How Not to be a Good Apologist

By now I think most everyone has heard Pat Robertson's comments advocating the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (See the video here). In my opinion, and hopefully in the opinion of most others, this was a vile thing to do. First, I question what Biblical grounds Robertson has for such a statement, and the fact that it might be in the best interest of America does not qualify.

From an apologetics standpoint, the fact that a high profile Christian like Robertson has said these things gives us an extra bomb to defuse when sharing the gospel. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we try to remove all offense when we share the gospel. However, the message is offensive enough in itself. It cuts right through the core of human pride, but outrageous remarks like this add man-made offense. Certainly the Holy Spirit can cut through the aforementioned offense to save a soul, but it is not our job to put as many obstacles in the road as we can.

My advice to Christian apologists is to denounce Robertson's folly early and often. Make it known that you don't think Christianity is a spring board for advancing "America's interests." I love America as much as the next conservative Christian, but when you are a representative of Christ there are larger issues at stake.

Must We Obey the Law of Moses?

Most Christians today realize that many non-Christians will use any weapon they can find to undermine the Faith. Of course, a large part of attacking Christianity is attacking the Bible, which is our only rule for faith and practice. I have taken a look at a couple of different attacks on the Bible in the past, and I will be addressing another in this post.

I recently participated in an exchange in which an atheist accused Christians of interpreting the Bible merely to suit our own ends. Now, I will be the first to admit that this sort of thing does happen, and it happens more and more with today's Evangelicalism, which is intently focused on deriving "personal meanings" from each verse. However, deriving personal, devotional meanings from the text did not form the basis of this atheist's objection. Rather, he accused Christians of being inconsistent in that we do not practice things like abstaining from eating lobster (Lev. 11:10), but we do insist that there is still a ban on homosexuality (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27). Further, he insisted in the name of consistency we should practice the stoning of homosexuals (Lev. 20:13).

Many Christians can begin a rudimentary defense of the Bible from this attack, but it takes a little more theological know how to fend it off completely. Usually the starting point is to assert that the Old Testament (Mosaic) Law has passed away and we are no longer bound by it. The problem with this approach is that it is an assertion with no facts listed to back it up. The best way to begin, in my opinion, is to show that far from being unfaithful to the Bible, following only certain of the Old Testament's commands reveals a better understanding of Scripture than my atheist friend thinks.

For the sake of this essay we will divide the Mosaic Law into three categories: Food Laws, civl laws, and laws regarding sexual morality. I do not mean these to be any sort of normative method for categorizing OT laws; I am merely using it for practical purposes. First let's take a look at one of the food laws:

These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. Lev. 11:9-10 (ESV)

Does this mean that I, as a Christian, am sinning when I go to Fazoli's and eat my whole wheat penne pasta with marinara and garlic shrimp? I don't think so. To hold that I am sinning in eating shrimp would require me to ignore a number of clear Biblical passages. The book of Acts has a number of references that reveal the change in God's commands regarding food. Peter's vision, for instance, indicates that what was unclean under the OT Law is no longer to be considered unclean ("What God has made clean, do not call common." Acts 11:15b ESV). Couple this with the fact that Peter was later known to live in a manner that would have been considered unclean by the OT Law (Gal. 2:11-14), and you have the beginnings of a good case for partial adherence the Law.

"So what?" the objector might ask. "All this does is show that some of the food laws might have been repealed. What does that have to do with stoning homosexuals?"

The first thing it does is reveal that some things in the Law were permitted to change. To understand why we must look at the nature of the Law as it is explained by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:24-26.

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
(ESV)

In Paul's day a child was often put under the care of a slave who would attend its day to day needs. The slave, or guardian, as Paul puts it, would also have the job of educating the child. This was the Law's relationship to the people of God. It was a guide for us until the time came when we reached maturity and became children of God through the sacrifice of Christ. Once Christ came and sacrificed Himself for us the work of the OT was largely finished, though it can still serve a purpose in exposing sin in our lives.

"But you're just proving my point!" the objector exclaims. "If you want to be consistent you must also reject the OT's judgment of homosexuality." Here we must be careful to make a distinction between those different portions of the Mosaic Law. The key difference between food and civil laws as opposed to sexual laws is that by and large the sexual laws were in place before God gave the Law to Moses. As Jesus states in Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:1-9, God created human beings as male and female, and that is the rule for sexual relations. Any sexual activity outside of that framework is sin, and always has been.

So we see that moral rules that precede the Mosaic Law were not eliminated when the Mosaic Law passed away. Let's return to the guardian metaphor to demonstrate this further. If the guardian is teaching a child, he would probably have a set of rules. "Read pages 1-50," or "Sit up straight in your chair," or "Address me as 'sir.'" It only makes sense that when the guardian's authority over the child ends, these rules are no longer applicable. However, rules that were not derived from the authority of the guardian, but from a higher source, would still be in effect. In addition, it is important to remember that civil laws, such as the penalty for homosexual acts, were established to govern the kingdom of Israel. Since we are not a part of that physical nation, we are not compelled to carry out the punishments demanded by those civil laws.

This is just another in a long line of reasons we can be confident in our faith and in the Bible. We are being perfectly consistent with Scripture in not keeping the Mosaic Law. In Christ we are free from it, and this is a fact that should bring us no small amount of joy. If you've made it to the end of this essay, take a few minutes to thank Christ for His obedience to the Law and His sacrifice, which has taken away the punishment for our own disobedience.

Thank you, Jesus.