live in! What a crazy unfathomable and awesome God! What a wonderfully radical faith I need to have to believe it!". Unbelievable.

[31. dana111 said the following at 2:53 PM on Mar 3:]

31

Personally, I think Dr. Baucham's goal, if you actually listen to some of his sermons, is to challenge the cultural and societal assumptions concerning and marriage and family that have been ingested by the church. I don't think he intentionally wants to make singles mad. However, he does want single Christians to question the "bill of goods" that we have been sold, i.e. marriage is not important, marriage is for the needy, singleness is a more "spiritual" state than marriage, the most important thing for a woman to do EVER is have a career and work 40 hours a week, etc.

I have listened to several of his sermons. Some of them hurt, especially the ones about submission and the role of women and men in the home, but he makes sure to temper his sermons with scripture. If you want to be challenged, check him out and see for yourself if what he says can be backed up with the Word.

[32. Candice Watters said the following at 3:06 PM on Mar 3:]

32

FWIW, the title "No Higher Call" is a quote directly from Baucham (which appears further down in this blog post). He says of marriage, "There is perhaps no higher calling." (Emphasis added).

Thanks to all of you who are defending my post and/or Baucham, but not my title, they are one and the same.

[33. Ted Slater said the following at 3:35 PM on Mar 3:]

33

Sara -- you puzzle me. Sometimes you talk about your church, or quote Scripture as though you see it as having some authority. Other times you express distain for those commended in Scripture and even for God Himself, confessing a distrust of His goodness and faithfulness.

Are you really this conflicted?

[34. Andrea-Elena said the following at 3:58 PM on Mar 3:]

34

Sara,

I apologize for assuming you were a Christian. I often forget that the participants here come from a variety of viewpoints.

Your questions and ponderings are not illogical for whatever your belief system is. (I describe it that way because I do not know to what faith/belief you ascribe.) I remember asking very similar questions when I was in college. (Lots of meaty philosophical discussions then!)

Hmm... A hypothetical: If you were all powerful and all knowing and decided to create sentient beings, what parameters would you set on those beings?

And... not hypothetical... just about what you think/believe...
What do you see as the purpose of human beings? That is, why are we here?

[35. NeedACatchyName said the following at 3:58 PM on Mar 3:]

35

The points about marriage being a ministry and the need to hold it in high regard are well taken, but I still don't like this idea that "there is perhaps no higher calling" than marriage. I'm not really sure how you can compare one calling to another, for that matter. Scripture never actually gives any sort of hierarchy for "callings," so I don't think there's really any way to rank one calling ahead of another. I mean, if one person is called to be serve God as a pastor, another as a missionary, still another as a mother, and then another person as a janitor, how do you determine who has the "higher" calling? As long as each is using the tools and abilities that God has given them to serve the Lord and others in accordance with Scripture, I don't see how you can call one calling "higher" than the other.

We are called to turn away from our sins, believe in Christ, accept his gift of salvation, and live our lives in accordance with Scripture. Beyond that, I don't think there is any "higher" calling.

[36. Melissa said the following at 4:04 PM on Mar 3:]

36

To Sara (and other readers):

I have a few questions: where do children come from, or better put, WHO do children come from? I'm glad that someone on here has already quoted the 127th Psalm...children are a BLESSING from God. Remembering that God is the creator of everything (including you), who are we to judge the who/what/when/where/why of any of God's creation??

In fact, I have done some research on the declining population growth in our country (mostly due to abortions and the use of contraceptives), and many demographers have expressed concern that future generations could be faced with some ugly economic ramifications because people today aren't having enough children.

Also, it has been said that the main cause of poverty is not overpopulation or a lack of food (presently there is enough food being produced to feed the entire world) but oppressive governments and social hierarchies that prevent people from being able to access to their basic needs. In other words, more children being born here is unlikely to have much (if any effect) on the dire situations in other parts of the world. In fact, it could have a positive effect because then there would be more people that God could use to help put an end to social injustices abroad.

We need Christians to get married and have children! As others have stated, many believers came to know Christ and were discipled into mature believers at home through their parents. Having children and raising them in the Truth is an investment in the next generation that God will use to continue taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth! It is true that not all will believe and receive salvation, but only God knows who, and it is not our place to hinder or eradicate something He by His word considers a blessing as a result. Many of those new souls will come to know Him, and God will use many of them to further His kingdom.

Here's another question (that thankfully a few others have already posed): who's to say that being married and serving the world's poorest have to be polarized?

I almost pick up on this whole attitude by many of the responses to this blog that if you get married, then it kills God's ability to use you as a pastor or as a missionary or any other kind of commended ministry. But that's simply not true!

Guess what! The vast number of people I personally know who have given up all their Western comforts to go serve the world's poorest and neediest (both physically and spiritually)longterm are married, and many of them have their own children! This is not to undermine those who God uses who are single (praise the Lord for them too!) but I tell you this fact to speak from my own personal observation that in no way does being married and having children have to conflict with serving the world's most needy.

I'm one of those people...I'm getting married in 2 months, AND I have a desire to both have children of my own (Lord willing) AND to reach the poor overseas. Can I do both? Absolutely! In fact, my future husband and I are excited about the prospect and we're trusting God to work out all the details and to provide for ALL of our needs (as He promises in Matthew 6 to do).

True, there are passages like 1 Cor 7 which point to the benefits of singleness, and it is true that if you do get married you are faced with a whole new set of responsibilities that you wouldn't have if you were single (such as caring for your own children and your spouse) that might make your ministry seem more challenging.

But single missionaries who go overseas to serve the Lord can be faced with difficulties of their own too that can also make ministry challenging. Statistics have shown that many become lonely and as a result are more likely to come home sooner (and many who don't wind up meeting their spouse on the mission field and end up getting married!!). There are many places where due to the cultural climate, it is more difficult to serve single (I had this problem myself in a particular country I've had a heart for). While I believe that God could have still used me in that location as a single woman, due to the culture I strongly believe that I can have a more significant impact as a married woman.

What I am saying is that either way (whether married or single), there will always be challenges; they just manifest themselves in different way. But the exciting thing is that God is not limited...He can use anyone to reach the world's poorest with a beating and willing heart, whether they are married, single, with kids, or without!!!

The important thing is to be obedient and to follow God no matter what He would call you to do in whatever stage of life you're in. If the Lord is calling you to to go serve the world's poor overseas as a single woman, then by all means GO! But that doesn't mean that God is going to call everyone to serve the world's poor in the life stage that you are in, and that others who don't share your calling should be criticized. We need people to go reach the unreached but we also need godly mothers to have and raise the next generation. And sometimes God will even call these Godly mothers to do both! (to go overseas to the unreached AND raise Godly children)

Remember Romans 12:4-5:

For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

[37. Rachael said the following at 4:06 PM on Mar 3:]

37

Sara,

Man does have some level of responsibility in coming/responding to God, but, at the same time, it is God who predestines, who chooses His own. I don't know how it works, but I believe that predestination is clearly a Biblical concept.

And as in Romans 9..."Has the potter no right over the clay"?

Yes. We all deserve eternal punishment, but out of His mercy, a few are saved. Is it unfair? No. It's gracious. Fairness would mean sending us all to hell as we all sin.

[38. Ted Slater said the following at 4:11 PM on Mar 3:]

38

NeedACatchyName (#35) -- I tend to agree with you that there doesn't seem to be a hierarchy in Scripture for "callings." Indeed, many of those who are seemingly lowest are to be most esteemed.

I want to interpret Voddie's and Candice's words **extremely literally** -- that there is "no higher calling" than marriage. They are not saying that there is any "lower calling than marriage," just that we should be careful not to demote marriage below other callings.

I've found that being a husband and father within marriage is probably not much different from being a pastor -- the congregation is just smaller and more intimate, and I bear perhaps more responsibility for my congregation than a pastor does for his.

It's really indisputable, though, that my marriage is a very intense 24/7 ministry -- to my wife, to my kids, and through my family to those around us.

[39. BDB said the following at 4:12 PM on Mar 3:]

39

This reminds me of something my pastor says from time to time. When people tell him, "My calling is to my family," he responds, "You don't understand what a calling is."

Indeed, I'm surprised to see marriage juxtaposed with missions. All the missions-oriented people I know are much more marriage-oriented. I think the experience of being called out of a comfortable middle-class existence in their own culture really makes them feel how alone they are in their calling. Many other cultures are much more marriage-oriented than middle class America.

Everyone I know who has a clear sense of what God is calling them to do wants to do it WITH someone, rather than alone. Especially if that calling takes them out of a comfy existence.

[40. Andrea-Elena said the following at 4:20 PM on Mar 3:]

40

NeedACatchyName:

Perhaps "no higher calling" is a way for us Christ-followers to remember that investing in a spouse and in children is a high calling, not only for what it means in the Kingdom but also for what it means for human society/civilization. Is marriage a higher calling than others? May or may not be. I agree with you -- it's not productive to try to quantify the callings and make comparisons-contrasts.

But... it is higher than the esteem it's given by many in the world today. And... I don't know that on earth... in the scheme of all human organizations, that there really is a higher calling. In what other way can a human being participate so closely in what God does.

Remember that creation came first. Before God was in the business of saving and redeeming, He was in the business of creating.

And it is the value He places on His created ones that dictates the importance of saving them.

Saving doesn't mean much if what is being rescued, protected, and preserved has little or no value.

[41. Mrs. Spit said the following at 4:25 PM on Mar 3:]

41

I have to confess, I was a bit perplexed. Marriage as a ministry? A sacrament - absolutely (if that's your type of theology, it happens to be mine)

But a ministry? And "perhaps the highest calling?" It seems to me that our highest calling is to lead lives that are pleasing to God.

Some of us will marry, some won't. Some will be blessed with children, some won't. Some will go and work in another country, doing explicitly Christian work. Some of us will glorify God in jobs that aren't explicitly Christian. That's not a ministry, that's our duty as Christians. It's what we are all called to do. Ministry strikes me as a more optional thing.

I'm always a bit surprised by articles like this. I think that most people will marry. I think that most people, where the option is open to them, should marry. But I don't know about calling it a ministry. I think being married well is a duty, not a vocation.

[42. Melissa said the following at 4:38 PM on Mar 3:]

42

Sara,

I also apologize for assuming you were a Christian. My above response to you was written under the assumption that you were (and you posted saying you werent in the time that I was writing my response).

Your viewpoint makes a lot more sense to me now that I know that you are not a Christian. I don't mean to say that it makes sense in that I am more likely to agree with it, but that I can better understand why you would have that viewpoint. If you don't believe in the God of the Bible, then why would you agree with what He says about children being blessings and such? I don't expect non-Christians to would have the same worldview as Christians. In fact, I would expect those worldviews to differ significantly. I know that my worldview was definitely a lot different before I was a believer than it is now.

I hope, though, by my post and by the posts of others you can better understand the worldview of what Christians believe about children, marriage, ministry. Since you're reading Boundless, I am assuming that you are seeking, and that you would like to have a faith that you can believe in. I'm praying that here on Boundless or wherever else you may also be seeking, that the Lord will show you that Truth and that you can come to know Him personally!

[43. Sara said the following at 4:40 PM on Mar 3:]

43

Ted,

There’s no conflict in my beliefs; I'm an athiest.

Fwiw, I used to be a very ‘devout’ Christian (though at the time I would definitely not have dared called myself devout!). I miss that, and I’m still very interested in everything ‘religious’, and I read the Bible a lot, and so on.

I think you’re asking if I’m being fake when I quote scripture.. not at all! I remember very vividly what it’s like to believe in scripture, and it’s nice to speak the ‘mother tongue’ again, now and then, to people who were like me. Also I care about whatever other topics come up along with the religious stuff—procreation, environmentalism, and so on—and I like talking about those things, too. I disagree with most things that are posted here, and that makes it more interesting, and makes me want to write back.

Andrea-Elena,

Your hypothetical questions… I wouldn’t create any sentient—or at least self-aware—beings at all. Not worth it. And I would make myself non-sentient, too, as soon as possible! I’m no Buddhist, but I totally get the appeal of ‘heaven’ being nothingness: appealing in comparison to this world, I mean. Not appealing as an ideal! In that way, it’s kind of depressing.

I don’t agree with the premises of the question, “What’s the purpose of life?”. I don’t think there’s any over-arching anything in the world, no ‘upper layer’ of meaning. Things just *are*.

[44. Andrea-Elena said the following at 4:46 PM on Mar 3:]

44

Mrs. Spit:

Ministry is not merely a vocation or a set of vocations.

Ministry is activity: administering God's grace. (Merriam-Webster shows one meaning of the word minister [verb form] to be "to furnish a benefit." Grace certainly is a benefit!)

Since every Christian is to apply grace to every situation, to every person, then every Christian is a minister... one who furnishes a benefit. (We are the conduit, not the creator, of grace, of course.)

Ministry takes many forms, one of which is marriage.

All of life can be ministry -- applying grace. And it should be.

Blessings! =)

[45. Matt from DC said the following at 5:01 PM on Mar 3:]

45

Sara,

I'm just curious, what happened to bring you from your original convictions to where you are now?

Also, what do you believe about God now? To be clear, I mean God who revealed Himself to humanity in the Bible.

I applaud your bravery for sharing part of your personal story in an internet forum like this.

[46. Andrea-Elena said the following at 5:07 PM on Mar 3:]

46

Sara,

If things just are, then why do human beings ask about the reasons for things... and argue, debate, even kill one another over the reasons for things?

Why isn't creating beings worth it?

Interesting... if heaven is nothingness, then how will you know that it is nothingness when you get "there"? And how could you enjoy it?

Hypothetically speaking, if heaven is nothingness and if nothingness is better than this world, then I wonder that more people don't commit suicide.

So... why would you want to be nonsentient? If you weren't sentient, you couldn't enjoy the difference between being sentient and not being sentient.

You seem to point toward a benefit that is not a benefit at all. It's nihilistic.

If you don't mind my asking (and of course, if you don't wish to reveal, that's OK; you're certainly free to keep your privacy in the matter).... Why did you reject Christianity? What brought you to believe that there is no god/God?

[47. Sara said the following at 5:07 PM on Mar 3:]

47

Melissa #36,

You point out that “the main cause of poverty isn’t overpopulation but oppressive governments and social hierarchies that prevent people from being able to access to their basic needs”, and mention how having more children could help put an end to social justices abroad, and also say, “what I am saying is that either way (whether married or single), there will always be challenges”

For those very reasons, I say, “enough is enough”:

There have been loving, intelligent, innovative, and dedicated humans on this earth for thousands of years. And yet, Hiroshima: 1945. Peace is not going to happen in this world. I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe in heaven, so I think people should stop procreating.

Rachael,

I can’t believe that you think people deserve *eternal* punishment for temporal acts! Or eternal damnation for their ancestors’ acts.

I can’t believe you’re not grieving for your belief in a God that would see fit to create a world where eternal damnation was even possible! Is this the height of his creative abilites? People say, “But with no pain there’d be no appreciation of pleasure”. That’s true in *this* world, but it wouldn’t be true if the designer had made a gentler world in the first place.

Giant leaps of faith in this area always strike me as sadly tacked-on, sort of, not glorious solutions to the problem. In the meantime, I'd choose not to worship this kind of god.

[48. Nathan said the following at 5:37 PM on Mar 3:]

48

I am the most important person in the universe. And by saying that I mean everyone is of equal importance because I didn't say someone was of lesser value than me.

C'mon. Aren't you guys supposed to be the ones with the better communication skills? Just own up that, "There is no higher calling than marriage," was poorly phrased and go on instead of defending the indefensible. I guess I can count it as you revealing your hand. At least I know what you really think of me, at least when you compare yourself to me. . .

[49. Jeremy said the following at 5:59 PM on Mar 3:]

49

Sara,

Your complaint seems to boil down to "if I were God, I would do things differently, therefore God is not good." That seems to me exactly backwards. If indeed there is a God (and there is ample evidence for his existence), then it would seem most appropriate for our driving motivation to be to conform ourselves to his nature and wishes. As "luck" would have it, we also have ample evidence for the veracity of Scripture, which reveals his nature and wishes.

What you are saying about the nature of God might be a valid complaint if Christians were inventing a notion of God which you wished to attack, but that is not our claim. Our claim is that God's nature exists independent of our own desires.

You think the existence of hell is unfair and extreme. You imagine you might do things differently if you were God. That is all well and good ... but you are not. I would urge you to examine your heart and attitudes towards God, because ultimately he does not need your approval, but you desperately need his.

[50. Ted Slater said the following at 6:44 PM on Mar 3:]

50

Nathan (#48) -- if you changed that to "I am the most important *human* in the universe" I might be more inclined to be convinced by your argument. Hm. But even that is an unbiblical perspective. We are not to "think of yourself more highly than you ought" (Romans 12:3). Indeed, it might be good to take on the attitude of Paul, who considered himself "the worst of sinners" (1 Tim. 1:16), or of Jesus Himself, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (Phil. 2:6).

FWIW, I don't so much care for the phrase, "There is no higher calling than marriage." That's not necessarily the way I'd put it. See my comments #3 and #38 for my "take" on this concept.

[51. Anne said the following at 6:54 PM on Mar 3:]

51

It seems like anymore all these articles on boundless are about if you are not married than you must be somehow sinning. Just because people now wait until they are a little more secure money wise is not a bad thing. Now I am not talking about delaying marriage for a long period of time. Personally, I think a marriage will have a better start if you are less worried about money. Also, does boundless understand how bad the economy is right now. People can not afford to get married, buy a house, and do all the other things couples could usually do. And then boundless has all these articles that mothers should not work outside the home, which there is nothing wrong with this, but it is just making people feel guilty who are working outside the home during this bad economy. Not to mention some women can balance outside work and family. Honestly, you are not anymore Christian if you pick one lifestyle or not. You can be a Christian, wait to get married to after you go to college or some other type of training, space out your children (and still consider them a blessing), and decide for yourself whether you want to work outside of the home or not. I thought boundless was supposed to be a Christian site directed towards living a Godly life. But, it seems like you make a formula for a good Christian to follow. This formula involves marrying young, not using forms of birth control, not waiting a couple of years to have children, homeschooling them, and working in the home. I have been very discouraged lately with the blog posts.

[52. Beth said the following at 7:22 PM on Mar 3:]

52

It hasn't been mentioned in this blog that people like Mr. Baucham believe that when two people gets married that a father passes the authority over to the groom. Sorry but this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Women are not a piece of property.

[53. Eric M. said the following at 7:23 PM on Mar 3:]

53

Sarah (43):

There may not be any conflict in your beliefs, but there would seem to be some in your statements. Perhaps I am misreading them. If this is the case, I beg your pardon and ask that you please be patient in correcting me. In comment 43 you state:

"I don’t think there’s any over-arching anything in the world, no ‘upper layer’ of meaning. Things just *are*."

If that is the case, I am curious as to why you are acting as though things in the Universe ought to be a certain way. In comment 12 you state:

"I CAN NOT GET OVER how much obstinacy or hard-heartedness is punished in the Bible! Don't get me wrong; I think those are terrible faults, but you'd think, say, a month of cruel torture would do it.

Nope! Murderers like David and Moses feel no pain after death; hard-hearted atheist aid workers get infinite years of torture. All because God created the world in such a way that 'justice' demands perfect atonement. What a way to create justice!"

You are implying by these statements that some standards exist whereby someone can judge or discern that obstinacy or hard-heartedness are "terrible faults" and that "torture" is a bad thing. In your previous posts you wish to alleviate suffering and wonder why people would not consider a god who allows suffering and hell to exist to be a "bad god." All of these value judgments require a set of values to exist.

To judge such diverse circumstances as the character and state of other people, the nature of justice and the character of God, these values, these ideas about how the world 'ought to be' must be over-arching. And yet you claim that no such over-arching principles exist. Now either they do, or they don't (or there is some sort of 'lower layer' of meaning which could be read into your statement about an 'upper layer' of meaning. I don't see how any layer of meaning can provide real meaning and not be over-arching to some degree. Otherwise it is merely a collection of words with associated feelings and implications, lacking content.)

If over-arching principles about how the world ought to be exist, then the question becomes similar to, though not exactly, what Andrea-Elena asked you. What is (are) your basis for these judgments and where do you derive it from?

If over-arching principles do not exist and things simply *are* then why care so much about changing them? Without these principles there is no basis for talk of 'terrible' or 'wrong' behavior, or 'justice' for that matter. Why get in a huff about it?

I would also add that it strikes me as insincere for you to use Scripture as though it had authority, when you don't actually believe that it does. I'm glad the memory of what it was like to believe in Scripture stays with you. That being said, in a forum of discussion, where at least part of the goal is to seek the truth, the two are not the same thing.

Then again, I may simply be in the wrong forum!

[54. farmer Tom said the following at 7:47 PM on Mar 3:]

54

Well,

thanks for being honest Sara,

but then, if you're the same Sara that I've tangled with before, I'm not surprised by your confession, ....

I wonder how long before you take your professed beliefs to their logical conclusion?

I also wonder how your parents feel about your anti theology? Do you suppose they wish they had never brought you into the world, or are they brokenhearted that their child has rejected the Creator God and His gift of eternal life through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Of course anyone who would reject the greatest act of love in history, Christ dying for the sins of mankind, will only have contempt for the love of someone so worthless and mundane as a parent. In fact it is a simple logical step from a general disregard for human life, to an active hatred for parents who brought you into this world.

"Better that I should never have been born" is that it?

Seems to me like you've forgotten an important Biblical truth Sara,

I John 4

7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

11Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

12No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

I love you Sara, but more importantly God loves you and to prove it, He sent Jesus Christ to the Cross of Calvary to prove it.

I'll be praying that you reconsider your professed position, after all, while you may not like the idea of eternal punishment, you said,

I can’t believe that you think people deserve *eternal* punishment for temporal acts! Or eternal damnation for their ancestors’ acts.

I would remind you that Scripture teaches that you have a free will, which enables you to criticize, disagree with or even hold contempt for the God of the Bible. But you'd better be right. Because, if you're wrong, then you face the very condemnation you are complaining about.

If Jesus Christ was a lunatic or a liar, and His life was a waste of time and space, then I still have had a good life before I die. If on the other hand, He was Lord of the Universe, and you are wrong, the consequences of your unbelief are too horrible to contemplate.

So if you're gonna be an atheist, you better be sure, because in the end we are all gonna find out.

[55. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 8:22 PM on Mar 3:]

55

Sara,

I am curious-- what is the origin or basis of the standards that you are using to evaluate the Biblical God? In an atheist system of ethics, aren't moral statements/questions of seeming outrage such as "How could a loving God do (insert action here)" merely a matter of personal taste or opinion? How could they be anything more?

[56. Nathan said the following at 8:59 PM on Mar 3:]

56

Well, if there is no higher calling than marriage, then the call to marriage must be either equal to or higher than Jesus call to die on the cross. Umm. . .

After we wrap this up, let's argue about who will be the greatest in the Kingdom of God.

[57. Candice Watters said the following at 9:15 PM on Mar 3:]

57

Don't shoot the messenger. "No higher calling" is Baucham's phrase. I just quoted his book, What He Must Be ... if he wants to marry my daughter.

[58. Sara said the following at 9:23 PM on Mar 3:]

58

Jeremy,

Any argument that you might have, I think, is 'guilty' of the same thing that mine is: everything boils down to an "I".

What if your friend believed in the Hindu gods? That wouldn't be sufficient for you to believe in them, of course. But what if your friend told you that it didn't matter what *your* beliefs and desires were; that you were looking at it all backwards: you had to focus on what *Braman* would have for you.

I doubt you'd feel 'stuck' in this case. You'd take the focus off of Braman and put it on your own proofs and experiences of the god *you* believe in. Notice you're not directly thinking of God here! You're thinking of *your own* beliefs. For example, the beliefs that God's nature exists independent of your own desires, and that we desperately need his approval, and so on.

You might better have said that you, not we, have "ample evidence for God's existence" and "ample evidence for the veracity of Scripture", because I definitely do not.

We have very different beliefs, but we both use the same method in coming to them. We ask something along the line of, 'what seems right to me?' It seems right to you that we should seek the will of God, not our own will. Or, it seems right to you that we don't choose God, God chooses us. There's no getting out of the "I" trap.

[59. Vanessa said the following at 9:42 PM on Mar 3:]

59

#29 - I agree with the author's statement about young people more interested in serving God without being married. Honestly, most of the people my age (29 and holding!) talk about marriage as something their parents did and they want to do eventually...but most of them are too busy having fun with roommates, getting degree after degree without really committing to anything, "hanging out" with friends. Then, they run in charity 5k races or volunteer at the church soup kitchen and claim that they're serving God better as a single than they could as a married person. Maybe that is the case, but mostly, I feel that it is selfish. People my age are notoriously selfish as a generalization. Everything is about "me me me me me." Then, we try to soothe our conscience by volunteering and say that makes it all better.

Honestly, I know only one unmarried man who has expressed an intense urge to get married. Most men I know *say* they want to get married, but never pursue a relationship past friendship with any woman. People my age ARE more likely to be super-involved in ministry or volunteerism...while shirking "grown up" lives by continuing to live like college-age kids - multiple roommates, housing several separate lives under one roof. Not wanting to take responsibility for anyone but themselves, they build up invisible walls of isolation. One of the things I hate most about roommates is the extreme separation of lives. We label all our food in the fridge or pantry (having our own shelves), we lock our doors, we don't share anything but space. It's so unrelational, but it is pseudo-relational. It's a poor imitation/substitution for a family.

I can't WAIT to get this book.

[60. Rachael said the following at 10:46 PM on Mar 3:]

60

Hi Sara,

I believe that people deserve eternal punishment because of for example, the verse that says: "for the wages of sin is death"

Do I like eternal damnation? No. But am I not going to believe in God because I don't like that? No.

Hey Sara,

I notice that you wrote: "I miss that, and I’m still very interested in everything ‘religious’, and I read the Bible a lot, and so on."

-->That's so cool you still (if you meant it in the present tense) read the Bible a lot.

If you miss your "Christian" days...does part of you long for that again but you feel you can't because you don't like who God is?

Or I suppose there's more to it than that.

I guess, if I 'decided' not to believe anymore, I think I'd wonder about the following:

What IF the Bible were true and I'll be eternally damned? That would be so scary!

I'd feel the loss is far greater to choose not to believe than to believe.

Could you try to put your feelings aside and approach the Bible as objectively as you can? I suppose it's impossible for us to ignore our feelings entirely, but maybe you could try to weigh the validity of the Bible as a whole, though I suppose maybe you have...

And another thing...think about the creation of the world, though perhaps you look at it through the lens of evolution as you feel you're an athiest now. But if you ever accept the notion of a creator...doesn't it make sense that that creator would want to be a personal being involved in people's lives? Wouldn't it make sense for that being to be perfect?

Anyway, I can't rationalize everything or argue with fine logical arguments but I just thought I'd mention those thoughts...

And, I've recently been reading (quickly) through Ezekiel. I don't understand everything in there, and haven't been trying to comprehend everything in there, but, I like 37:23b. And 36:26. And 34:15-16. And please note part of 33:11: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked"

God does not take pleasure from people's eternal damnation...

Do we understand all things of God? Of course not.

Think about Peter: "To whom else should we go?"

I was listening to a couple seconds of Horatius Bonar recently, or maybe I read it, but I think in his writing he was talking about turning to God in our sinful state.

I can't pretend to know you or your situation. But I do know what it's like to feel so far from God, I'd say 'sinful', but I don't want to accuse you of being so even though I believe we all are. I suppose you feel far from God as you feel you don't believe in God...

I'm really not trying to be mean but just sharing my thoughts...I think when we feel stuck in sin we can feel helpless. What do we do when we're at the bottom? What then? is there hope for us? Yeah, there is. In the Ezekiel 36:26 verse I mentioned above, it says: "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."

I feel like I have a heart of stone to some degree -- stuck in certain sins. Also recently my attention has been drawn to where Peter tells Jesus to "depart from me, for I am a sinful man" (in Luke 5:8). Peter said that! Even Peter didn't feel worthy! But a couple verses later, right after Jesus said to him, "Do not be afraid," he "left everything and followed him."

Anyway, I guess I'm hoping something here will help you, but in part I'm repreaching to myself. I really can feel dead in my sin, helpless. But it's in those moments I should really come to God.

John 5:39-40 is so interesting: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

Very fascinating to me, maybe because I feel I've recently been kind-of speed soaking the Word while neglecting to give God my heart and be open to His transforming power...

Anyway I'm rambling, but in short I'd like to say that if you ever find yourself in time of despair and long for God again, don't be afraid to go back, as. you. are....

[61. Kelly said the following at 1:23 AM on Mar 4:]

61

Sara said:

"by having kids you'd be putting another human being at risk of eternal suffering. "

Wow. This really hit me hard. Sara, a lot of what you say are things I truly struggle with and I appreciate you bringing them up in discussion.

One thing that has been said to me is that "hell" is more accurately "separation from God", which in itself is torturous. I tend to hope that the Biblical descriptions of hell are an attempt to illustrate what that separation is like, rather than people actually being burned for eternity.

Either way, it does my head in, that God could allow one of his children to be in pain forever. And it breaks my heart knowing that some of my friends will end up in that state.

[62. Charlotte C. said the following at 6:29 AM on Mar 4:]

62

Seems like an interesting book.....

There are so many Christian books I haven't read that seem interesting. I hope this review is enjoyable.. I'll be waiting :D

[63. Ashley Harris said the following at 8:50 AM on Mar 4:]

63

Anne,

Did you read yesterday's article, Suzanne's blog post, or any of Ted's comments?

[64. Tami said the following at 9:43 AM on Mar 4:]

64

Candice, thanks for dialoging with us. :)

Baucham *does* add the word "perhaps" before stating there may be "no higher calling," which makes the statement a little more open and less conclusive.

I am definitely not arguing that marriage is not a high call. But a definitive statement that there is no higher calling -- when the Bible clearly states that our ultimate aim is to look at Christ and follow whatever path He's laid out for us -- and that many of us would like to *follow* that call to marriage but aren't there (and who knows, may not be?) -- is what people are tripping over and/or finding discouraging.

[65. Jeremy said the following at 10:08 AM on Mar 4:]

65

Sara,

"We have very different beliefs, but we both use the same method in coming to them. We ask something along the line of, 'what seems right to me?'"

I agree with the essence of what you are saying, although the way that is phrased comes off a bit relativistic. We do each need to examine the evidence and suitability of belief systems in order to try to align ourselves as closely as possible with reality. And if indeed your dispute lies more with the evidence for the truth of Christianity than with the nature of the God we preach, then that is a different discussion.

But based on my experience with people and also your previous comments here, it doesn't seem like that is true. It seems like the Christian claims about God himself and the responsibility that would lay on your shoulders are what bothers you. That is certainly something valid to talk about, but the point I was trying to emphasize is that ultimately, if the Christian belief system is true, in a significant sense it does not really matter if we don't like or don't approve of God, and that attitude is one we should strive to change -- to bring more in line with reality, if you will.

[66. Matt from DC said the following at 10:11 AM on Mar 4:]

66

Kelly,

The doctrine of Hell is a hard one to swallow. The Bible is clear enough about what it is though. Here is something from Isaiah 66: "As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure. 23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the LORD. 24 "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."

Also, from Revelation 20:15: "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

Hell is described as a lake of unquenchable fire for those who do not believe.

All are not children of God. Only those who believe. John 1:12 "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God".

Warn your friends. Warn your family. If they die apart from Christ or if Christ returns to gather His own they will be judged for their sin by the Righteous One.

[67. Sara said the following at 10:13 AM on Mar 4:]

67

Eric 53,

My statements don’t act as if I believe that the universe should be a different way, they either refer to how I think the way a hypothetical Christian who already believes in universal morality should maybe think differently, or they refer to my own moral beliefs, which are ‘conventional’. I mean conventional technically, as in, humans make and agree to strive towards moral conventions because it suits their needs (eg, reducing global pain and such). I don’t know if I think there’s some kind of non-material moral realm yet, fwiw.

Do you want me to quote Scripture less? It’s no less my book than yours!! I know what you mean—you don’t want me to give my arguments fake sway by quoting it like I believe it. I think I'm being pretty up front. It's habit to "just quote the Bible", especially when I'm talking to Christians. I quote the Bible occasionally in 'real life', and non-Christians don't take it like I've converted!

Farmer Tom 53,

-My parents aren’t Christian (I “got it” from a grandparent), but they feel bad for me that I’ve ‘lost my faith’. My Dad thinks I ought to ‘just believe’ even if it’s intellectually repugnant to me.

"Better that I should never have been born" is that it?” -–absolutely. I’m sorry I feel that way.

-I’m not rejecting any great act of love that I believe actually happened

- I haven’t ‘forgotten’ 1 John; it’s ‘lovely’ (sorry for the triviality), but I don’t believe it’s basis.

-the ‘Pascal’s wager’ thing applies equally to you, if you ‘risk’ rejecting Allah, Judaism, &c.

[68. dana111 said the following at 11:12 AM on Mar 4:]

68

To Sara,

My heart hurts for you. Do you truly believe it would have been better for you not to have been born? I pray that you find your worth in the love of Jesus Christ. You are fearfully and wonderfully made, and God loves you with an undying, everlasting love. He loved you enough to send His Son to die on the Cross for your sins. If you turn to Him, He promises to never leave you or forsake you. He knows everything about you- your hopes, your fears, your anger, your love, your past, your present, and your future. He wants you to be with Him for eternity, and He has blessed you with the opportunity to hear from all of the witnesses on this blog. I pray that you keep returning to this site, and that you read the comments and the posts about Jesus Christ and see His love for you.

Yes, Hell is real. And yes, "good" people do go to Hell for their sins. We ALL deserve to burn in Hell for eternity for our sinful nature. Yet, even in the midst of a sinful, broken world, Jesus came down, died, and rose again. And God still speaks.

Bless you!

[69. Texas Craig said the following at 12:25 PM on Mar 4:]

69

Sara:

Your position seems somewhat ironic to me. On the one hand, you express a rejection of God, in part, because it appears you believe that a kind, loving God would not be so random and arbitrary with allowing suffering, injustice, etc. in the world. But, by rejecting God, you are accepting a world that is even more unjust than the one the Christian believes in. In essence, the Christian knows that God will judge injustice and wipe away every tear in the end. On the other hand, in your view, there is no ultimate justice or joy -- hence the world as you see it is even more bleak and unjust than the one where a righteous God will correct things at the end. That, to me, seems ironic.

It is my prayer that you will know the One who made you, and will have the assurance that He is just and loving--even when we cannot put together all that happens in this life. For, like Paul, I can genuinely say that I know Him in whom I have believed - and He is good.

[70. Candice Watters said the following at 2:26 PM on Mar 4:]

70

Beth (52), why do you equate authority with property? President Obama is my political authority at present, but I am NOT his property! Just curious.

[71. Beth said the following at 2:44 PM on Mar 4:]

71

I meant by the commit that Baucham's view that women should go from the authority of their father to the authority of their husband that it sounds like what people used to think when women had dowries. The usage of the words like tranfer of authority do sound like the women is being considered a piece of property. It seems like more people are considered about a husband's authority than a president's authority however.

[72. Sara said the following at 3:47 PM on Mar 4:]

72

Hi Christopher,

Right, my bases are things like reason and personal taste and experience, connected to things like not wanting to feel pain and survival and social drives and so on… that’s all I think anyone has. Those are powerful things, though, because no matter how a person arrives at a conclusion, if they act on it, that can be important and powerful.

Hi Rachael,

I remember what it’s like to feel far from God, and separated from him because of sin. Perhaps interestingly, atheism feels nothing like that! It’s like me asking you if you feel far from Zeus: it doesn’t ring any emotional chord in you at all (apart from nostalgia maybe, if you used to worship him)

Yes, as you graciously suppose, there’s more to why I don’t believe that just the fact I don’t like the idea of eternal punishment for non-eternal acts—the eternal punishment thing just happens to be what we’ve been talking about in this thread.

You ask, “What IF the Bible were true and I'll be eternally damned? That would be so scary! I'd feel the loss is far greater to choose not to believe than to believe.” As I wrote above, the same argument could be made for risking being non-Hindi, non-Muslim, or whatever.

Those are great verses, especially the Ezekiel and Luke ones; they bring back strong memories.

Ezekiel 36, “I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh”, used to be the kind of loving and refreshing verse I’d delight in finding—it reminds me a bit of the Wizard of Oz.

I have to say--perhaps harshly--that looking back, I think some of my own tormenting over my stony-heartedness was a bit self-indulgent. How would you react if someone said, “Well, you can’t be *too* stony-hearted if you’re that sensitive to your own sins, and if you care so much about righteousness!” If you don’t humbly agree, but choose to keep groveling in the dirt, isn’t that a little self-indulgent? I’m Bible-quoting out of context again, but it makes me think something like, for goodness’ sake, you’ve been healed: Arise and walk!

Luke 5:8, where Peter tells Jesus to “depart from me, for I am a sinful man”… Wow, isn’t that the human condition in a nutshell, in a lot of ways! When what’s best for us is right before our eyes, free for the taking, yet we’re still so hung up on ourselves that we can’t just reach out and take it! (I know, from your perspective, it’ll seem very ironic for me to write something like that…)

That John 5:39-40 one reminds me of times I’d feel convicted over being too intellectual about things… I always had trouble feeling personally connected to God, and sometimes wondered if my interest in academics and Bible study was a distraction from the Devil. [Ha, this is how long it’s been… I forget if Christians typically capitalize ‘devil’ or not.]

[73. Sara said the following at 4:21 PM on Mar 4:]

73

Jeremy,

“It seems like the Christian claims about God himself and the responsibility that would lay on your shoulders are what bothers you [more than] the evidence for the truth of Christianity”

I’d definitely say that misrepresents me. It would be a whole other conversation, but if I had to make a short list of the ‘real’ reasons I reject Christianity, it would include things under the headings of psychology, redaction criticism, world religions, I guess. I’m also sympathetic to the psychoanalytic notion that our reasoning tends to just fall in line with what we desire to believe.

Dana111,

I remember feeling just how you do… I remember listening to a Nirvana song and actually crying because Kurt’s “Come as you are” song was SO close to the hymn “Just As I Am”, except that it lacked Jesus! It upset me because he was already dead at the time, and I thought, If he’d only heard the Word! Also, he had that song “Jesus don’t want me for a sunbeam”, and the mocking song “Lake of Fire”, and those songs broke my heart too because I saw a definite interest there, but it was too late.

It’s a little awkward reading what you wrote. How would you react to, say, an old-school Catholic nun crying over your soul? I guess you'd feel a bit of pity for her, a bit puzzled, and then you'd remember what *you* believe.

Texas Craig,

I think you’ve got me a bit wrong, fwiw: Those aren’t the reasons I reject God—they’re just what we’ve happened to be talking about. And in rejecting God, I don’t accept the world: I think it would be wrong of me to bring more kids into the world. True, I haven’t ‘checked out’, but that’s just because I think it’s wrong to hurt other people, and because I’ve got a stubborn will to live that I blame on evolution.

For me personally, I would say that my philosophy is more bleak than how my actual life plays out! It’s just that I can’t rejoice in my own happiness and freedom unless EVERYONE on Earth can be happy and free. It’s like, imagine you were eating an ice cream cone while standing next to a guy who’d just got his hand caught in a lawnmower blade. You’d have to be in denial to enjoy the ice cream. Or something like that.

[74. Andrea-Elena said the following at 4:55 PM on Mar 4:]

74

Sara,

No, it wouldn't be in denial to still enjoy ice cream. It would be ignoring the man's pain if you didn't throw down the ice cream and go to help him. Someone else's pain doesn't negate my pleasure... merely just means that I am to lay down my temporary pleasure for another's good. But I have the belief that all human beings have worth (b/c God made them and He says they have worth...they are worth something to Him), so another's life, when in jeopardy or in hurt, is worthy, to me, of my care, concern, help, intervention, whatever.

But what tells another person to feel the same way you do about the hierarchy of pleasures and pain as you describe? I mean, some people's highest pleasures come from inflicting pain on others (ahem, Hitler and his minions). Where does one draw the line?

So... how are you going to help EVERYONE in the world be happy and free? Especially if one person/group's idea of being happy and free just so happens to infringe or even take away from another's happiness and freedom?

I agree with the others that you are appealing to a set of standards that have no actual basis. And "they just are" is not a basis.

So... evolution is what keeps you willing yourself to live -- to do what?? Doesn't evolution still include the idea that the strongest go on to survive, thrive, and reproduce?

[75. Rachael said the following at 6:03 PM on Mar 4:]

75

Sara,

You wrote: "but choose to keep groveling in the dirt, isn’t that a little self-indulgent? I’m Bible-quoting out of context again, but it makes me think something like, for goodness’ sake, you’ve been healed: Arise and walk!"

I like that: "Arise and walk!" It's easy to forget the having been healed part and how God has the power to heal again and again. I do believe groveling in the dirt is self-indulgent. But it's easy to do.

Regardless of my feelings, though, I believe the Bible is true, and it frames the way I look at life and the world. Every single moment, in practice? No. I would like it to be, but I often look through my own "near sighted glasses", so to speak, instead of the eternal lens through which I long to look. Still, though, that lens is there even if I don't pick it up each and every moment.

I like having those sturdy glasses that won't break no matter how many times I drop them to the ground...

But it's not a matter of 'like'. It's a matter of, what do I believe is true? I believe the Bible is true, and in the Bible it shows Jesus as the only Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one can come to the Father except through Him.

[76. Leah said the following at 6:56 PM on Mar 4:]

76

Sara- I'm not sure why you're even bothering to comment here. You don't share our worldview, so I don't see what on earth you think you're going to achieve. We have different opinions on what will happen to us in eternity, so of course our opinions on how to live while we're on earth will differ.

God made a perfect world with humans who had the ability to make their own choices. We have chosen wrongly. Would you rather God created us to be robots who automatically followed his will? That's like programming your friends to like you. Would you really want to be friends with someone, knowing they're not your friend by choice but because you've forced them to be?

And would you really prefer heaven to be "nothingness" rather than a perfect world where you can enjoy God and other people for the rest of eternity?

Re the OP: Great post, really great. People need to understand marriage is a ministry. I have problems with people who say they make sacrifices within their marriage or family to support the father/mother in their "ministry". (eg. a father taking a non-paying ministry job, forcing the mother into taking a fulltime job to support the family). I feel the bible says that your marriage and your family is your #1 ministry (if you're married with a family!) Other "ministries" should be sacrificed before this one, your most important.

NB: I am not commenting on whether marriage is *the* most important ministry. It certainly isn't *the* most important for everybody. Not everyone will be married, and that's how God intended it. This doesn't make their ministries less important. Different people have different ministries. Eg, a man can never be a women's ministry leader, so it will never be his #1 priority, however for a middle-aged single woman it might be. In the same way, not everyone will get married, so marriage will not be the #1 ministry for all people. However, I do believe the bible says that for people who do choose marriage, it is their #1 ministry.

megan (29) - I don't see your problem with the article. Baucham is not saying "not getting married" = "not growing up". He's saying that many of the young people he's come in contact with really want to "serve" but don't want to do several things to achieve that: among those several things is getting married and growing up. And he certainly never said that's what ALL young people are like. If I said "I've come across many young people who left the church, citing a lack of unity within their church", does that mean ALL young people have left the church and ALL churches don't have unity? No.

[77. Adam said the following at 8:11 PM on Mar 4:]

77

Sara,

Right, my bases are things like reason and personal taste and experience, connected to things like not wanting to feel pain and survival and social drives and so on… that’s all I think anyone has. Those are powerful things, though, because no matter how a person arrives at a conclusion, if they act on it, that can be important and powerful.

Anyone has this? The fact of the matter is that what many homosexuals do is extremely painful. Yet, they desire it. I remember reading about a man who paid a cannible to kill him and eat his body. There are several virgins who belong to satanic cults that desire to be sacrificed to Satan. Even something as common as someone who is willing to fall on a grenade in order to save their fellow soldier is someone who is willing to experience pain.

Furthermore, what would happen if tomorrow everyone wanted to feel pain, and did not want to survive? Would that mean that all of the sudden murder would be acceptable? You see, given your standards of morality on the basis of personal taste, even if everyone holds them today, the fact that people could change tomorrow means that there is not some unchanging standard for morality.

Even worse is the fact that there are many times in society where we believe that we must cause pain. It might hurt a child to go get his basic shots, but does that mean that we should not get him his basic shots just because it might hurt him? We also agree that a policeman should be able to wound a criminal with his gun in order to stop and attempted robbery.

You say that you think everyone has these feelings. Does a child in the womb have these feelings? Do you believe that it is wrong to cause pain to a child in the womb?

You see, morality cannot be derived from our own personal tastes, experiences, or social drives because we do not all have the same tastes, experiences or social drives. The question then becomes as to why we should uphold your tastes over the tastes of anyone else I have mentioned in this post.

I don’t agree with the premises of the question, “What’s the purpose of life?”. I don’t think there’s any over-arching anything in the world, no ‘upper layer’ of meaning. Things just *are*.

Sara, but the problem is, when you take this "brute facts" approach to the world, then you have to admit that all of your reasoning ends up being irrational at base. You get to a certain point in your reasoning, and they you say "it is just that way." Let me ask you how you would like it if I said, "God exists, and the scriptures are inerrant, and it is just this way." At least when I get to God, I can submit my mind to his mind, and he tells me what I need to know about the world through his infinite knowledge of the world. However, when you get to the bottom of your reasoning, and you are just left with these brute facts, how can you avoid mixing irrational thinking with rational thinking, and thus, ending up in a self-contradiction?

God Bless,
Adam

[78. Bethany Pledge Erickson said the following at 12:19 AM on Mar 5:]

78

Candice,

So "No Higher Calling" is not a Candice Watter original. Ted Slater wouldn't put it that way. Thanks, but someone chose it for the title of the post. Would someone please just take responsibility and apologize for the unfortunate phrase?

[79. Theo K said the following at 3:49 AM on Mar 5:]

79

Sara,

The only thing that should concern you regarding Christianity is to try to discern the truth of the gospel. “Gospel”, as I am sure you already know, means Good News. It has to do with historic facts. And a concise definition of these historic events can be found here:

“Now I declare to you, brothers, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.” 1 Corinthians 15:1-18

If the Gospel is the truth, if Christ was indeed raised from the dead, everything else is absolutely and completely irrelevant. This is it. It either happened or it didn’t. If it did, it changes everything. If it didn’t, well then, no need to bother, really!

Indeed, that is exactly what Apostle Paul is teaching:

If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain. 15 Yes, we are found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn’t raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead aren’t raised, neither has Christ been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. 18 Then they also who are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable. 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruits of those who are asleep.” 1 Corinthians 15:14-20

No resurrection equals no Christianity. As simple as that. And the most critical question that you have to answer for yourself is this:

“Who do you say that I am?” Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:15

He predicted his death and resurrection. He was either a liar, a fool, or He was telling the truth and His resurrection is the great proof that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. You either hate Jesus Christ or fall at His feet and worship Him. No other choice is left open.

Simon Peter gave the right answer, and he now enjoys eternal life, savoring the glory of Jesus Christ for ever, in unspeakable, endless joy. To him, indeed the Gospel is GOOD news:

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16.

Choose wisely. Choose Life:
“The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who disobeys the Son won’t see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” Gospel of John 3:36

[80. Ted Slater said the following at 8:55 AM on Mar 5:]

80

Bethany Pledge Erickson (#78) -- again, let me implore you to read what I've written in comment #3 and in comment #38. I've hyperlinked them so all you have to do is *click*.

It really feels like you're reluctant to reevaluate your initial (mis)interpretation of what we've said, that you prefer some caricature of Boundless, rather than wrestle with the balanced, radical, counter-cultural messages we promote.

Yes, I would not have used the phrase "No Higher Call" as the title for this post if I had written it, because I'm come to see that too many people could (and do) easily misinterpret that to mean something we're not saying. I probably would have gone with something more like "Family is no less a ministry opportunity than church" or "Priest of the home is no less a calling than pastor of a church." Of course, those titles are a bit clumsy, and not direct quotes from the author of the book being discussed.

[81. Sara said the following at 1:20 PM on Mar 5:]

81

Just responding to Theo K,

Once and for all, the C.S. Lewis "Liar and fool/Saviour of the world" false dichotomy has got to go!

A third option is so simple: the gospel writers were fully aware of OT writings, and of course knew about Jesus' death and believed that he'd been resurrected (just as other Messiah claimants' followers believed in *their* resurrections), and they wrote the story of the Jesus they believed in to fit those prophecies.

(By tradition, Greco-Roman biographies--which the gospels strongly resemble--weren't written journalistically but rather with the aim of capturing the essence of a person often through made-up but true-to-character stories. (I'm getting this from books about ancient literary genres.))

You might say something about how the early disciples' martyrdom proves their belief. Sure it proves their belief, but it doesn't prove the basis of that belief. In the modern world, similarly, you aren't convinced by mass cult suicides or by radical Islamic suicide bombers.

"You either hate Jesus Christ or fall at His feet and worship Him. No other choice is left open."

Lots of options are left open: indifference, curiosity, academic study, pleasure reading, etc. etc. etc.

[82. Ashley Harris said the following at 2:13 PM on Mar 5:]

82

Sara,

I'm curious what/if any apologetics books you read before you decided you were an atheist. Chesterton? The Universe Next Door? Case for Christ?

[83. Sara said the following at 3:06 PM on Mar 5:]

83

Ya, I used to read some of those...Case for Christ, Orthodoxy, Only a Carpenter, [had to google this one] That's Just Your Interpretation by Paul Copan, a lot of CS Lewis, I forget what others... I didn't really like apologetics books because I thought they downplayed the importance of faith and of how God chooses us not, the other way around.

[84. Texas Craig said the following at 3:33 PM on Mar 5:]

84

Sara (#83) wrote:

"I didn't really like apologetics books because I thought they downplayed the importance of faith and of how God chooses us not, the other way around."

Can you explain that? At first glance, it appears you are saying that they downplay predestination and that bothered you, which would be an odd comment from a non-believer.

BTW, many Christians do not believe in predestination of all believers, so that is really a debatable issue within orthodoxy. Some believe it, others believe in free will. Regardless, I am just curious about what you were saying there.

[85. Sara said the following at 6:05 PM on Mar 5:]

85

Texas Craig, I was talking about what I thought of apologetics when I was still a Christian.

Adam,

In short, there's no need for an unchanging standard of morality. Look at the legal system over the years: laws change because our opinions change, and there's conflict, but basically it still functions. We CAN decide to act on beliefs even if they aren't rock-solid. Even if morality is relative, we can--and do--act provisionally. I agree that the certainty that comes with believing in God is a lot less unsettling.

Leah,

The more different people's worldviews are, the more they should talk. Echo chambers are boring.

God's only 2 choices were making us--rational humans--, or making pre-programmed robots? That's putting a huge limit on God!

An eternity in paradise, and nothingness, both seem like OK options to me. I don't believe in heaven though.

Andrea-Elena,

Of course I'm not going to help everyone, and of course, even if I tried, my idea of 'help' might not match up with theirs.

The basis of my standards is just "it makes sense to me". I think that's the basis of your standards, too. Christianity feels right for you, or, it seems right to you that God chose you and that you're able to feel the Holy Spirit.

Not all evolved creatures "survive, thrive, and reproduce". 'Evolution' isn't a life plan, it's a description of what sometimes happens.

[86. Kelly said the following at 6:33 PM on Mar 5:]

86

Just wanted to say thanks to Matt from DC for your response. :)

[87. Theo K said the following at 3:05 AM on Mar 6:]

87

Sara,

You are missing the point.

The point is that the historic event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ either happened, or it didn’t. I am convinced that it did. And the challenge for you is to try to discern the truth of the Gospel. Failure to do so, (I am convinced) will lead to your eternal ruin.

So it all has to do with what *you* think about Jesus Christ. He clearly affirmed His deity. He again and again foretold His death and resurrection. You will be held responsible for rejecting His claims (if what He said is true, obviously).

Basically what you said is that Jesus’ disciples made it all up. So they are either fools or liars. But their written testimony does not allow anyone to honestly accuse them as either fools or liars. This is just wishful thinking from those who hate the light and want to remain in the darkness.

Have a careful look at the following links. I do wish and pray that God will open your eyes to the incredible beauty, majesty, eternal glory of Jesus Christ. The savoring of His glory is the only thing that can deeply and truly satisfy every heart’s longings and desires.

Eight Reasons Why I Believe That Jesus Rose from the Dead – John Piper

http://operation513.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-there-historical-evidence-for.html "> Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? This points to:
http://www.operation513.com/audio/apologetics/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf ">William Lane Craig vs Dr. Bart D. Ehrman Debate

Evidence for the Resurrection – Josh McDowell

[88. Sara said the following at 9:55 AM on Mar 6:]

88

Theo K,

“basically you said that Jesus’ disciples made it all up. So they are either fools or liars”

I don’t agree with that. My best guess is that they believed in Jesus’ resurrection, and they believed that he was the Messiah. They weren’t eyewitnesses, though, and they wrote their biographies of Jesus to fit with the prophecies, and to fit with their ideas of what the Messiah must certainly have been like.

Even the gospel writers themselves don’t claim to be eyewitnesses. Luke 1:1-2, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.”

Saying 'eyewitnesses' already assumes that the resurrection is true. It's better to ask "did they *think* they were eyewitnesses to a resurrection. But:

Josh McDowell’s most ridiculous assumption is that, if people who were alive at the time of Jesus’ death believed in the resurrection, and were willing to die for it, then the resurrection must be a historical fact. That makes no sense. Islamic extremists are plenty willing to die for their beliefs. Does that say ANYTHING about the truth of those beliefs? No.

Briefly put, I think all of Josh McDowell’s arguments rest on false premises. For example, he assumes that the NT writers’ motives were journalistic, and he also assumes they were direct eyewitnesses. I don’t. He also assumes that history can determine miraculous facts, even though history deals strictly with the material. And he bases his other arguments on the ‘facts’ of the tomb being empty, the stone being moved, etc. That’s circular. You have to already believe that the NT is accurate to believe that.

I’ve read the debate between Craig and Ehrman, and I think Ehrman made the stronger case. I’m assuming you think Craig made the stronger case.

[89. Adam said the following at 1:04 PM on Mar 6:]

89

Sara,

Islamic extremists are plenty willing to die for their beliefs. Does that say ANYTHING about the truth of those beliefs? No.

The difference is the fact that the disciples themselves would have had to have made it up. The Muslim extremists did not create Islam. They are not the first ones to profess that Islam is true, nor the last. However, according to you, these disciples claimed that they saw, touched, and ate dinner with the resurrected Jesus, but were only lying about it, and then, apparently, went out and were willing to die for something that they knew they had made up on the spot. That doesn't make any sense.

Now, I don't necessarily agree that the resurrection argument is a good argument. I mean, one could just as easily say that the resurrection of Jesus is one of those wierd things that happens in this world, and that some day we will have a naturalistic explaination for why it is that sometimes dead corpses rise from the grave. Hence, it is really the issue of naturalism vs. supernaturalism. That is why I would rather recommend the following website of Sye TenBruggencate:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

The real problem is that the atheistic and naturalistic history of an Ehrman or any other person who assumes a naturalistic view of history cannot account for even the absolute truth that they need to do their scholarship. That is the real issue, and issue of presuppositions.

God Bless,
Adam

[90. Theo K said the following at 6:40 AM on Mar 9:]

90

Sara,

The disciples (John, Peter etc) claimed to be eye-witnesses. So if you don’t agree with them you are calling them liars. Just mentioning this to make sure we are on the same page.

2 Peter: 1:16-22 : Peter claims to be an eye-witness of the transfiguration.
1 John: John claimed to have seen and touched the Word:

“That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we saw, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life 2 (and the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us); 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us. Yes, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 And we write these things to you, that our joy may be fulfilled.” – 1 John 1:1-4

Concerning the events of the crucifixion and the resurrection, John claims to be an eye-witness to:

1) the crucifixion
2) the discovery of the empty tomb
3) Jesus’ post-mortem appearances

“However one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 He who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, that you may believe.” John 19:34-35
“They both ran together. The other disciple outran Peter, and came to the tomb first.
5 Stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths lying, yet he didn’t enter in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the cloth that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So then the other disciple who came first to the tomb also entered in, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they didn’t know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” John 20:4-9

“Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Don’t be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.” 30 Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:27-31

The gospels are historical documents and this is how their authors demand that they be read. So, either the authors are telling the truth and are in fact eye-witnesses, or they are liars.

Concerning the debate,

Graig summarized the historical FACTS that he wanted to evaluate as follows:
“there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of scholars: Jesus’ burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.” (page 7)

And even Ehrman himself didn’t really dispute these facts:
“And in fact Dr. Ehrman has himself come to re-think his position on these issues. Inconsistencies in the details notwithstanding, he now recognizes that we have “solid traditions,” not only for Jesus’ burial, but also for the women’s discovery of the empty tomb, and therefore, he says, we can conclude with “some certainty” that Jesus was in fact buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb and that three days later the tomb was found empty” (page 7)

So the rest of Graig’s effort was to provide the best explanation of these facts. And to anyone who is able to get rid of his/her bias against the supernatural the best explanation, the only explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

Quoting Graig again: “This, of course, was the explanation that the eyewitnesses themselves gave, and I can think of no better explanation. The Resurrection Hypothesis passes all of the standard criteria for being the best explanation, such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth. Of course, down through history various alternative naturalistic explanations of the resurrection have been proposed, such as the Conspiracy Hypothesis, the Apparent Death Hypothesis, the Hallucination Hypothesis, and so on. In the judgment of contemporary scholarship, however, none of these naturalistic hypotheses has managed to provide a plausible explanation of the facts. Nor does Dr. Ehrman support any of these naturalistic explanations of the facts.” (Page 8)

Ehrman does not accept the resurrection as the best explanation because the resurrection is a miracle, and Ehrman denies the possibility of establishing a miracle. As simple as that.

So if you think that Ehrman made the better case, this is because you share with him the same presuppositional bias against the supernatural. I don’t know what events in your life established and reinforced this bias. I just hope that at least you will come to a point that you will see you have this bias and don’t go on thinking that you are “objectively evaluating evidence”.

I know that you won’t like what I am about to say, but the truth is that the reason people don’t believe is not because of lack of evidence. The issue isn’t intellectual. The problem is moral. As Jesus said:
“For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.
19 This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed.” John 3:17-20

I do hope that God will open your eyes to see the glory of Christ in the Gospel. And then you will stop hating the light. Then it will be true for you as well the saying of Jesus:
“But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God.” John 3:21

[91. farmer Tom said the following at 12:14 PM on Mar 9:]

91

90. Theo K,

Atta Boy!!! Bravo!!!! Encore!!!

AMEN

Sara I prayed all weekend about what to say to you and had no peace about writing anything.

Theo K has nailed it, hit a grand slam.

The person and work of Jesus Christ rises or falls on one and one thing only. His bodily Resurrection.

Either Christianity is true, or your other option is to prove it false, and that is very simple. Produce the body. Where's the body today Sara? Those who claim Christianity is false have had two thousand years to come up with the body. Why do you want to believe that the Resurrection is not real, when the evidence clearly points to an event so shocking and amazing that it changed the course of the world from that day forward?

Spineless cowards like Peter were willing to be crucified upside down rather than recount his declaration that Jesus of Nazareth had risen from the dead. Acts 2:32

32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

You are a smart young lady Sara, but either you are wrong or Peter is? Are you really willing to say that you know more about the events surrounding the life and times of Jesus Christ, than the Apostle Peter who spent 3 years of his life with Jesus? Are you so sure of your own knowledge about the events in and around Jerusalem on or about the time of one A.D. that you can reject as lies the accounts of eyewitnesses to those events?

[92. Sara said the following at 7:03 PM on Mar 9:]

92

Adam, Theo K, farmer Tom,

My arguments were written under the assumption that the gospels were written by the disciples, because that’s what a lot of [non-historian] Christians believe. Personally, I don’t believe that any of the NT was written by Jesus’ apostles; instead I think the gospel writers composed their books entirely from other written sources and from stories that were going around at the time. At the very least, the titles like ‘Matthew’ and ‘Mark’ weren’t added until around 300 AD, and they weren't written until after decades after Jesus' death.

Even many conservative scholars don't believe, for example, that Paul wrote all of the Gospels that carry his name, or that 'Matthew' and 'John' were the same Matthew and John who knew Jesus. For some examples online, try picking a book of the Bible, and looking up different discussions about its authorship; it gets really involved and it's very interesting.

Anyway for these reasons, questions about whether the Gospel writers were 'liars' for calling themselves eyewitnesses don't apply for me.

Adam,

Why do you think that atheists need an account of absolute truth to do their scholarship? Can’t they use a conventionalist logic or something else as a base? If you’re refering to total skepticism, where the response to every single assertion—religious or otherwise--is “why?”, all the way to infinity, then I’d agree that you’re right, there’s no solid base for any belief. Skepticism isn’t productive for explaining much else of anything, though.

Theo K

Concerning the debate, and the Christian summary of the debate:

I still don’t get why you and the summary writer are calling Jesus’ post-mortem appearances and so on ‘historical facts’? We’ve got some gospels and epistles written decades after Jesus’ death, and one Jewish historian’s records about Christians. That’s hardly enough proof to call a resurrection a ‘historical fact’, although I do agree that we’ve got as much evidence for Jesus’ death, at least, as we have for lots of other historical events. I find it strange that the longest account of the empty tomb is found in the newest gospel, the gospel of John! Also, an obvious point: if it was just women who saw the empty tomb, then obviously the person writing about it wasn’t there.

-You’re wrong that Erhman “doesn’t dispute these facts”. What he doesn’t dispute is the *tradition of believing* these facts. I mean, I, too, agree that there are ‘solid traditions’ of believing in the resurrection. I don’t believe that traditions are necessarily based on truths, though.

I very much agree with you about people having biases against or towards believing in supernatural events, and that a lot of that isn’t a matter of intellect. You say, “The issue isn’t intellectual. The problem is moral”, but then you go on to quote John. Again, believing that the gospels are authorities IS an intellectual issue, else you wouldn’t be able to defend you’re belief in it against belief in the Quran or other sacred writings. Even the ideas behind the saying “It isn’t intellect, it’s all about being chosen by God: it’s all His doing, not mine” come from Scriptures that you believe in for some *reason*.

Farmer Tom,

Produce the body? Neither of us have any way of knowing what happened to it. I could just as easily ask you to produce a VHS tape of Jesus’ assumption into Heaven.

I think it’s impossible to prove that Christianity is false, just as it’s impossible to prove that there isn’t a God. The fact that Christianity ‘changed the course of the world’ is true, but of course other faiths did, too!

Even assuming that the book of Acts is perfect journalism, Peter’s martydom proves nothing except the strength of his own beliefs. Where, outside of the NT books themselves, are you getting the idea that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses?

[93. Matt from DC said the following at 9:37 AM on Mar 10:]

93

Sara,

I want to answer two of your statements and one of your questions with a link [http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html].

The above link to a document called the Muratorian Fragment is a list of most of the New Testament books dated 125 AD, states that the disciple John authored the gospel attributed to him, and provides an extra-Biblical document for eyewitness authorship.

[94. Adam said the following at 10:59 AM on Mar 10:]

94

Sara,

Can’t they use a conventionalist logic or something else as a base?

The reason is because scholarship presupposes that there are true statements and false statements, and these statements correspond to reality. If some form of absolute truth, lets say, the laws of logic, are simply conventional, then no one can know whether or not they tell us anything about reality.

For example, given what you have said about conventionalist absolute truth, on convention you are right about Jesus' resurrection, on convention I am wrong about Jesus' resurrection. However, that doesn't tell us anything about reality.

In fact, someone could make up totally different conventions, and I would be right about the resurrection, and you would be wrong.

Also, if the laws of logic are conventional, then you might have all different kinds of approaches to logic throughout the world. One society might accept that premise x and premise ~x can be true at the same time, in the same sense, and another society might reject that premise x and premise ~x can be true at the same time, in the same sense.

The short answer to what you are asking is that conventions cannot function in the place of absolute truth because their is no way to know if these conventions correspond to reality.

God Bless,
Adam

[95. Sara said the following at 2:50 PM on Mar 10:]

95

Matt,

I've never heard of that, but just looking up about it online, I don't see its value for what we're talking about. Of course it's true that a lot of NT books were accepted by Christians even before 125 or 175 AD.... but so were a lot of other books! If I prove that some early Christians accepted the Gospel of Thomas, or the Acts of John, would that make you edit your Bible?

There are lots of eyewitness accounts in the so-called extra-canonical gospels and acts and epistles, too. The 'extra-canonical' labels came a long time after Jesus and all who knew him were dead.

Matt,

when you're saying "If some form of absolute truth, let's say, the laws of logic, are simply conventional, then no one can know whether or not they tell us anything about reality",

it depends on what you mean by reality: if you mean some kind of purely objective reality that's totally uninfluenced by the structures of our perceptual apparatus and YET to which we somehow have access (??), then you're right, I think that kind of reality would be unknowable.

You talk about how one culture might do logic one way, and another culture some other way. But look at mathematics: it's pretty much the same the world over, and new 'discoveries' keep building on old ones; there aren't huge shifts in math like there are in biology, say.

You might say that this is because there's an objective, non-material realm of mathematical truth just waiting to be discovered--lots of people would agree. And then again lots of people instead think that maths are similar because all humans are prone to the same sort of abstract reasoning.

The 'but mere conventionalism could make killing people OK' argument is quite true in a way right now. Some people think abortion is horrible, others think nothing of it; some people honour suicide, others abhor it.

Even supposedly-absolutist Christianity shifts like this: in the NT, slavery is so much accepted that Jesus and Paul outline moral codes for it, taking it for granted as an institution. Paul asked for Philemon's release with nary a bad word to the slave master. Imagine what would happen if your minister preached on 'How to be a good prostitute' or 'How best to commit adultery'? You wouldn't like it, even if he excused himself by saying, 'Well, I hope prostitution will end, but in the meantime, it's important for prostitutes to submit to their masters!'.

Yet the NT outlines 'how best to be a slave master and a slave.' Morality changes, even within the church. I don't find that weird or surprising.

[96. Sara said the following at 3:11 PM on Mar 10:]

96

Matt,
one other thing, the writer says that his church also accepts the Apocalypse of Peter! What do you make of that? Look it up; it's an interesting book: it, too, includes direct quotes of Jesus by an eyewitness.

[97. Adam said the following at 5:11 PM on Mar 10:]

97

Sara,

it depends on what you mean by reality: if you mean some kind of purely objective reality that's totally uninfluenced by the structures of our perceptual apparatus and YET to which we somehow have access (??), then you're right, I think that kind of reality would be unknowable..

The real question that has to be asked, then, is how you know that your senses give you an accurate view of reality. It sounds like your worldview is reducing to a kind of idea found in "The Matrix." Our senses are or may be in some sense tainting reality, and we have no way of knowing what reality is.

Also, I never said that there are different approaches to logic. I said, if you are arguing that the laws of logic are conventions rather than universal laws, then one might see all kinds of different approaches to logic. It might be that, in some cultures, it would be acceptable to say both, "It is the case that my car is in the parking lot," and also, "It is not the case that my car is in the parking lot." If you believe that the laws of logic are conventional, then there is nothing to prevent that.

However, as you have pointed out, with both logic and mathematics, they both have extremely high predictability to the point where they don't really differ from culture to culture. How can that be if the laws of logic are conventional?

Also, I would point out that perception cannot be universal in character. You say that the laws of logic and mathematics are universal, but no one has universal perception. If the laws of logic are not universal, then it would seem that you would have to grant that, tomorrow, it might be possible for premise x and ~x to both be true at the same time and in the same sense. In fact, you may even have to grant the possibility that a self-contradiction could be true on the back side of the Horsehead Nebula, since none of us has ever examined the backside of the Horsehead Nebula. You see, if you loose the universality of the laws of logic, it effects everything from the study you are doing right now, to astronomical studies yet to be undertaken.

That is why I said that one must be able to account for absolute truth in order to be able to do scholarship. If you cannot account for it, then your scholarship is sound and fury signifying nothing.

Finally, the slavery of the Hebrew/Christian tradition was much more of a kind of indentured servitude, rather than the kind of slavery we saw in the nineteenth century in America. While that kind of slavery did go on in the Roman empire, it was not that way in Jewish and Christian circles, as the Torah had laws concerning slavery.

God Bless,
Adam

[98. Theo K said the following at 3:37 AM on Mar 11:]

98

Sara,

“instead I think the gospel writers composed their books entirely from other written sources and from stories that were going around at the time.”

As I have shown you, the gospel writers claim to be eyewitnesses. So what you are doing is: reading the gospel of John (for example), seeing that the author claims to be an eyewitness, and then deciding that he is a liar, that he in fact wasn’t there, that he composed the book years later in such a way in order to try to deceive his readers by falsely (according to your way of reasoning) claiming that he was an eyewitness.

“Also, an obvious point: if it was just women who saw the empty tomb, then obviously the person writing about it wasn’t there.”

Where does that come from? Please read again the following passage, which I had quoted before:
“They both ran together. The other disciple outran Peter, and came to the tomb first. 5 Stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths lying, yet he didn’t enter in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the cloth that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So then the other disciple who came first to the tomb also entered in, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they didn’t know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” John 20:4-9

Obvious point? John was there, so was Peter (at least according to the author of the gospel of John – the other disciple is accepted to be the author).

“I still don’t get why you and the summary writer are calling Jesus’ post-mortem appearances and so on ‘historical facts’?”

“Now I declare to you, brothers, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.” A Corinthians 15:1-8

500 witnesses are good enough for me. This letter was written when most of them were alive, and people doing a simple research could find them and inquire about the events. It would be very simple for the opponents of the Gospel to try to silence Paul that way. But they couldn’t. From day one, in Jerusalem, the city where all these events took place, the disciples were boldly preaching the historic fact (the good NEWS) that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. And no one was able to silence them…

Also, “because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.
By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. " – from the Josh McDowell link.

This is good enough for me…

“a lot of that isn’t a matter of intellect. You say, “The issue isn’t intellectual. The problem is moral”, but then you go on to quote John.”

Finally, what I said was:
“the truth is that the reason people don’t believe is not because of lack of evidence. The issue isn’t intellectual. The problem is moral.”

What I meant was that people don’t want to believe DESPITE the facts. That all the facts are there and every neutral observer (if there ever was such a thing) would come to the obvious conclusion. This is what I mean when I say the issue isn’t intellectual. That if people weren’t morally bankrupt they would see the revelation of God in nature and in His Word, the Bible. This is what I mean when I say the problem is moral: That creation and the Bible proclaim the glory of the Creator God every single day and still people refuse to believe because of their moral rebellion and corruption.

[99. Sarah P. said the following at 8:59 AM on Mar 11:]

99

Sara, why are you here? I for one welcome you and your questions... but I want to know 'why.' Are you arguing just to make people run around in circles, or are you hoping to find something? What do you want from us?

I understand the intellectual struggles. I wrestled with the question of the canon for at least a year. After that I wrestled with God Himself because I couldn't see him, feel him, touch him, or hear him. Or so it seemed.

May I suggest Augustine's Confessions? He might appeal to you, since he was an intellectual who learned to believe in God intellectually, through the teachings of Ambrose.

You remind me of Job, who also crumbled under heavy pain and declared, "Let the day perish wherein I was born" (Job 3:3). His friends were rebuked for judging him in his agony. And in the end, God answered Job. His only answer was Himself:

"Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it" (Job 40:2).

There are two steps to believing in the Christian God, and people normally get hung up on one of them. You have to believe that: (1) God exists; and (2) He is essentially good. "He that cometh to God must believe that he is/exists, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Heb. 11:6).

If God exists and created all things, He has the right to do whatever He wants. Most religions understand this part. The second question, then, concerns His nature. Caught up in our pain and suffering, it is natural to conclude that God must be evil. Fickle. Bloodthirsty and cruel. And Jesus Christ is the only answer to that.

Sounds like you are caught up on both of those questions. Am I right?

[100. Sara said the following at 9:35 AM on Mar 11:]

100

Adam - we're going in circles...I don't see what problem you have with a morality that isn't grounded in a theory of the absolute, but that's socially maintained. Look at law: it's all human and often made for no other reason than practicality (i.e., let's not drive drunk because we can get hurt that way, and most of us agree--like any animal--that we'd rather not get hurt) and it's different in different countries, and it changes a lot through the years: but it works decently well. You learn the laws, and accept the consequences as a citizen. People still break the law sometimes, but people break their personal moral codes too.

I never said that my senses give me an accurate view of non-subjective reality. There’s no way I could ever know if a reality existed apart from what my senses are able to pick up and how my perception orders things, so it’s a moot point.

That doesn’t mean my thoughts can’t still be well-ordered: they can have the orderly shape that my perception gives them. I’m thinking Kant here. You haven’t read any Kant. Even if you don’t agree with him--he held views opposite to yours--you have to understand him to understand what philosophers have been saying for the last 200 years about what we’re talking about: knowledge and reality. You’re stuck in the Enlightenment. :(

I didn’t mean to say that the laws of logic are only conventional, I meant that they might match up with the form of human perception and therefore they might be universal *in humans* (not necessarily in relation to a possible objective reality ‘out there’). Again, I’m thinking of Kant’s views of mathematics.

Sure, self-contradiction could be true somewhere else: but I’d never know it because my head couldn’t wrap itself around a particular instance of it.

----

About slavery, that’s good to distinguish modern slavery from Bible slavery, and point well taken. I don’t know that NT-style ‘indentured servitude’ is something that present-day Christians could accept, though. I doubt you’d be OK with your father having bodily control over someone who owed him work, and who only owed him this work because he was the son of another of your father’s slaves. Isn’t that the insitution that Jesus was upholding? Maybe things like freedom and equality on Earth aren’t a necessary part of morality from a Christian point of view. It’s an interesting question: could someone be a perfect Christian and also help maintain class inequality and racial segregation, for example? Maybe they could.