Christ is Risen!

NT Wright, in one of the final chapters of The Resurrection of the Son of God concludes:

"The historical datum now before us is a widely held, consistently shaped and highly influential belief: that Jesus of Nazareth was bodily raised from the dead. This belief was held by virtually all the early Christians for whom we have evidence. It was at the centre of their characteristic praxis, narrative, symbol and belief; it was the basis of their recognition of Jesus as Messiah and lord, their insistence that the creator god had inaugurated the long-awaited new age, and above all their hope for their future bodily resurrection. The question we now face is obvious: what caused this belief in the resurrection of Jesus?" (Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg 685

The answer to that question is obvious. Christ is risen! He is the first-fruits of the final resurrection, the Savior and Lord of all believers, and the inauguration of the New Heavens and the New Earth. He is the risen Messiah. And we know this for certain because 1) The Word of God declares it 2) The Holy Spirit assures us of it 3) General Revelation (in this case, the historical discipline) strongly testifies to point 1 and 2 (as NT Wright thoroughly demonstrates in his work).

As we all celebrate today, let's remember that the special emphasis which we often place on this day, ought to spill over to every Lord's day, and through that, to every day of our lives.

Easter and the Problem of Evil

This weekend Christians of various stripes are celebrating the suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The history of the Church bears out that Christians place more stock in the celebration of the death of Christ than His birth. There would be something morbid about this if we were merely celebrating the crucifixion of a great religious teacher that took place over two thousand years ago. As celebrations go, usually we are more concerned with the birth of a great person than with his death. But Christ is not an ordinary person. Don't get me wrong; He was fully human. He had a true body and a reasonable soul, but His humanity was personally united to the divine nature of the Son of God. Two natures came together in an intimate union that neither added to nor took away from either nature in order to form one person, Jesus Christ. We celebrate this incarnation during the Advent Season. But Christ came to fulfill a greater purpose. He came, as the angel promised, to "save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:21). In other words, Christ death was an accomplishment; it was suffering and death like no other. And His suffering and death did not spell the end of  His life, but the realization of all true life.

Many atheists and agnostics cite the so-called problem of evil as the ultimate defeater of Christian belief. If there is an all-powerful God who is also all-good, whence the existence of evil (or some similar argument)? Since it is claimed that this is an inexplicable conundrum, the conclusion must be that God doesn't exist. How I just presented the problem of evil is a simplification, of course, of what can be a complex debate. Christians have presented various arguments against the problem of evil. An argument that seeks to justify the goodness and providence of God in the face of evil is termed a "theodicy."

Various approaches have been taken to theodicy both in philosophy and theology. I don't have the time to go into all the different approaches in this post, nor is it my intention to do so. There are several things I want to briefly highlight about the discussion of the problem of evil from the Christian perspective. First, we need to be honest with ourselves that we are dealing with a profound mystery. There are things we are never going to solve, nor are we going to be able to do full justice to the goodness and providence of God in this life. We are limited in our capacity to know and understand the Almighty and His works and ways. What we do know is true and sufficient for our salvation. But how are we going to comprehensively express in human terms the facts of God's goodness and power and the existence of  evil? Search your Scriptures, this very topic was an enigma to even the greatest of saints.

Second, though this is a difficult topic to wrap our minds around, we must realize that it in no way represents a defeater of Christian belief. Sound minds have tackled this issue, and, though they admit to coming up to walls through which they know they will never be able to break, they have at least shown the possibility that the goodness and power of God and the presence of evil are not incompatible with each other. For the atheist and agnostic readers, I would like to refer you to the fascinating way Alvin Plantinga deals with this in his Warranted Christian Belief and God, Freedom, and Evil. I hope to, in the near future, deal more in depth with his argument, but for now hopefully it will suffice for you to pick up these books and read them. 

Third, the problem of evil presents its own problem for the atheist. The notion of evil admits the existence of moral standards. I am happy to admit that atheists are, more often than not, moral people. They have a sense of right and wrong, of justice and mercy. The problem for the atheist is where did these ideas come from? Are moral standards merely social conventions? Are they a product of evolution? If so, are they subject to change over time, and if they are what is the standard for knowing when a moral standard must change or drop out of use? Furthermore, by what standard do we judge whether common practices we do now are better (or worse) than the common practices from earlier times? What standard do we use to judge whether what one culture does in one part of the earth is worse or better than what another culture does on another part of the earth? Why, for example, should we think that stoning of women is wrong, when a practice like this can keep a society functioning and presents no real burden on that society's survival? Is there an ideal moral attainment that we should all strive for, and if so, how do you know? Conversely, if not, how do you prove it is not so? This is a real problem for the atheists and agnostics who cite the problem of evil as the ultimate defeater for Christian belief.

I pass on from these considerations in order to get to the point I really wanted to talk about. It is my hope to deal with the above considerations in a fuller way, but in this post, I wanted point out the connection between Easter and the Christian's assurance in the face of evil. The problem of evil is not a problem for believers. This is not to say that believers have struggled over this issue, even to the point of nearly losing their faith.  

The Old Testament is full of the raw emotion that believers have felt as they              struggled through various trials and sufferings that they fell into. The Psalms are full of cries of "how long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever?" Psalm 73 is one of the most pointed psalms regarding the believers struggle with the problem of evil. The author's struggle was, in fact, over the issue of why good things happened to the wicked while those who performed righteous deeds did so in vain. This caused his foot to "nearly slip". What was his solution? It wasn't well conceived reasons or  clever arguments. He "went into the sanctuary of God". The worship of God, and all that it pointed to, reminded him of the covenant faithfulness of God. From that point the problem of evil was no longer a source of despair. 

Job is the prime example of a good man who suffers for seemingly no good reason.  The interesting thing about Job is that he is never given an answer to why bad things happen to good people. What we do see throughout the book of Job is a man who clings to his faith despite his sufferings, despite his losses, despite his wife telling him to curse God, and despite the poor comfort he receives from his friends. In the middle of the book we read his heart wrenching cry of faith and hope amidst confusion, "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God" (Job 19:25-26). These are just two examples of believers clinging to faith in the face of suffering. I could mention more. I could mention Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, or Paul, who suffered greatly as he brought the gospel to the Gentiles. I could also mention Christians outside of Scripture, who maintained a strong faith in Christ in the face of severe affliction. 

Christians do not let the problem of evil defeat them. Why? The answer has everything to do with the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. As I mentioned above, His suffering and death were like no other. The Scriptures teach that the Messiah, whom we know to be Jesus Christ, was to be a suffering servant. Isaiah 53 says that the Christ, "was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed." Again, we must say that His piercing, His crushing, His wounds were nothing ordinary. As the Son of God, the Word made flesh, He was the ultimate good man, and the ultimate bad thing happened to Him. The death of the righteous Son of God by wicked hands was the ultimate crime. But Christ's sufferings were mind-blowingly greater than anything anyone has experienced before or since. There have been those who cried to God, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" But Christ experienced the actuality of this statement. God the Father actually forsook the Son. The reason was Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). Christ took upon Himself the sins of His people, and thus suffered on the cross the Hell they deserved. Martin Luther, it is said, meditated on this passage for hours without budging from His seat. At last he threw up his hands and said, "God forsaken by God, who can understand that?" But our lack of understanding does not negate the actuality of the event. 

Christ's suffering and death was not the end of His life; rather, as I said before, it was the realization of all true life. Christ did not stay in the grave; on the third day as the Scriptures foretold, Christ rose from the dead. He defeated death and hell, just as He said He would. And we today receive the testimony of those who saw those events with their own eyes. Many of these eyewitnesses sealed their testimony with their own blood. As the Apostle Paul declares, this same Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4). 

This is the internal logic of the Christian faith. We have a Savior who defeated death. In Christ we can proclaim, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8:31) And we can say, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, For your sake we are being killed all the day long we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered. No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:35-39). Death has no sting, the grave has no victory, and the problem of evil certainly has no teeth. 

A Problem for Atheists and Agnostics

Greg Bahnsen, in discussions of epistemology, would often refer to his well-known "apple sorting machine" analogy. The analogy was between epistemology (how we know what we know) and the construction of a hypothetical machine designed to sort apples. It is very common to hear people claim that they do not have beliefs, or a worldview, but simply use method 'x' to sort out the facts and then come to conclusions. In Bahnsen's analogy, people's "neutral" epistemological methods would be compared to the apple sorting machine. Bahnsen would point out that in order to construct an apple sorting machine, one would first have to know something of what a good and bad apple consisted of, and then they would have to know how to tell them apart. Then the apple sorting machine could be designed. In the same way, in order for anyone to know true facts from false facts, they first have to know some general truths about what constitutes truth and a true fact. One would also need to know how to discern true facts from false facts. Then an epistemological methodology can be constructed to sort them. We have to know something general about what we know, before we can know how we know. We need an ontology (understanding of existence) before we can have an epistemology (an understanding of how/what particulars we can know about existence). The point being, that when people say they just use method "x" to know truth, they are not being honest. A worldview, which was ascertained by some means other than method "x," had to be in place first. This is an insightful analogy and it has many implications for discussions in apologetics. When it comes to method "x" as being the scientific method, Christians have been quick to point out that biblical presuppositions provide the worldview through which science is justified and the universe rendered intelligible. However I think this illustrates a much broader point, namely a problem that atheists and agnostics have in even speaking to the realm of theology. What do I mean?

Well, it isn't uncommon to hear self-identified atheists and agnostics make broad statements about the whole field of theology such as:

"If there was a God he would be *blank* and therefore we couldn't even know for certain"

or,

"If God existed the world would be like *this*, and it isn't, therefore there is no God."

But given their worldview, how can they know this? These are not naturalistic arguments, coming from a naturalistic worldview, they are actually theological arguments (and poor ones at that!). The problem here for the atheist/agnostic is one of epistemology. When they argue against theological knowledge, or the existence of God, they themselves are using theological arguments, or claiming to know about something they say is an impossibility. In other words, keeping in mind that ontology (knowledge of existence) precedes epistemology (how/what we can know); how can atheists/agnostics make knowledge claims, like those given above, about something that doesn't exist? They must either concede that they do have some knowledge of God, or the things of God, or they must admit that they simply can't say anything meaningful about a subject that "doesn't exist."

Some atheists are consistent here and will not make these kind of arguments. They will simply stick to their naturalistic presuppositions and try to argue that there is "no evidence" for a supernatural realm. However, it is not uncommon to hear atheists or agnostics go on the offensive by attacking the character of God, or by using the kind of sound bites listed above. If that is the case, the above criticism is valid.

NT Wright on 1 Cor. 15:35-49

I currently am trying to finish N.T Wright's magisterial work The Resurrection of The Son of God in my personal study time. In his chapter on 1 Corinthians 15, I came across a striking connection which I had never seen before. He argues that in 1 Cor. 15:35-49 Paul is drawing an analogy with Genesis 1-2. 1 Cor. 15 is of course one of Paul's most detailed expositions of the doctrine of the resurrection. Wright demonstrates that verses 15-49 firmly roots the doctrine of the resurrection in the doctrine of creation. He writes:

"A glance through Genesis 1-2 reveals how many of its major themes are alluded to in Paul's present argument. The creator God made the heavens and the earth, and filled both with his creatures; Paul mentions these two categories in verse 40, and uses a discussion of them to distinguish the first Adam from the final one. The powerful divine wind, or spirit, moved over the waters, and the divine breath or spirit also animated Adam and Eve; the life-giving activity of both the creator and Jesus is seen by Paul in terms of the pneuma, the spirit, wind of breath (verses 44-6). The creator made the lights in heaven, which Paul mentions in verse 41. He created plants bearing fruit containing seed, so the more plants could be produced; Paul makes this a major theme in verse 36-8, and then draws on the language of 'sowing' in verses 42-4. The creator made every kind of bird, animal and fish; Paul brings them, too, into his argument (verses 39-40). At the climax of Genesis 1, the creator made human beings in his image, to have dominion over the rest of creation, and in Genesis 2 he entrusted Adam in particular with the responsibility for naming the animals; for Paul, too, the climax of the story is the recreation of humankind through the life-giving activity of the final Adam, whose image will be borne by all who belong to him. This is indeed a deliberate and careful theology of new Genesis, of creation renewed." (Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg 341)

This sets the context for understanding the Christian teaching of the resurrection in a way that cuts against the grain of several aberrant theologies. Modern theories about gnosticism and the early church are obliterated by Paul's analogy here. 1 Corinthians is recognized by virtually all scholars as one of the earliest extant Christian documents. And here, very early on, we see that Christian theology affirmed the goodness of creation and was rooted organically in the Old Testament. Paul knew he didn't have apologize for using the Old Testament in making his point to the Corinthian Christians. Furthermore, the manner of his argument in verses 35-49 assumes a positive acquaintance with the Old Testament amongst his audience. All of this testifies to the fact that Christian theology, from the very beginning, was firmly rooted in the overarching themes of creation, fall, and redemption. It was not rooted in Gnosticism's worldview of evil matter being created by an evil "lesser" god who they associated with Yahweh.

The theology of the cults is also undermined by Wright's observations. Mormonism bases their eschatology largely on a misreading of this text. They argue, based upon verse 40, that there is a "terrestrial" heaven, a "celestial" heaven and a "telestial" heaven (the "telestial" heaven is admittedly an addition of Mormon "revelation"). Mormons claim that this verse is unintelligible apart from their interpretation of it. However, viewing it as an analogy of Genesis 1-2, and the creation of the heavenly bodies, sufficiently explains the meaning of the text apart from their bizarre innovation. The Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding of Christ's resurrection is also compromised by the creational roots of this text. Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the natural body/spiritual body dichotomy of verse 44-46 argues for a "spiritual," or disembodied, resurrection of Christ. However, if we keep in mind that "spiritual" in the New Testament almost always refers to the Holy Spirit, and we couple that with a recognition of the parallels with Genesis 2, a different conclusion is reached. Just as Adam "became a living being"(vs 45) through the Spirit's work, so did the second Adam become a life giving Spirit (vs. 45) through His work being applied to the church by the Spirit's power.

I can't recommend reading Wright's book enough. He is a man that I strongly disagree with in some areas, and I have even found areas of disagreement with him in this volume. However, rarely do I walk away from the book without feeling edified and challenged in my understanding of the text.

I think therefore, I think?

In several discussions I've had with atheists, when the issue of epistemology comes up (I try to start with that subject), I have often heard them respond by parroting Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Supposedly Descartes' formula gives them a basis for knowledge apart from God or divine revelation. When pressed to give an account of what they know, or how they know, the answer is often, "well, I think therefore, I am, that's where I begin." This is convenient for the atheist, and for all unregenerate men, because it supposedly give sufficiency to the autonomous human intellect. Indeed, many have even argued that with Descartes' famous formula, the modern world, or at least modern thought, began. But is it really sufficient, and does it really provide the unbeliever with a basis for knowledge claims?

Well, actually. No.

I used to get stumped by this one, and would try to go the route that "I think therefore I am" is not sufficient to give us a basis for knowledge of the outside world, or the assumption that our cognitive abilities reflect or "image" the world around us accurately. Only the assumption of the image of God could get us there. That is still a valid argument, and useful in certain contexts, but it gives the unbeliever too much. What do I mean? Well, "I think therefore I am" is simply a deductive argument with the assumption that "I" exists, hidden in its premise. Christian philosophers like Soren Kierkegaard, and atheist philosophers like Bertrand Russel, pointed this out long ago. When Descartes said "I think," he already assumed 1) that he exists and 2) that he was the one doing the thinking. So to say "I think, therefore, I am" is similar to saying "all bachelors are unmarried." It tells us nothing new, and it certainly doesn't establish any basis for knowledge or knowledge of what exists through autonomous human reason. It merely assumes "I exist" and then smuggles that assumption into the premise and then the conclusion. If Descartes truly doubted everything he thought he knew in his meditations, he would have ended up simply with, "thoughts are occurring." That gets us nowhere, and it certainly establishes nothing about ontology (existence) or epistemology (knowledge). The title of this post is "I think therefore, I think?," but in reality it is more like, "there are thoughts, and so... yea?" Autonomous human reason fails here.

However, unbelievers know that they exist, they know that the world around them exists, and they know that their cognitive abilities can image the world around them, because ultimately they know God exists. But they know this in spite of their philosophy. In fact, their unbelief and commitment to independence from God distorts their thinking. This is why all lines of pagan thought and culture end in radical skepticism. That is why it is the Christian apologist's job to "push the antithesis," or to demonstrate that based upon their own premises, unbelievers can't know anything and they certainly cannot account for human experience. And actually, the more consistent unbelieving thought becomes, the easier it is to demonstrate the absurdity of it. Radical Skepticism's claims that "we can't know anything" is a direct violation of the law of non-contradiction. Do they know that they can't know anything?

Man was not created to reason autonomously, but analogically. We were created to "think God's thoughts after him." The quest for intellectual autonomy began not with Descartes but with the Serpent when he invited Eve to reason autonomously apart from God and His revelation. As I mentioned above, unbelievers know that God exists because He is actively revealing Himself to them, both in the depths of their own consciousness, as well as in the world around them. Paul says in Romans 1:18-20, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifestin them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." As Paul says, their problem is not intellectual but moral. They are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. And when he says suppress, he means suppress. They are not willing to admit to themselves or to others that they know God, because they are committed to independence from Him and do not want to face up to their cosmic treason. Yet their thinking about the world will continue to exhibit features that demonstrate they know God's existence. You can only hold a beach ball under water for so long. With Descartes it was the sense of "I" or personal existence, that he smuggled in. With the atheists it is often their strong sense of morality or "logic" which contradicts, and certainly doesn't flow from, their self-identified worldview.

Apologetics is done effectively then, when we demonstrate the insufficiency and impossibility of autonomous human thinking, while also pointing out the evidences in the unbeliever's own experience that demonstrates that they know God exists. Furthermore, and most importantly, they have no certainty, which undermines all of their knowledge claims. Only God's spoken Word and Spirit provides certainty about God, the world, and human experience as well as a context through which they are to be understood. We begin with the self-contained Trinity's spoken Word, not man's word spoken to himself, which gets him nowhere.

So the best way to begin with a transcendental argument from epistemology, is to simply ask an unbeliever if they could be wrong about everything they claim to know. If they are honest they will answer yes. If that is true they have no certainty, and thus no knowledge, according to their worldview. Contrast that with the Christian worldview, which says there are certain things that we cannot be wrong about, because God has revealed them, such that we can be certain. To see a practical example of this check out this.

Come, Let Us Reason Together

I know this is the internet, but where is it written that it has to be a place where logic is absent and "troll-esque" comments are the norm? Society is on the brink of major moral and cultural change, shouldn't that be reason enough for all of us to speak reasonably to one another concerning whether or not the change many want is beneficial or detrimental to our society? If we are really a tolerant society, then we should be placing a high premium on reasoned arguments and upon listening intently to one another in an attempt to understand and judge the merits or demerits of each others' position.

Name-calling has never been a valid means of establishing one's position. You may disagree with someone, but calling him names or writing him off as dumb for not sharing your point of view does not automatically make your position the right one. Name-calling is an assertion, and in the realm of logic, which is the backbone of language, assertions must be established by argument. You can't just make an assertion and expect that it will end the matter. If you are to be persuaded of the truth of your position, then it will not do to put the other person's down. You need to hear the other person's position, and he needs to hear yours. And both of you have to do your utmost in calling forth your mental powers in order to produce sound arguments for the establishment of your respective positions.

Christianity has always placed a high premium on well-reasoned arguments. There is an underlying belief that every person is made in the image of God, and thus is able to hear and respond to logical arguments. Furthermore, Christianity has always believed that arguments can be done in a respectable and profitable way. The underlying belief is that we ought to speak the truth in love.

This blog is set up in the hopes that we can attract those who do not share our belief in Christ or in the moral standards set forth by the Christian tradition and engage them in a respectable and profitable way. The inaugural post by my esteemed colleague might seem a bit pessimistic, although I would say it is realistic given the current state of affairs on the internet. However, I want to encourage respectful dialogue. You can expect from us here at Viral Apologetics rational and respectful arguments. Can we expect the same from our visitors?

Let's set a new standard of dialogue.

The "Tolerance" of "marriage equality" supporters

It has been a day now since everyone and their brother began changing their facebook profile picture to a red and pink rendition of the famous "equality" symbol of the gay marriage lobby. I have been increasingly observing behavior and sound bites from this crowd, which I find disturbing and disheartening. It has certainly been coming to a crescendo over the last day or so. Such observations make me wonder; Can the push for "marriage equality" exist without name calling? And as the agenda progresses will the aggression progress as well? First they called us "homophobes" (I have yet to meet one diagnosed with such a condition), now it is "never mind you aren't a homophobe you're an a**hole" or simply "don't be a jerk."

I get why supporters of "marriage equality" think they are justified to act this way. They believe they are simply giving the ideological persecutors of homosexuals, especially gay youth, what they deserve. However, I have two things in response to that.

1) Usually the first evidence marshaled forward to prove that Christians and conservatives are the ideological persecutors of homosexuals is a 50 member cult from Kansas that calls itself a baptist church. However, sometimes it is hard to discern who their actual supporters are. What do I mean? Well,I have worked in several Christian bookstores, and let me tell you, plenty of weirdos and wackos would come in from all over the spectrum. However, never once did I hear someone say something like, "Yanno I really like those Westboro guys, they tell it like it is." I really never heard them come up in conversation at all. Nor do I now. Most Christians roll their eyes at Westboro Baptist church and do so for deeply rooted theological and Gospel-centered reasons. The only people I see talking about Westboro baptist "church" constantly, and the people that I see constantly shining the spotlight on them, are liberals. It becomes very hard not to think that liberals do that simply to demonizes conservatives, and thus justify their vicious tone towards us.

2) If one is talking about gay bullying amongst teens, then I admit shamefully that I probably would have participated in that behavior in my teenage years. I may have, I cannot remember. But before I was 21 I was not religious at all, and I really didn't care about marriage. I made fun of gay people because I was an immature, dumb kid. Further, I never saw any of my self-identified Christian classmates leading the charge against them, which is what we would expect if the Christophobia of most liberals were true. The bullying of homosexuals does not occur because of "religious propaganda" or because marriage is restricted to heterosexual monogamy. Gays are bullied because other kids think it is weird and gross.

Not only are both of those categories an invalid example of Christian or conservative thought/behavior towards homosexuals, but they do no represent anything near the mainstream population of individuals who oppose gay marriage. So then, that reasoning now being taken off the table, I return to my original question; can the push for "marriage equality" exist without name calling and by fairly dealing with the opposition's actual arguments? I am not sure that they can. Why is that? Because we are (for the most part) dealing with people who are ethically and emotionally opposed to God's order in the world. They simply are not interested in listening to the opposition or being fair.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due [...] who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:18-25,32)

In the beginning of my post I said I was disturbed and disheartened by this behavior. However, I qualify that with the fact that given what the Apostle Paul tells us above, I am also not surprised. We live in a godless, idolatrous culture, and the moral decadence that we have been slowly descending into is simply the outworking of the judgment of God. Paul tells that such a culture becomes futile and foolish in their thoughts, all while feigning themselves to be "enlightened" and "progressive." Because they have turned from the Creator and are in rebellion against him, they can no longer discern the pattern and order of nature He has imposed upon it, while also actively perverting it and approving of those who do. Will this cultural aggression continue as sin progresses? Be certain of it. One of the most powerful psychological forces is the conscience. A guilty conscience can drive a man to drink, in order to shut it up, and it can also drive him to be violent towards those who would side with his conscience. I believe that is exactly what we are seeing, especially with this incident

So we must not be okay with this behavior, but we also shouldn't be surprised. And of course the only valid response for a Christian is to continue to speak the truth in love, and show the people who claim to be all about "love," what love really is.

"Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." 2 Tim. 2:23-26