Good Lord, I don’t have all of the answers. I’m sorry if this whole thing is getting tedious. I’m trying to piece together a large puzzle, maybe of the jigsaw variety that our dear friend, Susy, (a faithful reader, I understand) likes so much. I expect it will turn out far less than perfect, with more than a few empty spaces. My hope, however, is that when I’m finished for the time being, the resulting picture will prove something worth considering.

It’s only human nature that when we hear something over and over, we can become a little anesthetized. The thing, when perhaps originally encountered as something unique, bold, and attention-grabbing, can inexorably slide into virtual oblivion, perhaps only tugging at the recesses of our consciousness. Perhaps, also, we become jaded or cynical, having become wise to the way of things, letting the original glitter of idealism slowly lose its luster. “Come now! Do I really believe that anymore??”

Well, now, I’m going to dust off the old book for a revisit. So, what is it that Christians are supposed to believe? And, how is it that Christians are expected to behave?

As a re-check, let’s assume that professing Christians actually believe in the stuff I’ve been saying. If they don’t, I’m not sure what to do with them and I’d ask the skeptic who comes across such a person to clarify what it is that they actually believe. If they don’t believe that Jesus is who he repeatedly said he was or they don’t believe that he really meant those first two commandments about loving God and others above all else, then I’m afraid I can’t speak for them. And, Christians can’t be held to account for their behavior.

Furthermore, if Paul is to be dismissed or not taken at his word, we’re in the same kind of situation. After all, I can’t discern anything in 1 Corinthians 13 that isn’t reflective of the two main commandments.

So, now, let’s (for the purpose of argument) assume that people who follow Jesus believe this stuff to be true and not in just a theoretical sense. They actually don’t let the words and the concepts they present fade into oblivion.

Paul is saying that, in the end, if we have all sorts of great gifts and do all sorts of great things but do not have love, it is nothing. We can be whip-smart, even wise beyond measure, having vast resources of knowledge, but if we do not have love, we are nothing. We can have rock-solid faith, we can give everything we have to the poor, we can subject ourselves to privation but if we do not have love, it is nothing.

Whoa. Stop the presses.

But, aren’t Christians supposed to use their God-given gifts (or talents) to do good? Aren’t Christians supposed to truly help the poor? Aren’t Christians supposed to have strong faith? Aren’t Christians supposed to be willing to give up security in the cause of good?

What’s going on here?

(As a kind of aside, it’s curious that non-Christian “humanists,” those who idolize humanity and believe that moral good comes from humanity, look at some of the values Paul is claiming are ultimately deficient … and those values are actually really important. This is one reason why so many non-Christians, even atheists, do not necessarily reject some of the teaching of Jesus but denounce the whole package.)

Paul does not mince words. He’s a very bright guy and he’s reminding his readers both in the Corinthian church gone astray and all followers of Jesus that they’d better come back to the main thing.

Fortunately, he does not stop with the first paragraph. If he had, it would have been a nice and simple declaration that love is the most important thing. Well, ok, but that would not have left us much to really consider.

No, he lays out what love is and what love isn’t. While the list may not be exhaustive, I’d ask Christians and non-Christians to meditate on what he’s declaring.

Love is patient.

Love is kind.

Love always protects.

Love always trusts.

Love always hopes.

Love rejoices with the truth.

Love always perseveres.

 

Love does not envy.

Love does not boast.

Love is not proud.

Love does not dishonor others.

Love is not self-seeking.

Love is not easily angered.

Love keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil.

Love never fails.

So, what do we have? Paul is painting a picture. He’s taking a commonly used word and giving it great depth and meaning. He’s telling us to sit down and pay attention; let’s stop giving lip service to profound things that are the basis for all of reality. In other words, we can be very religious people buying into all sorts of beliefs and doctrines but it does us no good if we miss out on the things that are ultimately the most important.

Do you agree with his list? Perhaps you agree with some of it. Perhaps you would add or delete certain things. If you would take away some of these, why would that be?

Diane and I and many others we know spend time with verses like this. I do not say that as a boast, by any stretch of the imagination. It’s mostly because in my case, I need to continually reflect on the important stuff because I can easily be neglectful. Just look at the second set of pronouncements! I mean, most of us can probably look at the first set and go, “OK. I can live with that.” But, come on. The values of our world, the darker tendencies of our hearts, are certainly reflected in the second set. Accordingly, it takes work to constantly remind ourselves of what love is and what it is not.

In other words, if I really believe in this stuff, then I need to constantly pay attention to it. I need to be in community with others who believe it and who can help one another as we walk, stumble, fall, and get up again. How easy it is to be envious. How easy it is to boast. How easy it is to be proud, to dishonor others, to be all about oneself, to easily get angry, to lack forgiveness, to be tempted by things that are not healthy.

I am not here to say that only Christians pay attention to these things. But, I am here to say that Christians are called to not only pay attention but to focus on them intensely.

Let’s ask ourselves: When we get together with others, how frequently does a topic like this come up? How often do we ask others to share how pride and anger affect their lives and, in reverse, do we give permission to others to reflect on our lives?

For, this is the path of the pilgrim, the follower of Jesus, who says, “I am on a journey from here to there. Here is where I am and there is where I’m called to be. I need to work at this every day but, in the end, I know that it is only by God’s grace that I can make true progress. It is by God’s grace that I am forgiven my all-too-often submission to the temptations of pride, envy, anger and self-righteousness. And, it is by God’s grace that I am provided the acute awareness of these things and something like the tools to help overcome them.”

There is a theological term that I need to introduce here, to those for whom it is unfamiliar. I believe it will help us move closer to an answer to the author’s line of questioning.

And it is Sanctification.

I have written before about grace. I consider it a manifestation of God’s perfect love. In Christian life it is the agape love of which C.S. Lewis speaks. (If this is a new term, it is pronounced uh-gop-a. gop as in cop and a long a at the end.) Grace is that unique action by which we give a beautiful gift to those undeserving. There is no merit involved. I will not get back into it here other than to say that grace is absolutely central to Christian living. Where it is absent, is an indication that something is truly amiss.

So, what is sanctification? It is one way to describe a particular feature of grace. It is the process whereby we are being made into the kind of person God wants us to be. If complete surrender to God puts us “right” with him (that’s actually called Justification or Justifying Grace), then sanctification is the long journey defined by Jesus whereby we grow to be more like him. Which is the point of the whole thing. It is the journey engaged by the “disciple,” the follower, the pilgrim who, once surrendered says, “Now, Lord, you have me. Please work in me to cleanse the garbage and bring forth the principles and virtues you gave your life for.”

The conclusion should be obvious. A Christian is not someone who can passively rest on a single decision – who prays a prayer and then thinks, presto bingo, I have eternal life. End of story. No, a Christian says, “I belong to you, Lord. Now have your way with me.” Sanctification is the process whereby we surrender to God’s will and journey through life together, as the old skin is discarded and replaced bit by bit with a new one. At least that’s the theory.

I can hear the objection loud and clear! “So, if that’s the case, why then do we not see Christians as significantly more kind, patient, forgiving, and trustworthy, and less prone to anger, pride and self-righteousness? Shouldn’t everyone who is not a Christian just marvel at Christians and remark that they are a different breed altogether? Shouldn’t people in general be flocking to accept the Christian reality and shouldn’t entire cultures be transformed? If this sanctification thing is so real and so important, why aren’t more people being sanctified? What’s wrong with this picture?”

Great questions. Oh, I think that’s what the author is asking!

Are we done? Have I just been adding a lot of detail without adequately addressing the author’s questions and concerns? Have we just come back to the beginning without a reasonable answer?

We’ll see.

When we cut to the chase, one of the major criticisms of Christianity is that Christians are no better than other people. There are corollaries to this. One of them is that, if Christianity is true, then Christians should be better than an average population sample and, if they’re not, then Christianity cannot be true. Another is that non-Christians can easily be as good as Christians so, then, Christianity really doesn’t make a difference. Therefore, Christianity is either untrue or irrelevant.

The title of these essays is “Christians Have Some Things to Answer For.” I hope that’s appreciated. Those of us who have “bought into” the Christian story of all of reality need to stand up and admit that these criticisms have merit! It does us no good to hide behind the ramparts and say to the world, “but, you don’t understand it as I do.” Let’s turn the lens back on ourselves to wonder why these criticisms have flourished in the first place. So, fellow Jesus-followers who are reading this, how do you feel about responding to the criticisms? And, those of you reading this who either cannot fathom that the Christian explanation of things is actually true or you are kind of on the sidelines waiting for the dust to settle, please cut us at least a little slack as we work through this. Thank you!

Without rehashing the last post, what is it we can take away? Well, primarily it’s that it’s not enough to look out at the world and blame Christians for character flaws, violence and fanaticism. We’re certainly an easy target, for good reason, but hold the presses. All of mankind is hard-hearted and reflective of flaws, all of mankind has in it the seeds of violence and aligning all all-in Christians with the fanatics is clearly a mistake. Let’s pause for a minute, catch our breaths and ask what’s really going on here.

And, it’s here I want to circle back to Jesus’ main point – the whole enchilada encapsulated concisely. Love God and everyone. Period, end of report. “As I love you, you should love me and love all others.” That about says it.

Of course, he lets us know that he realizes this is not an easy thing – although it’s the main thing.

So, he says he’s going to help. As a matter of fact, he’s going to go through the whole process of taking on evil, sin, the fallen nature of man, the contorted values of the world, and all of that and he’s going to be with us to help us through the mess we’re faced with.

This is a crazy thing to say to the modern mind. Unless it’s actually not crazy and it’s true.

All this being said, we return to the questions on the table.

I said awhile back that the most basic principle undergirding all of Christianity is love. It’s not “get what I can out of life before I die.” It’s not, pursuing happiness. It’s not safety, security and good health. It’s not achieving freedom or equality in this life. It’s love.

Now, before we go, “duh,” we need to pay a lot of attention to this. Some may say this is self-evident but, actually, it’s anything but.

We return to Jesus’ two primary commandments – which are really just a nailing of the most important criteria for living the good or right kind of life: Love God and one another with everything. Put no one and no thing higher. Put the pursuit of no one or no thing as more important or central to our life – and that means each and every day, not just a matter of principle.

Because we do not have that innate ability and because the laws of this world – the way we organize our thinking, the things our hearts crave – this is fundamentally impossible. Which is one of the main reasons Jesus says we need him. We need to be “saved” from the “fallen” reality so we can live in the “true” reality.

To some, this may be mumbo jumbo. To a committed follower of Jesus, this is a big piece of what is meant by the “bread of life.”

So, in order to understand this issue about Christians being good, we have to place it in the context of love. To do otherwise is to completely misrepresent the most central principle of the faith. While there are many other elements to the gospel (the Good News, as it’s translated), this is the most important.

On the night that Jesus was betrayed and arrested, the night of the Passover Seder in Jerusalem, he was in extended conversation with his disciples, answering their questions and giving them advice. Let’s remember that, for the most part, they’d been with him every step of the way for three years. They’d heard and seen things that had turned their world upside down. They were struggling to grasp that he was saying it was all coming to a close. He told them he would not be with them much longer and that they would not be able to follow him to where he was going. Among one of the last things he left them with was this:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34-35).

So, there it is again. “This is your job”, said Jesus. And, directly to our point, he unequivocally tells them that they will be judged by how well they do. While the term “Christian” would not be created until later, this was the very first description of how people would know whether Christianity “worked.” For, their lives and actions must be a sign pointing to Jesus through a lens of love.

Well, you might think, that’s easy enough to say. Jesus preached love and told his disciples to live through acts of love. That’s fine and dandy but (1) What does that actually mean when you get down to it and (2) How loving are Christians as compared to others?

Let’s begin by addressing what is meant by love, in a Christian context. I’m choosing to do so by citing two sources, C.S. Lewis and the Apostle Paul.

If you have read more than a few of my postings, you know what I think of C.S. Lewis. There may be wiser people but right now none particularly come to mind. Of the many books of Lewis I own and have read, one of my favorites is a little one, entitled, The Four Loves. It is not one of his easiest reads but, when approached slowly and savored, it examines something we take for granted and opens it like a flower slowly blooming beautifully in the light of day. Upon finishing, we can never take the topic lightly again.

I have no space for detail here so I will include the most cursory summary.

Lewis begins with this piece of New Testament scripture, and with the confidence that it is true. “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:8)

He then goes on to identify four types of love … he calls them bonds. He uses Greek terms (Storge, Phileo, Eros and Agape) to entitle them but they can be translated fairly easily.

The first (Storge) is Empathy or Affection. It can be summarized as the love of enjoying someone or something. It can be the enjoyment of others, of being with good friends. Lewis says it is the most humble of loves.

The second (Phileo) is Friendship. It is the least jealous of the loves. “Friendship arises out of mere companionship when two or more of the companions discover that they have in common some insight or interest or even taste which the others do not share and which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure or burden.” He says that this is the least needed of the loves but seems to be the most enjoyed and long lasting of the earthly loves.

The third is Eros. This is the romantic or erotic love. Lewis says this one is “being in love.” He says it is the least thought out but the most felt. It is destroyed by analyzing it. It create the “hottest of fires” in our emotions. It can be a wonderful light or a scorching fire.

Finally, there is Agape love, or Charity. We are probably very familiar with the latter word but the word “agape” is used only within Christianity, to my knowledge. It is the most often-used Greek word for love in the New Testament. He said this is the highest and most unselfish of the loves. (We will explore this more deeply in a bit.) As another author describes it:

“Agape love is not natural and goes again human nature. It loves the unlovable, undeserving and ugly. It gives all and asks for nothing in return. It is the one that takes the greatest chance and is hit with the most loss. God is Agape, and that love we all will slowly develop as we grow in him. However, Lewis also points out that although God is love, not all love is God. He says that if any type of love became a god, it would, in fact, become a demon, seducing our souls toward despair and death.”

This brief exposition may raise more questions than answers and that’s fine. I’ve done it a terrible disservice by being so brief. Perhaps we can take away at least these three things. (1) It’s a mistake to see love as something simple and general. (2) We can see, perhaps, how one or more of these loves has affected us more or less strongly. (3) The end object is not love but the nature of the bond that is created through love … how are we and the object of our love affected (changed) via its presence?

Ok. Whereas I suspect very few readers would have been familiar with Lewis’ little book and those categories of love, I’ll hazard that more will be familiar with this next reference. And that reference is from a letter that the Apostle Paul wrote to a church he has previously established in the Greek seaport of Corinth around the year 51 AD. A few years later, when he was living in Ephesus (now in Turkey), he heard that there were a lot of problems in the Corinthian church and decided they needed some pointed advice to correct their destructive course. It can be seen as the most practical of all of his letters. He is clear in his thinking as he seeks to solve their problems. In fact, he ended up writing two letters to this church, which are now included in the New Testament right after his first set of writings in that long document, his letter to the Romans.

The passage which I will share is the potion of his letter from 1 Corinthians 13. Segments of it are commonly read at weddings, for good reason. However, I will ask that we don’t gloss over it, as I trust we will circle back later before concluding this long series.

Paul:

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophesy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge and if I have faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. 

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Not I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

There you have it. The most profound and important interpreter of the life and gospel of Jesus has laid it out bare. He identified a number of problems in the Corinthian church and chose to clearly extend this teaching so that they could change their course. His words, however, ring just as true today.

The author of the original questions is seeking some kind of metric by which we can assess the validity of Christianity. While I feel I could continue to bring in new material, I’m hoping now to shift gears and apply what we’ve learned to a final set of answers to the questions.

Until then ….

Let’s catch up.

Here are the original questions.

(1) What evidence is there that Christianity works?

(2) Is there a higher percentage of good people now amongst humanity than     there was 2000 years ago?

(3) Is the percentage of good people greater amongst Christians than non-         Christians?

(4) If you think the answers to these is “yes,” I would like to hear why you think so because I don’t see it.

 If the answers are “no,” then one must ask he question, is it just a fraction of people who “really get it” who turn out better? And, if so, what good does that do? Why would God make it so difficult to succeed for so many people? Or is it just about the struggle, in which case that sound like Hinduism? And, if the answers are really complicated, then de facto they are not available to most people, because most people can’t deal with anything complex (to some degree because they are taught to believe, not question, and not think for themselves.

In my last post, I brought up the following points.

• We have to define terms like Christian, good, and how we know if something works.
• Christianity is a religion made up by men to organize a common set of fundamental beliefs, all of which are centered in who Jesus was and why he came.
• Jesus emphasized two primary commandments about fully loving God and other people.
• Regarding what it would take for salvation, I referred to the famous story of the rich man and what it would take to be good. The message leaves us with the point that there’s nothing we can do to be truly good. Instead, we need to surrender everything to God and follow Jesus. Whether or not a listener would like that statement, that’s what he said.
• Therefore, the key to being good begins with an act of surrender and the willingness to become a person who loves God and others above all else.

All of this raises some very interesting problems, which are the basis of the author’s objections.

To summarize, if Christians believe all of this stuff and it’s true, then shouldn’t they collectively behave better than non-Christians and, then, wouldn’t the world be a much better place given all of the Christians in it?

While I could happily work my way through with an answer, I’m going to turn to one of my favorite writers, Tim Keller, who addresses a piece of this much better than I could ever hope to.

He says:

“Many people who take an intellectual stand against Christianity do so against a backdrop of personal disappointment with Christians and churches. We all bring to issues intellectual predispositions based on our experiences. If you have known many wise, loving, kind, and insightful Christians over the years, and if you have seen churches that are devout in belief yet civic-minded and generous, you will find the intellectual case for Christianity much more plausible. If, on the other hand, the preponderance of your experience is with nominal Christians (who bear the name but don’t practice it) or with self-righteous fanatics, then the arguments for Christianity will have to be extremely strong for you to concede that they have any cogency at all.”

He continues:

“So we have to address the behavior of Christians – individual and corporate – that has undermined the plausibility of Christianity for so many people. Three issues stand out. First, there is the issue of Christians’ glaring character flaws. If Christianity is the truth, why are so many non-Christians living better lives than the Christians? Second, there is the issue of war and violence. If Christianity is the truth, why has the institutional church supported war, injustice and violence over the years? Third, there is the issue of fanaticism. Even if Christian teaching has much to offer, why would we want to be together with so many smug, self-righteous, dangerous fanatics?”

Ok then. While the author of our original questions may have other reasons that gave rise to his concerns, I suspect these and their variations would be included.

Now, let’s turn to Keller’s first issue, that of Character Flaws.

He begins by admitting that anyone involved in the life of a church must be aware that the average professing Christian has many character flaws. These communities often have a lot of infighting and the moral failings of Christian leaders are well known. He continues that church officials seem to be at least as corrupt (if not more so) than leaders in the world at large. He then asks the same question as our author. “If Christianity is all it claims to be, shouldn’t Christians on the whole be better people than everyone else?”

You have to admit, Keller is not shying away from taking the issue head-on!

He points out several things that are central to Christian theology. One is that all people are seriously flawed. None of us rise to the standard God seeks for us. None of us is THAT good. We are made right with God through grace and grace alone. Keller argues that it’s a mistake to believe that a person must “clean up” his or her own life in order to merit God’s favor. That is just not a Christian principle. The church is full of “immature and broken people who still have a long way to go emotionally, morally and spiritually. As the saying goes, ‘the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.’”

Authentic Christian discipleship (consistently turning to Jesus for help to be more loving, giving, forgiving, etc…) despite all our predispositions and temptation to act otherwise, can and does often result in character transformation. We’ll come back later to what this can look like.

The second issue Keller addresses is that of Religion and Violence.

There is no question that practitioners of nearly all major belief systems have fueled violence. Keller mentions one of our most widely known and outspoken current atheists, Christopher Hitchens, who argues that religion “poisons everything,” that is like racism in that it is “an enormous multiplier of tribal suspicion and hatred.” Keller concedes that Hitchens’ point is fair. Christian nations have promoted imperialism and violence through the Inquisition and Slave Trade. Japan, greatly influenced by Buddhism and Shintoism, gave birth to the totalitarian and militaristic culture we saw in the middle of the last century. Both Islam and Hinduism have been the source of significant violence against those who don’t abide by their tenets. However, argues Keller, this is equally true of atheistic communism under Russia, China and Cambodia. Or their forerunner, the French Revolution, which celebrated the triumph of reason yet produced massive violence.

Keller: “Violence done in the name of Christianity is a terrible reality and must be both addressed and redressed. There is no excusing it. In the 20^th century, however, violence has been inspired as much by secularism as by moral absolutism. Societies that have rid themselves of all religion have been just as oppressive as those steeped in it. We can only conclude that there is some violent impulse so deeply rooted in the human heart that it expresses itself regardless of what the beliefs of a particular society might be – whether socialist or capitalist, whether religious or irreligious, whether individualistic or hierarchical. Ultimately, then, the fact of violence and warfare in a society is no necessary refutation of the prevailing beliefs of that society.” (Bold highlighting is mine)

So, of course, Keller is defending religion and Christianity against the charge that they are the cause of violence … a poisoning of society in Hitchens’ argument as against a belief that the absence of religion will promote peace. Now, this is not exactly what our questioning author is getting at. For, the astute reader (and the author) will note that his question is not directing “blame” for the bad stuff upon Christians. He is merely asking for evidence that they are less to blame than non-Christians. I included Keller’s piece on this as it is a common objection about whether Christianity is, indeed, true to its principles. We will return to this later.

Finally, we turn to Keller’s third issue, which is Fanaticism.

Keller: “Perhaps the biggest deterrent to Christianity for the average person today is not so much violence and warfare but the shadow of fanaticism. Many non believers have friends or relatives who have become ‘born again’ and seem to have gone off the deep end. They soon begin to express loudly their disapproval of various groups and sectors of our society – especially movies and television, the Democratic Party, homosexuals, evolutionists, activist judges, members of other religions and the values taught in public schools. When arguing for the truth of their faith they often appear intolerant and self-righteous. This is what many people would call fanaticism.”

Forgive me for quoting Keller at some length and in such detail. Hopefully, by the time I conclude this entire series of essays, my reasoning will become clear.

Keller continues: “Many people try to understand Christians along a spectrum from ‘nominalism’ at one end to ‘fanaticism’ on the other. A nominal Christian is someone who is Christian in name only, who does not practice it and barely believes it. A fanatic is someone who is thought to over-believe and over-practice Christianity. In this schematic, the best kind of Christian would be someone in the middle, someone who doesn’t go all the way with it, who believes it but is not too devoted to it. The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the Christian faith is basically a form of moral improvement. Intense Christians would therefore be intense moralists or, as they were called in Jesus’ time, Pharisees. Pharasaic people assume they are right with God because of their moral behavior and right doctrine. This leads naturally to feelings of superiority toward those who do not share their religiosity, and from there to various forms of abuse, exclusion and oppression. This is the essence of what we think of as fanaticism.” (Bold highlighting is mine)

Bear with me for his response.

“What if, however, the essence of Christianity is salvation by grace, salvation not because of what we do but because of what Christ has done for us? Belief that you are accepted by God by sheer grace is profoundly humbling. The people who are fanatics, then, are so not because they are too committed to the gospel but because they’re not committed to it enough.” (Bold highlighting is mine)

“Think of people you consider fanatical. They’re overbearing, self-righteous, opinionated, insensitive, and harsh. Why? It’s not because they are too Christian but because they are not Christian enough. They are fanatically zealous and courageous, but they are not fanatically humble, sensitive loving, empathetic, forgiving, or understanding – as Christ was. Because they think of Christianity as a self-improvement program they emulate the Jesus of the whips in the temple, but not the Jesus who said, ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ (John 8:7). What strikes us as overly fanatical is actually a failure to be fully committed to Christ and the gospel.”

I will conclude this portion shortly.

I assume that the author is suggesting that either the answers to his questions should be simple or else there’s a fatal flaw in Christianity in that most people won’t understand it. And, here I am proceeding through a meticulous rendering of the whole thing, not yet having come close to a conclusion. I may run out of gas (as you, the reader well might) before I’ve addressed the questions to my satisfaction … or his. I will say this: The Christian faith is earth-shattering. No one could make this stuff up. I continue to be amazed at both its incredible complexity and its remarkable simplicity. Whether in these essays tied to the questions or in later ones, I hope to reflect how it takes very little intellect to grasp the eternal truths and their implications. But, we’ll have to see how that goes. For now, thank you for listening and God bless.