Why Do I Keep Doing This? Two Reasons I Anticipated and Two I Didn’t

This post represents a milestone – my 100th article. My first post from June 21, 2017 was called, “Two Ways Not to Pray and One Way to Pray.”  Now, almost exactly six years later, I’m hitting triple digits.

 

Committing myself to write on a regular basis has been a fun – but time-consuming – exercise. I typically mull my ideas over for a couple of weeks before I sit down to write, and then I review and revise my articles many, many times. The total process of writing, revising, and posting typically takes about 20 hours.

 

Why do I spend so much time blogging? Originally, I had two reasons, but in the six years since I began, I realized two other benefits I hadn’t thought of.

 

Here are my two original reasons:

 

1.      I feel I have something to say. Over my decades knowing Jesus, God has brought me miles in my Christian walk as I have wrestled with hundreds of issues, both theological and practical. At the risk of being presumptuous, I feel these ideas are worth sharing.

 

2.      In today’s “Christian marketplace,” it’s easier to be taken seriously as a speaker and an author if you can point to numerous articles and followers.

 

I’ve only more recently recognized these other two reasons to keep writing:

 

1.      Great comments and feedback from readers. Duh! Why didn’t I see this coming? Blog posts often generate reader feedback, and I love hearing your reactions and suggestions. I appreciate every “like,” but the feedback I especially value comes from people I know personally when I know they don’t necessarily share all my views on faith.

 

I have always been a bridge-builder. Back in my college days, the Syracuse University chaplain hosted weekly Wednesday morning donut discussion breakfasts. The chaplain didn’t have a particularly high view of the Bible and didn’t believe that the only way to establish a relationship with God is through Jesus.

 

We had a regular pool about 15 attendees including a Buddhist, an agnostic, a New Age adherent, someone dabbling with the occult, and several other very interesting characters. I was the only one who identified as a Bible-believing Christian. But guess what? I very seldom quoted Bible verses, and I never made fiery statements condemning behavior the Bible speaks against. I understood the mindsets of the others and studiously avoided giving them cause to reinforce their negative stereotypes of Christians.

 

This is not to say I wimped out. I regularly referenced biblical principles and explained why certain behaviors are either inappropriate or unwise. I discussed clear biblical values, but I consciously avoided using religious jargon or reinforcing my fellow students’ unfavorable expectations.

 

It’s impossible to measure my comments’ impact, but I truly believe God used me to make inroads with people who probably had few other conversations with thoughtful Christians. Let me be clear. There are times to be very direct in our sharing of the gospel. However, when you have ongoing contact with people skeptical about Christianity, a more gentle and nuanced approach can be more effective.

 

I try to take a similar bridge-building approach with my blogposts. And based on feedback, I believe I am helping some people to rethink their views of Jesus.

 

2.      The benefits of the discipline of writing. Trying to be concise has forced me to crystallize my thoughts and consider if I am stating my case in a theologically precise and accurate way. This helps me clarify my sometimes-cloudy thoughts and arrive at fully developed conclusions I can thoroughly “own.” This creates the odd situation of ministering to myself with my own words when I face new challenges and get to remind myself of the conclusions I had previously written about.

 

Since I always like to offer my readers a couple of takeaways, here are two:

 

1.      Think through how you approach your spiritual conversations with people with whom you have ongoing contact.

 

2.      Consider committing your thoughts to writing, perhaps through journaling or even starting a blog. The process can help you solidify your own spiritual thoughts.

Leaning Into What You Hate

Fifteen years ago, I had the privilege of joining the Leadership Atlanta Class of 2007. About 70 elected officials, attorneys, health care leaders, judges, not-for-profit organization executives, and other leaders spent a year studying the challenges of Metro Atlanta and attempting to develop actionable solutions.

During one of our day-long sessions, we did a small group team-building exercises where we had to select one of us to crouch down on their knees – similar to the “duck and cover” position from the 1950s air raid drills – and then the rest of the group had to lift that person up, turn them head-over-heels, and return them safely to the ground. The only requirement was that everyone on the team had to have their hands on the person being flipped the whole time.

I immediately saw where this was going. Since about half the group was women, having eight or nine men touching them during the task was a non-starter. And two of the guys looked like they could have been linebackers in college, making them poor candidates to be lifted. So, all eyes immediately turned to the 145-pound, 5’8” guy – me.

Part of me hated the thought of being the “flipee,” but rather than arguing and risk alienating my colleagues, I agreed to be the “chosen one.”

As I crouched down and felt about 15 pairs of hands grab me, I thought, “Well here they go, lifting me up. Now they’re flipping me over, and now a see the ground getting closer, and now I’m back down.” The whole thing lasted about 10 seconds and was somewhat surreal, almost as if I were happening to someone else.

There were two reasons I was able to be so calm:  

·       I knew the group chose wisely

·       I knew that short of freaking out and refusing, I couldn’t wiggle out of the situation

When I accepted the Leadership Atlanta invitation, I agreed to abide by the group’s decisions, and them selecting me was part of the deal.

This “package deal” mentality plays into what I’ve taught about decision-making for years. When it comes to important decisions, after much prayer, thorough research, and input from reliable advisors, I have no choice but to conclude that whatever decision I feel God has led me to has “become” his will. James 1:5 says, “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.” Since he knowns about and is completely sovereign over all things, I can know that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING – both the good and the less-desirable – that flows from the decision is part of God’s will.

Lately, I’ve had to remind myself of this. As I reported a couple of months ago. God clearly led us to sell the Georgia house and move fulltime to our Wrightwood, CA house. Of that we have no doubt. But this has meant leaving a 27-year-long comfort zone and stepping into a whole new set of circumstances, most of which are great but some of which I hate.

There’s lots to love:  living near the kids, having a great set of neighbors, finding an awesome church, etc. But then there’s the other side. Our house is at the top of a steep hill on a private road that is not maintained. When it snows, the road becomes a toboggan run free-for-all. I’ve already experienced several white-knuckle descents. Additionally, both the California gas prices and taxes are crazy. But what I hate the most is not being able to regularly see my many Georgia friends. I wish we didn’t have to deal with these situations.

But guess what? We wouldn’t have to if God hadn’t led us here. But he did. So all the negatives are part of the “package deal,” and I can’t change any of it.

You shouldn’t judge the “rightness” of your decisions based on how positive or negative the subsequent circumstances turn out. Instead, you should interpret your circumstances in light of the fact that you have followed the Lord’s leading through the decision-making process.

Submitting to the Leadership Atlanta flipping exercise was the right thing to do. So was moving to Wrightwood. And just as I was able to lean into the flipping – and even to some extent enjoy it – so should I embrace our downhill ice slide and the other issues, recognizing them as part of the “package” God gave us. So instead of resenting the negatives, I can appreciate them for what they are and perhaps learn some things I didn’t even recognize I needed to learn.

How about you? If you are convinced God has you just where he wants you, are you able to accept and even celebrate the speed bumps in your path?

  

Part 2 - “What’s Your Definition of Legalism?"

Last time, I identified three aspects of legalism as any practice or activity that:

  1. God has used in my life which I then expect other believers to follow

  2. I feel compelled to do to enhance my relationship with God and which, if I don’t do, will jeopardize my standing with him

  3. Fans my spiritual pride or causes me to look down upon those who are less “spiritual’

And I promised to amplify these thoughts this time with comments on how misunderstanding context and culture or misreading Scripture can make the legalism problem worse. This happens in at least four ways:

  1. Elevating “non-essential” doctrines or opinions to the level of undeniable truth and judging other Christians who disagree.

Theologians often categorize Christian beliefs into three levels:

  • Level 1 – Things over which there can be no compromise, such as the Trinity, Jesus’ deity, his virgin birth, the fact that his death and physical resurrection are the only provision for forgiveness of sin, and the recognition that Christians should be baptized and participate in communion.

  • Level 2 – Doctrinal differences of opinion, such as the appropriate age for baptism (infancy or adulthood), the mechanics of baptism (sprinkling or full immersion), the frequency of communion (weekly, quarterly or “whenever”), or the “theology” of communion (whether Jesus is physically present in the bread and wine, whether he is spiritually present, or whether they are just symbolic elements). These are issues around which denominations appropriately form.

  • Level 3 – Opinions, such as whether it’s OK for a Christian to buy a Lamborghini, what type of music is best for worship, or whether a church should go into debt over a building program. Although Scripture contains helpful principles to think these things through, there are no verses giving specific answers.

It’s perfectly fine to develop strong theological positions. However, they become problematic when you insist that every Christian agree with you on every point. When people “sanctify” their Level 3 views on clothing, hair styles, music preferences, etc., legalism thrives. In their terrific book How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, Gordon Fee and Doug Stewart observe:  “ . . . there is no such thing as a divinely ordained culture” (page 85).

2. Getting so caught up in defining every last possible sin that your distinctions become laughable:

  • Some Christian groups prohibit going to the movies “because you are supporting the evil Hollywood movie industry.” However, they allow watching the same movies once they hit TV. Really?

  • Some who forbid all alcohol say you shouldn’t even drink a Coke at a social event because “how does an observer know you don’t have rum in your Coke?” Water is the drink of choice. To that I would ask, “How does an observer know that it’s really water and not vodka?”

  • Writer Phillip Yancey recalls during his school years walking the halls of his Bible college – which forbade facial hair on male students – seeing portraits of renowned professors and school leaders from bygone eras sporting full beards.

3. Applying some New Testament commands literally while ignoring others and judging Christians who don’t obey the ones you latch onto. For example, based on Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14:34 (“Women should remain silent in the churches”) in some Christian circles, women are not allowed to hold pastoral roles that involve public speaking. However, since Paul also penned 1 Timothy 2:9, to be consistent, these same people should forbid women from wearing expensive clothing, gold or pearl adornments, or elaborate hairstyles. I have never seen “jewelry police” at the sanctuary door. Furthermore, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:13 that it’s improper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered. Very few Protestant churches require this.

Ironically, in the late 1960s, when “hippie culture” was beginning to flourish, many of the same Christians who ignored 1 Corinthians 11:13 about women covering their heads while praying invoked the very next verse (“If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him”) as “proof” that God condemns long hair on men.

Other practices which Paul presents as commands, but which are often ignored include:

  • Drinking a little wine for the stomach – Some ban all alcohol.

  • Greeting each other with a holy kiss – Pretty much unheard-of in Western churches.

  • Not prohibiting speaking in tongues – Some denominations forbid this practice. 

4. Basing some prohibitions on a misreading or misapplication of Scripture. I ran into this as a newbie when I heard an older Christian admonish a mutual friend to put down his beer. “You’re making me stumble,” he said, invoking Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14. If you flip to that passage, you will see Paul is discussing a particular practice – eating food that had been previously sacrificed to a pagan idol – and concludes that, although there is nothing inherently wrong with that action, a newer and “weaker” Christian could become confused by seeing such behavior and stumble in his faith. Ironically, rather than identifying as the “weaker” Christian, the person urging our friend to not drink “because it will make me stumble” is implicitly claiming the high spiritual ground.

These four factors play into the discussion of legalism in my last post and make the problem worse.

I am not in any way implying that the Bible is not helpful for teaching us how to behave, but we must carefully understand the context of these instructions so we don’t come up with questionable or inconsistent applications. And I am certainly not saying that, when it comes to our actions as Christians, “anything goes.” We are to pursue holy lives that honor God, but we should not do so in ways that elevates certain applications of biblical principles to absolute truths when there may be other equally valid ways to follow those principles.  

What do you think?

Do These Three Things, and You’ll Be Guaranteed Success

Basketball.jpg

About a year ago, I heard a radio interview with former WNBA player and coach Nancy Lieberman in which she recounted an exhibition one-on-one game she played against basketball legend Michael Jordan. Anyone with any sense would be apprehensive about going up against the GOAT. And Nancy was.

Predictably, she got buried. But she emerged feeling successful. Why? Because, rather than shrinking from the challenge, she faced her perfectly understandable fear head-on and did her best even though she lost. As a result, she was able to hold her head high.

Her interview reminded me of a concept I learned on Cru staff many years ago. Athletes in Action (the athletic arm of the ministry) circulated a concept called “Total Release.” AIA’s various teams compete against top collegiate teams, and in the context of those games, they typically have the chance to share about how Jesus has changed their lives and encourage their audiences to consider their own relationships with God.

 

As top athletes, they of course want to win. But guess what? Sometimes they don’t Does that mean they have failed? Total Release teaches that the sole way you measure success is whether or not you did your absolute best regarding both preparation and execution. Sometimes the scoreboard reflects the desired outcome, and sometimes it doesn’t. But even if you lose the game, you have been successful if you brought everything to the game.

In that spirit, let me offer my three steps that guarantee success.

1.     Set Your Goal at the Right Level – What are you really after? Of course, we’d all love to win the tennis match, get the promotion, or make the big sale. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But things don’t always turn out the way you want. And it’s often through failure and adversity – as difficult as that may be – that you learn and grow. The “loss” can actually be to your benefit if you let it build your character.

 

So, if you define success as whatever will do the most to enhance your character, you will even be able to appreciate “defeat.” And as Christians, we can take this one step further by defining success as doing our best to respond to God’s will for us, the best we know it.

 

2.     Do Absolutely Everything You Can to Prepare – AIA teams don’t win without personal preparation and hard work. Musicians mess up if they haven’t devoted hours mastering their instruments. Moms may be at a loss in trying to help their struggling students without thoroughly researching learning challenges and alternatives. Your desired outcome seldom comes without considerable effort.

 

3.     Leave the Results to God – If you have set your goal at the appropriate level – i.e., to always seek to honor God in everything you do even if your “lower level” objective is not reached – and you have done all within your power to accomplish the task at hand, you have succeeded if you can thank God for results, even if they’re not what you worked toward.

 

I hope you don’t see the headline of this article as a “bait and switch.” I advertised “guaranteed success.” That almost implies promising the ideal outcome for the specific venture in front of you. But then I changed the conversation by redefining success as pursuing things that develop character and honor God. I wish I could assure all your quests would turn out the way you want. I can’t. But, if you think about it, I hope you’ll agree that becoming the person God wants you to be far outweighs achievement of other very important – but lesser – goals.

A Great Idea to Help You Worry Less

To be human is to worry. Even the most optimistic people occasionally obsess over bad things that could possibly happen. I believe it was pastor Tony Evans who identified the important difference between concern and worry when he observed that I control concern, but worry controls me. He’s absolutely right!

I’ve spent more than my allotted time worrying, but I’ve also learned a couple of approaches that have helped me tame the worry beast. I will share one this week and another one in my next blog.

Absolutely everything in life carries at least some level of risk. Believe it or not, there is actually a clinical medical code (ICD-10 V91.07x) for a doctor to report burns caused by someone’s water skis catching fire. Think about that for a minute.

It’s easy to catastrophize the future and rush emotionally toward worst-case outcomes. One way to counter this is to analyze your situation and try to assess the true likelihood of the bad outcome materializing. Let me show you how this can work.

A few years ago, I was talking with a couple considering a trip to London. At the time, the city had just experienced its third terroristic bombing within about six months, causing the couple to reconsider their trip.

Let’s look at the situation more closely. Assume a pessimistic scenario where London would suffer one bombing a month (twice the then-current rate). That means that any given day has a 3.3% likelihood of an incident. If this couple’s trip lasted six days, statistically, they would have about a 20% chance of being in London on the day a bomb went off. The odds against being involved are clearly in their favor.

At 607 square miles, London is pretty big. Of course, bombers would attack high-traffic areas, but even it if only 10% is high traffic, that’s still 60 square miles – a pretty big area. In order to be directly affected when the bomb went off, our couple would visit the exact spot – within a few dozen yards of the bomb – inside the 60 square mile area. It’s hard to estimate, but the chances of them being at precisely the wrong location on the wrong day are very low.

Then you have to consider exact timing. Bombings happen in an instant. Terrorists would probably select a high-volume time, say between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. – a period consisting of 720 minutes. So, there is only a 1 in 720 chance (slightly more than 0.1%) that they would be there the exact minute the bomb went off.  

It’s impossible to do a precise mathematical calculation of their risk, but thinking through the odds this way can yield an “order of magnitude” risk assessment and put the possibility of danger in perspective. In order for them to be harmed, they would have to be in the exact wrong place on the exact wrong day at the exact wrong instant. Is that possible? Sure. It’s also possible my skis will catch fire next time I go water skiing.

Anyone who has ever seen a University of Michigan football game at Michigan Stadium (“The Big House”) is overwhelmed by sheer capacity –109,901 fans – of the largest collegiate stadium in the country. Years ago while attending a game there, I remember thinking through the odds of a terrible outcome I feared and concluding that the likelihood of it happening would be about the same as me being the winner of one of three $100 gift cards given at random to someone in the packed Michigan Stadium. Seeing the sea of people in front of me help put me at ease, realizing how astronomically low the probability was. And, by the way, the dreaded thing never did happen.

Of course, there is always a chance of bad outcomes, but sitting down and actually thinking about the probability typically “defangs” the worry monster.

Next time, I’ll share another approach that has also helped me enormously. Stay tuned.

Part of the 109,901-fan crowd

Part of the 109,901-fan crowd

One of the Best Relationship Suggestions I’ve Heard in a Long Time

Note:  This article, first posted in February 2019, is one of my favorites. I thought it would provide a very positive suggestion as we start 2021.

On a recent Focus on the Family radio broadcast, marriage counselor Dave Carder suggested an intriguing communication exercise for couples. Every morning for 30 days, he suggested, each of you should write down something you like about your spouse, and then share it with him or her at the end of the day.

My immediate thought was, “Great idea, but 30 seems like a lot. I certainly like lots of things about my wife, but 30 might be a stretch.” When I shared this idea with Annette, she suggested an alternative. “What if we modify it to 20 things I like about you, and 10 things about you that drive me crazy? Maybe we could do two days on, one day off.” (Her reaction reflected #25 on my list of things I like about her:  her sense of humor.)

We went ahead with this exercise, and I must say it’s been one of the best things we’ve ever done. I found myself thinking all day about both what I had written for that day – looking forward to sharing it – and pondering what I would say the next. Spending a month thinking about all the things you like about your wife is an awesome experience!

Midway through the month, I started to fear I might “run dry.” Then I realized I could “buy” several days if I started listing things she is not:  she is not high maintenance; she is not a gossip; she is not a troublemaker; she is not a “shopper.” (I know this last one makes me the envy of half the men in the country.)

Perhaps the most interesting aspect was how surprised we were by some of the items the other person listed. After being married for 38 years, I heard Annette verbalize some positive things about me that had never even occurred to me.

And it turns out that the most surprising thing she said about me didn’t show up until the very last day when she told me I don’t have a mean bone in my body. She said she has never seen me do anything to intentionally harm anyone. I pushed back a bit and reminded her to the many times I would complain – occasionally bitterly – about some of the jerks in my life. She agreed that I have honed that particular skill pretty well, but she went on to point out that, despite my negative feelings, she has never seen me take action to hurt them. I had never thought of that. What an encouraging observation from the person who knows me better than anyone else!

Interestingly, my #30 comment about her was also an obvious one that I’m surprised I hadn’t tagged sooner – the fact that she feels secure enough in our marriage to be able to express her anger toward me knowing it wouldn’t kill our relationship. I’m thrilled she feels that safe.

And it turns out we didn’t have to worry about running out of ideas. We each even came up with one or two “bonus” items, beyond the 30.

So, I highly recommend this exercise. Give it a try!  By the way, you can also do this with your kids or anyone else. Tell them one thing you like about them every day for 30 days.

Two Dramatic Answers to Prayer in the Context of Hundreds of Unanswered Ones

Last time, I told the incredible story of how the Lord led us to buy a vacation house in the San Gabriel Mountains during the California Bobcat wildfire, which came within six miles of the house. The bottom line of that blog was that once God makes his will clear, we should joyously follow it even if some downstream circumstances prove tragic. As a reminder, our house did not burn down.

But there is another lesson from this event. As I explained last time, for years Annette and I had been

Prayer.jpg

praying about and researching ways to have more direct involvement in our kids’ and grandkids’ lives despite being 2,100 miles away. Nothing made sense. And then one Monday in August, we learned about this great vacation house that made everything fall into place. We put an offer in that Friday, and it was accepted the following Monday.

About the same time, our son-in-law Rosty experienced an equally incredible eight-day dramatic answer to prayer. His law firm was experiencing great stress:  the two senior partners were retiring, it lost its major client, and its overall sector was declining. These dynamics required considerable retraction and downsizing. Rosty saw the handwriting on the wall and began exploring other possibilities. Unfortunately, his segment of law is rather narrow, and due to family needs, he had to confine his job search to the Los Angeles area. Opportunities were hard to come by, and none of us were optimistic.

Then on a Monday, also in August, he saw an online ad for an associate’s position at a dynamic law firm in nearby Irvine. It was a longshot. Despite his solid years of experience, he had no experience in this new firm’s practice areas. Of course, Rosty was completely upfront about what he had and had not done, and his interviewers said they understood and were fine with that. They greatly respected his background and skillset and were confident he would quickly come up to speed in the content areas.

So, just as our house acquisition decision spanned just eight days (from Monday to Monday), so did Rosty’s job search. He was offered the job exactly eight days (coincidently, also Monday to Monday) after seeing the online ad.

Both of these stories are incredibly encouraging and speak to God’s gracious intervention in our lives. But they stand in stark contrast to literally hundreds of heartfelt prayers offered over many years that didn’t turn out the way I or others wanted:  illnesses that ended in death, financial stresses that lingered and lingered, mental illnesses that weren’t healed, new business ventures that failed, marriages that fell apart, wayward children who never returned, addicts who never achieved sobriety, etc. How do we explain this?

The best I can come up with hearkens back to my last post’s reference to three things Jerry Bridges says about God in his incredible book Trusting God:

·       He controls absolutely everything.

·       He loves you completely.

·       He knows what he’s doing.

These truths back you into the corner (metaphorically and theologically) of having to conclude that you can – indeed, must – trust God in all circumstances, even the ones you hate.

Why does he answer some of your prayers (occasionally with great flair) and not others?

I have no idea. But think about this. If you could “make” God do everything you wanted, you would essentially become the all-powerful magician who could make God do your bidding. Do you really want that?

I may not know why God answers some prayers and not others, but I do know that God is trustworthy. As Paul triumphantly affirms, “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day” (2 Timothy 1:12). All I can add is, “Amen!”

A New Twist on Answering One of the Most Common Objections to Christianity

 
World Religions.jpg
 

How often have you heard this one? 

“You’re telling me that only Christians go to heaven? What about someone who was brought up in a different faith or people from remote areas who never even heard of Jesus? How is it fair for God to condemn them to hell?”

This may be the single most common objection to biblical Christianity. How do you respond to that?

First, let me outline a tried-and-true, solid answer, and then I’ll extend that argument a bit.

The first thing to recognize is that God is absolutely righteous (i.e., fair) in his judgment (Acts 17:31). Next, Paul deals with the exclusivity question in Romans 1. He begins by explaining that no one who rejects God’s existence can accuse him of being unfair because God’s invisible attributes,

namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him (Romans 1:19-20).  

In other words, absolutely everyone should know that God exists.

Tony Evans takes this thought process to the next step when he explains that

God will judge people according to the light they have. Thus, those who sinned without the law (Romans 2:12) . . . will be judged according to the law that is written on their hearts” (The Tony Evans Bible Commentary, p. 1119).

Or putting it another way, people won’t be held accountable for something they don’t know about. Essentially, this is an argument from the lesser to the greater. Let me explain.

For the sake of discussion, let me arbitrarily suggest there may be eight or nine “levels” of belief involved in becoming a Christian. (There may be fewer or more.) The first step might be acknowledging there is some kind of god. The second might be that this god has a personality (as opposed to being a vague “force”). The third point might be that this god created us. And so on. The final step is acknowledging my personal sin that can only be dealt with by Jesus’ sacrificial death on my behalf and committing my life to him.

Here’s why this is an argument from the lesser to the greater. The thoughts are getting more and more specific. If someone denies the very existence of God (a pretty “mild” belief), there is no way they will surrender to Christ’s lordship (a very demanding one). This means that even if someone has never heard of Jesus, they can be held accountable for having “rejected him” (Step 8) if they deny that God even exists in the first place (Step 1).

This is a well-known line of reasoning and can be quite effective. My addition to this thought pattern is to push it to its logical conclusion. If someone rejects the Christian message as “unfair” to people who have never heard or were brought up in a different faith, they are rejecting Paul’s teaching in Acts 17:31 and denying God’s fairness. “I would never condemn someone for not responding to something they never even heard of.” But stop for a minute. They are implicitly claiming that their sense of fairness is greater than God’s. Do you really think it’s wise to go there?

This may be one of those “slow burn” thoughts that someone has to mull over for a while before they recognize how presumptuous it is. Although I have only shared this logic with a few people, I have yet to have someone be willing to admit that they consider themselves to be more fair than God is.

What do you think? Does this argument fly?