We Don’t Need Apologetics, We Just Need to ‘Experience’ Jesus

Posted on November 30, 2012 Written by Greg West 12 Comments

This is a guest post by Greg West, the curator of a helpful apologetics web site called The Poached Egg.

“We don’t need apologetics, we just need to ‘experience’ Jesus!” Unfortunately, this is something I hear from fellow believers quite often and it never fails to set off the warning sirens in my head; not because I think that ‘experiencing’ Jesus is bad—in fact, I think it’s a good thing, but if you’re basing your faith on experience alone to the exclusion of reason and knowledge, then you’re building your house not on solid rock, but on sand—and when the rains come down, the streams rise, and the winds blow and beat against your house it will fall with a mighty crash (Matthew 7:24-27).

We need to stop teaching people to ‘experience’ Jesus and teach them to know Jesus. Let me explain what I mean: In his post titled, High School Students and Apologetics, teacher Dan Gehrke said,

“I’ve observed that kids have changed over the last seven years since I last taught apologetics. All of the evidential facts that I used to put in front of them to give evidence to the reliability of Scripture and the resurrection was exciting! The notion that they didn’t have to throw their brains away to be Christians was life-altering for many of them.”

While this was still true for some this year, I discovered that “facts” and evidence seem to be met with more and more apathy.

So one day I asked, “Would you rather have me make an air-tight case for Jesus, or would you rather ‘experience’ Him – even if I can’t define what that means?” They almost all chose the second. Interesting.”

Why is this so alarming? Because apologetics involves discerning between what is true and what is false. Emergent church leader John Crowder said in this post, “I honestly believe that the age of apologetics is over, and the age of activation has come. Experience is more important than explanation.” If you read the quote in the full context, I think what you’ll find that Mr. Crowder doesn’t want to have to defend his beliefs, because outside of his personal experience, on which his abhorrent theology is based, I seriously doubt that he can—and if you, members of your congregation, or especially if your kids can’t either, then if they happen to remain in church at all, their theology might end up being as bad as Mr. Crowder’s—or worse (if that’s even possible).

Apologetics has several useful and necessary applications including evangelism, defending against attacks on Christianity in the public square, discerning false doctrine, and edifying believers. Examples of each of these can be found in scripture. If we deny the need for apologetics then we are denying what scripture actually teaches and are simply inventing our own gospel—much like John Crowder’s pathetic parody of the gospel, which is becoming all too common these days–just as Paul said it would in his second letter to Timothy:

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

I’m not just simply passing on what I’ve learned from observation but also what I’ve lived out in my own life. I was raised in a good church and as a young teenager I was an enthusiastic believer. I had experienced Jesus. I experienced him during worship, I experienced him when testifying in front of the congregation. When I preached my first sermon at age 16 it was because I had experienced Jesus. When I was filling out my application for Bible College it was because I had experienced Jesus—but by the time I was in my early twenties I was no longer experiencing Jesus, I was experiencing doubt—and before I’d turned twenty-five I identified myself as an agnostic.

My agnosticism continued for nearly ten years before I eventually discovered that Christianity is not a ‘blind faith’ that requires belief without evidence. I came back to the fold but most do not. By my best estimation, out of the many adults that I knew as kids growing up in church, only about 40% of the ones that I know of still identify themselves as Christians. That’s about 10% better than today’s average.

Do we want ourselves and others to be those who believe that, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10), or will we let ourselves and others become those, who like John Crowder, claim to be wise but are instead fools (Romans 1:22)?

Do I want to ‘experience’ Jesus? Absolutely I do. But even more so, I want to know him—and I want others to know him too.

You have heard . . . but I say – It is all about the heart

Posted on September 13, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

#17 in the Sermon on the Mount Series

Jesus the Radical

For those of us who have grown up on the church, it may be difficult to grasp how radical Jesus was in his day. One definition of the adjective radical is:

thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company. (dictionary.com)

Jesus sought to bring a change to the way that his hearers understood Scripture and put it into practice.

Six times in the fifth chapter of Matthew Jesus identifies where his hearers have a deficient understanding of Scripture (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44). He uses the contrasting language of “you have heard . . . but I say to you” to introduce specific points of where the religious leaders of the day missed the intent of Scripture.

Jesus sets himself up as a higher authority

The first way that Jesus is radical is that he sets himself up as an authority higher than any the hearers have known. Here is a man that is putting himself above all the teachers of the day and above all that had gone before.

If Jesus is just a man like every other man, this would be an act of supreme hubris. Yet, as God in the flesh, he has the authority and the right to stand in judgment of the teachers of the law.

Jesus indicates we need a change of perspective

The second way Jesus is radical is the extent to which he applies Scripture. When you look at these six contrasts, the error is not that the teachers misunderstood the texts. The error lies in their not going deep enough in their understanding. The teachers focused on behavior and Jesus focuses on the heart.

There is something in man that wants to have rules so that he can judge his performance. People typically feel as though they are pretty good and generally live up to the standard they have set for themselves. Even the most strident nonconformist displays this. The nonconformist judges himself by his nonconformity to others’ rules. We judge ourselves by our behavior, our outward acts.

Jesus tells us that we are correct in controlling the outward acts, but this type of self mastery is not sufficient to claim obedience to Scripture. To really obey requires that we peel back the skin and get below the surface to motivations and attitudes. In these six contrasts, Jesus tells us:

It is not enough to keep from murder, we must also keep from hatred
It is not enough to keep from adultery, we must control lust
It is not enough to follow the correct procedure for divorce, we must understand that divorce is only to happen when a partner has been unfaithful
It is not enough to keep vows, we must live our lives so that our word can be trusted
It is not enough that we limit our revenge to an eye for an eye, we must live lives of sacrifice for others
It is not enough to love those who love us, we must also love our enemies

Jesus shows us that from God’s perspective, rule keeping is not enough. We must get behind the behavior to the motivation for the behavior. Jesus indicates that it is our hearts that God is after, not unwilling obedience.

It is all about the heart

Two observations:

If we make rules for ourselves or others, they need to be in keeping with a correct understanding of Scripture. There is nothing wrong with correctly condemning behavior that Scripture condemns or promoting behavior that Scripture promotes.
The rules should be used as barometers to show us how well tuned our hearts are to God. If we are giving grudging obedience then we have work to be done to identify the source of the grudge and deal with it.

But in the end, it is all about the heart.

Numbering our days: a reflection on Psalm 90

Posted on July 14, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 1 Comment

Beyond a temporal understanding

I have been reading through the Psalms. Recently I came to Psalm 90 where it says, “So teach us to number our days, that we may present to you a heart of wisdom.” (Psalm 90:12) This is a verse that has often been quoted, usually in the sense of expressing urgency to get busy in doing work for the Kingdom of God. In this understanding, the emphasis is on the fleeting nature of time and how we have, on average, some 70 years to accomplish things for God before life comes to an end.

If this is the correct understanding of this verse, wisdom would dictate that we discover our calling and work hard at accomplishing the most in the time we have allotted. Ephesians 5:15-16 would seem to support this understanding when Paul writes:

Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.

I have even heard it said that we should keep a running countdown of the days until our 70^th birthday so that we can be aware of how much time we have left to work for the Kingdom. While the countdown is not a bad idea, I think that it does not capture the whole point of the prayer in the context of the Psalm. Awareness of the brevity of our days has benefit, but the focus should not be on what we plan on accomplishing but upon what God wants to accomplish through us.

Obedience is the key

Moving a few verses back in the Psalm, it can be seen that the context of the prayer is God’s judgment against Israel for their rebellion. In verse 8 it says, “You have placed our iniquities before You, our secret sins in the light of Your presence.” In other words we are to live with the understanding that we are under the scrutiny of God and as a result, we must have an understanding of our finite nature and respond to God properly. It is not our temporal awareness that is in question, but our ability to obey.

In reading the rest of the Psalm I have a sense that some of the anger at the nation of Israel was due to presumption on their part. They presumed upon God’s tolerance and as a result they reaped God’s anger. Can we not do the same? We can be busy doing all sorts of things and convince ourselves that we are doing it for God. Jesus often rebuked the Pharisees for this type of hypocrisy. The question is not whether we are busy, the question is are we being responsive to God?

On the basis of this, I see Psalm 90:12 as a request to help us understand our finiteness rather than an encouragement to pack in as much in our 70 years as possible. The lesson we learn from Matthew 7:21-23 is that activity is not the cause for reward, relationship with Jesus Christ is. This prayer is not a call to busyness or activity, it is a call to submission to God.

It is God’s plan

I do not for a minute buy into the argument that there is something that God needs me to do and I am the only one to do it. Yes, God allows me to participate in the accomplishment of his will but my rebellion or incompetence cannot derail his plan. I do not have to race the clock to get something accomplished for God. This is freeing if I allow it to be.

What I do need to do is bring my finite understanding to God and seek him for what I should be about today. Do we really believe Jesus when he said take not thought for tomorrow? I don’t need to plan out what I need to accomplish for God, I need to do what he has asked me to do today. God will take care of the years moving forward if I simply submit each day to him.

Jesus and the law: What can we learn?

Posted on July 10, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 1 Comment

This post is #15 in the Sermon on the Mount Series.

Based on their own understanding of the law, the Pharisees struggled to see how Jesus’ behavior fit into that law. He allowed his disciples to eat without ceremonial washing. Jesus allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath. Jesus himself performed healings on the Sabbath. The Pharisees were flummoxed about this behavior and came to the conclusion that Jesus was setting himself above and outside the law that they cherished.

To this accusation Jesus responds:

Matthew 5:17–19 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (NASB)

There are a few things that I take away from this passage:

In these verses Jesus validated what we know as the Old Testament. Answers in Genesis has an excellent article entitled Jesus Christ on the Infallibility of Scripture which details Jesus’ use of the OT in his teaching. Rather than provide a list of references where Jesus used the OT, you can follow the link and read them there.
Jesus saw himself as the fulfillment of the OT prophecy. You can agree or disagree with the truth of this claim. This brings us to the classic C. S. Lewis trilema, where Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic or he is Lord.
Jesus tells us that everything will be accomplished as God has laid it out. There is nothing that anyone can do to thwart God’s plan, the rhetoric from both American political parties notwithstanding.
Jesus takes the law very seriously and we set it aside to our peril. This one in particular causes me to pause and reflect. Do we take the Old Testament law seriously? Are we living out the principles? Like many evangelicals, I can be quite cavalier about things like the Sabbath rest, thinking that we are not under law but under grace. While this is true, am I violating the spirit of the law behind the Sabbath? Am I taking the prescribed rest? Am I resting in the goodness of God to provide?
I am responsible for what I teach the next generation. If I make it acceptable to disrespect the law, I will lose standing in the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a huge responsibility.

Biblical illiteracy is rampant both within and without the church today. What Jesus is saying is that we ignore the Old Testament to our peril. When the homosexual community states that nowhere in Scripture is the homosexual act condemned, they get away with this statement because a majority of those who claim to be Christians have never read the Bible. Anyone who has read it without an agenda would know this to be a false statement. It is our illiteracy that makes us vulnerable to this attack.

Jesus is saying that anyone who claims the name of Christ will be held responsible for how he responds to Scripture and how he teaches others to respond to it. We better take that responsibility seriously. There is a lot riding on our getting it right.

Discussion Question: Do you think that we get this right? Do we need to change how we approach the Bible in general and the OT in particular?