The Apostle's Creed and the Great Omission

Christian Creeds are important. They should represent the core tenets of our Faith. They should encapsulate the revealed Biblical concepts we wish to express about our lives as Christ followers.  The purpose of a creed is to act as a yardstick of correct belief, or orthodoxy.

But what happens when they don’t really represent some or even one of the most important ideas expressed through the Bible? What happens when the orthodoxy expressed does not properly inform our orthopraxy?

Such is what I recently discovered about the Apostle's Creed. 

I grew up Roman Catholic reciting this creed regularly. Learning it at a young age. I could repeat it rote, as I did again this past week for the first time in many years. Our Perspectives instructor, Dr.Don Richardson, used it to make a point of how the Church has too often missed one of the most important ideas expressed throughout the Bible. 

It was one of those moments when you say to yourself, “ah ha, that explains it!”

 

Take a look at the text of the Apostle's Creed. Do you see something missing? I had never really thought about it before that night when Dr. Richardson turned the spotlight on it. I would wager that those who recite it regularly as part of their denominational liturgy don’t really think much about these words. 

The Apostle's Creed wasn’t written until about 390AD (dates vary). The Creed  certainly highlights some basic attributes about Jesus: how he was born, how he died, that he rose again, ascended into heaven, and that he will come again to judge all mankind. It also speaks to what we receive by faith – the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of our bodies, and life everlasting. 

One thing missing in the text is the divinity of Jesus Christ, but we might assume that the Church Fathers implied this. Also missing is any reference to the Trinity, but the three Persons of the Godhead are represented. No reference is made to the Bible but a list of books to be included in the Scriptures was not developed until the Council of Hippo in 393AD. 

However an important part of the story, of the Gospels, is clearly missing. Have you found it yet? The missing link, if you will? Think with me here....

        ....how do we get from…"He will come to judge the living and the dead”

To the “I believe"….?”

What is missing from the Apostles Creed is the Gospel mission, the proclamation of the Good News that links the “living and the dead” to the “I believe.” 

More to the point, what is completely missing is the work that Jesus started after his resurrection – the mission of the Church to get to the “I believe” - for "all nations."

The writers of the Apostle's Creed fly right past the end of the Gospels after the resurrection and speed headlong into the ascension. Reading it, without thinking about it as I did when I was a boy, that millions do regularly even today, without mention of the "Great Commission" is the great omission. 

The writers of the Creed go right from "He rose again from the grave" to "He ascended into heaven." 

Jesus didn’t just ascend into heaven after his resurrection, as the Apostle’s Creed makes it appear. The resurrected Jesus still had some very vital things to tell us, and he did so over a period of 40 days. This 40 day period began the process that changed the world. Every Gospel writer captured something of this time that followed the resurrection.

In Matthew we find the resurrected Jesus commissioning his followers to continue the work he had begun – in his authority and in the power of his presence.  (Matthew28:18-20). Jesus gives his disciples the assignment to “make disciples of all nations” - the Great Commission.  

At the end of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus told his disciples, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16) 

In Luke 24, Jesus appears to his disciples giving them their assignment to preach, “repentance for the forgiveness of sins…to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47). 

In John 20, Jesus says to his disciples, “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” (John 20:21). Jesus understood that he was sent on a mission for “all nations” (Mark 13:10) and sent his disciples out on that same mission. 

Without this vital part of the ministry of Jesus, we miss the very reason he came – to establish his mission (Matthew 12:17-21), put in place his mechanism to achieve his end (Matthew 16:18) and establish the methodology (John 8:31) by which the Good News would go to “all nations.”

 

Without this part of what we believe about Jesus, we miss the very reason he actually did come. Jesus didn’t come to simply provide for our personal salvation. He did do that. But Jesus came to establish his Kingdom (Matthew 24:14). 

Luke writes in Acts 1:3, “After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” Jesus said more about the Kingdom than any other subject. 

The question that needs to be asked is why did a creed, attributed to the Apostles, leave this out from what Christians would say they believe about our risen Lord and Savior? The Apostles, including Paul, certainly understood this mission but that is for another post.

The result of this exclusion, for the work of world evangelization and the mission endeavor that all Christ followers are called  to - as his “witnesses in Jerusalem, and Judea, and Samaria and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) - may well be at least one compelling reason for Church history being what it is. Could it be the reason that for centuries the Kingdom advanced slowly at best, sometimes digressing and often at the point of a sword instead of by the Good News for “all nations”? 

 

Jesus came and accomplished his mission (John 17:4) of initiating a movement that would change the world, for the sake of “all nations.” Under the Apostles and later Paul’s leadership, the church expanded quickly, growing exponentially from a small band of early adopters to 25 million in the first three centuries of Church history. The Apostles understood the mission they had been given but at some point the movement lost focus on Jesus command to “make disciples of all nations.”

 

Another problem I see with the profession of the Apostle’s Creed is that the focus is anthropocentric, self focused – what will God do for me.  When Jesus taught us to pray, he spoke of "our Father" and calls us to be God and “other” focused so that his Kingdom expands to “every nation, tribe and tongue.” (Revelation 7:9). 

The story is told of William Carey, one of the pioneers of the modern mission movement, who understood that something was missing from the profession of the Christian faith of his time. Carey stood before his church leadership excited about his discovery about what Jesus had commissioned his church to do. Mr. Ryland, the very man who had baptized Carey, quickly interrupted him and said, "Sit down, young man, sit down and be still. When God wants to convert the heathen, He will do it without consulting either you or me." 

Is something still missing from the profession of our Christian faith in the 21st Century? Yes!  If you haven't found your place in the Great Commission - you are! 

Today, there may be as many as 409,000 foreign missionaries out of a global Christian population of 2.18 billion. That is one missionary out of every 5,330 Christians or 0.018% of all Christians serving the mission Jesus gave the Church full-time. The great omission continues to this very day.

The casualty of a Church turned inward from her task, leaving the assignment Jesus gave us unfinished, are the billions who still have not heard the Gospel – not once. 

How much influence did this great omission in the Apostle's Creed play toward that end? It clearly can be seen in Mr. Ryland’s response and the lives of the vast majority of Christians today.

There are other theological issues with this famous creed but for me this is the most important – for Living Sent Today.

I’ll blog more about this topic in future posts. Please feel free to share this post with others or share your thoughts. All comments are moderated.  

Rethinking the Young Earth Debate: “Draw Nye to God” -

I do not like this Young Earth thinking,

I do not like this debate of Ham,

I think it’s time for an exam.

I do not find it at all compelling

In fact, I find it rather telling.

I do not want to hold to Ham

I’ve come to think it’s too much a sham.

Now it’s time to do some rethinking. 

Okay, a poor attempt at rhyme, sorry Dr. Seuss. But the more I think about it, the more I am rethinking this whole creation debate.  Last week I mentioned I didn’t watch the now famous, or infamous, Nye/Ham wrestling match. As I mentioned, I have given up wrestling with atheists over origins as it really accomplishes little to nothing - at least for atheists. (You can read Part I here.)

If any benefit comes from this much publicized debate it may be that many Christians begin to rethink their arguments for origins and really wrestle with the scriptures. Many Christians support the Young Earth position while many others do not. In fact, according to a recent CT article, many Christians don't even give this topic much thought. But that's not necessarily a good thing.

As I have thought about this debate and the Biblical support for it, I find the arguments turning green with the mold of out-dated thinking. As I’ve read both pro-Ham and the pro-Nye comments, it seems the former hinge upon a single verse of Scripture, whereas the later just looks to what science says about evolution. I wonder how many are actually rethinking this debate in Biblical terms? There are some who wrestle well, no doubt, but every Christian should do some of their own. Here's my attempt.

Let's start with two questions. First, can we find a Biblical basis for rethinking the young earth argument? Yes, I think we can and we must. Second, do we need to move beyond a literal interpretation of Scripture to accomplish that? Not at all. Paul’s admonitions us to: “test everything and hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). 

Let’s test the most prevalent argument, at least that I've seen,  in support of the young earth position which relies on Romans 5:12:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” 

Using this verse, the argument is made: "how could death be in the world before Adam?"  If the earth is old then death would have needed to be in the world before Adam and that would be a contradiction of this verse. We don’t want to make the Bible contradict itself or it loses credibility, or at least our argument does. But this really isn’t much of a quandary when we rethink what the Bible does tell us about this “death.”

To our modern Western thinking death is the end of life in this realm.  All life is terminal, due to the Fall. Nothing lives beyond an appointed season (Ecclesiastes 3:1-2). But is that really what is in view here with respect to "death" – simply termination of life? Or, is there something more to it? We need to revisit the Genesis account, and think deeper about what we read. 

The picture we see in the initial two chapters of Genesis is that God was actively engaged in his creative process.  More profound than the grandness of the created order, which declares a God who made everything, is to find a God who created us in his image - for relationship. The whole of the Bible describes a God who desires to communicate with us, connect personally to us, and commune together through us - for his glory.

This was God’s plan and purpose for his image bearers from the beginning but something went tragically wrong. God had commanded our first couple not to touch a certain tree. The penalty for doing so was that they would “die.”(Genesis 3:2). While I'm no Hebrew scholar, the primary use of the Hebrew word here for “die” - muwth - means to be killed, to be executed, as a purposeful act. The question we can ask next is – “what was killed”? Another way to ask the question is, "what was brought to it's untimely demise?"

The compelling question we encounter in this account is God asking: “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9). It wasn’t as if the Lord didn’t know the whereabouts of our first couple or what was on their minds. Adam and Eve had “killed,” brought to an untimely demise, their intimate relationship with the Lord by their rebellion against God’s single command.

We know that our first couple did not “die” in a physical sense right away, Adam, lived to be 930 years old (Genesis 5:5), but rather in their spiritual connection with the Life Giver. For their disobedience God did not “kill” or “execute” them but banished them from the garden and a “curse” befell all of future mankind.  Part of the curse, that speaks to this death, is recorded in Genesis 3:19: 

“By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground,  since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Ken Ham’s organization, Answers in Genesis offers this explanation of this verse:

“At that point, Adam and Eve began to die and would return to dust (Genesis 3:19). If they were meant to die right then, the text should have simply used muwth only once, which means “dead, died, or die” and not beginning to die or surely die (as muwth-muwth is used in Hebrew). Old Testament authors understood this and used it in such a fashion, but we must remember that English translations can miss some of the nuance…. If this is translated word for word, it would be “dying die” or “die die,"            

What is missing from this explanation is the reason why this “dying die” happened, but the explanation is not missing from the Scriptures. Genesis 3:22-23 tell us: 

“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.” (emphasis mine) 

The reason this “dying die” occurred was that mankind was banished from the Garden and not permitted to eat of the “tree of life.” It is important to note that no other creature is said to have access to this “tree.” God was dealing solely with his image bearers. Only his image bearers were destined to live with God forever. 

What entered the world through Adam, was the “death” of a relationship, separation of the image bearers, the end of direct communion with the living God and access to the “tree of life” – the result of “sin.” This separation affects all mankind for we have all “sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” It is the plight of mankind, due to this separation, this broken relationship, to die once and then face judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

If in fact what is in view is separation from God, which is so clearly evident in Genesis 3, then the terminal nature of life in this dominion does not present an obstacle for an old earth view. It is important to note that nowhere does God say mankind would live forever - only that we had opportunity to do so. The Good News is that we  still do - in Christ.

If the only member of the living creation that are separated from relationship with God are his image bearers, then Romans 5:12 has no bearing on other created life. Therefore, there is no reason to apply this verse to a pre-Adamic world.  We can allow science to speak to that world, to describe it for us, to theorize about it - as Christ followers we have more important things to do. 

Respected theologians agree with this view. For example, referring to Romans 5:12, James Montgomery Boice stated: “But this [death] does not really pertain to the animal realm, in that animals do not have God-consciousness... [It] is conceivable that animals could be created to enjoy a normal lifespan and then to die without having any of the judgmental qualities death has for man.”

[Other Christian leaders who hold to an Old Earth view include: John Ankerberg, Walter Kaiser, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, J.P. Moreland, Chuck Colson, Paul Copan, Greg Koukl, C.S. Lewis, Hugh Ross, and Lee Strobel. (source)]

Romans 5:12 clearly states that "death," spiritual and physical, came to "all people" (NIV). The Bible shows us God at work to change this condition, redeeming us from the "curse," and restoring us to right relationship, by faith. This needs to be our focus - not arguing over how old the earth may be. 

Another meaning of the Hebrew word “die” is “to die prematurely.” It was never God’s intention to end his relationship with mankind (2 Peter 3:9), but mankind’s sinfulness brought about this premature end to our divine connection with God, leaving us separated (Isaiah 59:2). But God wasn’t caught off guard by this relationship split. In fact, The Lord had a plan, even before the creation (1 Peter 1:20), to restore right relationship with himself. Jesus told us simply, “You must be born-again” (John 3:7)

We will not draw the Bill Nye’s of the world to a relationship with the living God by building a theology around one verse like Romans 5:12 and using it to argue for a 6,000 year old earth when the science does not support it – neither does sound Biblical exegesis. We can only make a difference in the world by drawing “nye to God” so that he draws near to us (James 4:8) – for Living Sent Today.

I’ll blog more about this topic in future posts. Please feel free to share this post with others or share your thoughts and feel free to tell me where I am going wrong in my rethinking. All comments are moderated. 

Rethinking Wisdom: "I know nothing."

It is reported that Plato's Socrates said, "I know that I know nothing." Another translation puts it like this,"I know one thing: that I know nothing" With the notable exception of Solomon, is there anyone from antiquity considered wiser than Socrates?

The more complete translations of this thought is this: "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." 

Socrates was responding to a question: "Is anyone wiser than Socrates?" The wise know one very important thing - that they do not fancy themselves to know what they do not or cannot know.

As I consider this quote, I am rethinking what it means to be wise, as last week I was sadly "unfriended" for this Facebook comment: 

"...Isn't it time we stop the board brush assumptions about what other Christians might do, and the stereotypes such as (edited: a particular group of other Christians).... Why assume we know anything about how others, as a group, might respond in this case? Let God be the judge - Romans 2:1"

When we stereotype we only demonstrate how "unwise" we are. Not that stereotyping is necessarily inaccurate as a whole of a position held by a group. Groups do have identities, positions they hold, thinking that make them who they are. But often we demonstrate how unwise we are by using them. 

My “friend” was questioning how this particular Christian group, a group my friend apparently doesn’t hold in much esteem, would respond to the recent tragic death of Philip Seymour Hoffman. His wondering causing him "cringe"publicly. Not a loving posture to take.

Stereotypes, even if accurate, only demonstrate oversimplified thinking. The problem with thinking in stereotypes is that groups aren’t people – individuals. Stereotypes never represent the whole. Worse, grouping people dehumanizes them, and therefore they become easy targets. We can easily dismiss and diminish “others” because they are not “one of us.” This is unwise and truly unloving. 

As Socrates said, “neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something.” Isn't it unwise to think we know something about how others might respond to a tragic death of another, based on a stereotype? Human emotions are never predictable.

.

Especially in such matters, we would do well to emulate Socrates in this: "I know one thing: that I know nothing." That is not to say that we should know nothing. Not at all – we are told to get wisdom (Proverbs 4:5). Rather, it is unwise to think we do know what others know or would do in every case, based upon our presuppositions.

On a public forum like Facebook we can easily make known what we think we know, and find ourselves challenged by a simple question – “is this good?” “How does it build up others?” We may think we are wise, sure of ourselves, but easily demonstrate how unwise we are. Lord knows I have been guilty of this.

I think what Socrates was saying is that it is better to not demonstrate how wise we think we are than to demonstrate we simply aren’t as wise as we think. 

As Christ followers we are called to be wise in how we interact with others. “We do…speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age….we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.” (1 Cor 2:6-7). 

Our wisdom must be used to encourage one another and build each other up (1 Thessalonians 5:11) in a way that demonstrates the Gospel and unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3). That is sufficient wisdom for Living Sent Today.

Rethinking Gospel: Taking Possession of “My Gospel”

“Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith—“

What was Paul proclaiming as his message and what did he mean by “my Gospel?”

Clearly Paul had a much different idea about the Gospel than many understand it today. I mean, who really talks about “my Gospel?”

For Paul, the Gospel was not an ethereal idea about making a “decision” to get “saved,” as some future benefit. Of course, eternal salvation is central to the Gospel and Paul elsewhere talks about the Gospel of your salvation (actually Romans 1:16 and Ephesians 1:13 are the only two verses that directly link the words Gospel and salvation in a single verse). But for Paul, there was much more to the Good News than making a decision. It only started there. 

There is something complete, compelling, and clarifying in what Paul is expressing here when he says, “Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel.” Paul understood what he had been “saved” from (Romans 5:6-7). More importantly, Paul knew what he was “saved” to, what he was established by, what gave direction and definition to his life (Ephesians 1:17-20). But Paul knew he was still a work in progress for he says, “not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.” (Philippians 3:12). 

Paul’s message wasn’t just something that he added to his life, as a one-time decision. His message was his very life, because his Gospel was Jesus Christ himself. This Gospel made Paul who he was and by Him he lived, worked and persevered for his Gospel – His Jesus. Paul did so not for his own sake, to his gain alone, but so that “that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith.”

 

That is what Paul wanted to establish in the Romans he was writing to as well. Paul had just written a very lengthy letter about all he understood about his Gospel. The Gospel had taken hold of all of Paul’s life. Paul had taken possession of his Gospel, or better his Gospel had taken possession of Paul. 

How different this is for most American Christians.  More importantly, we should ask, how is this different in my life? 

I know some of have taken possession of their Gospel.  Their lives are wholly dedicated, defined and directed by their Gospel. There is nothing more that they want in life than to live for their Gospel. We commonly call them missionaries, wherever they serve. They can also be called World Christians  - those who understand their mission, as being part of God’s mission. They are not a special breed of elite Christian. They do however possess a knowledge, a testimony, that activates and animates their lives – just as Paul had. 

What do those who know “my Gospel” understand differently? For one, like Paul, they understand that they have died to self and they live for Christ (Galatians 2:20). This makes the Gospel theirs. They also understand that the Gospel is not about them but rather and most importantly it is about God. They live for God’s purpose in the world, not their own. They then ask different questions and set different priorities. 

Recently, I came across an excellent post, written about one of my favorite books, that provides a good framework by which to rethink taking possession of “my Gospel.” The writer of this post draws a dichotomy between what most of us think is important against the real questions and consideration we need to be making.  We can frame it as the difference between being a worldly Christian and a World Christian. 

Below are six points to prayerfully consider and use as a gauge. It would be a good exercise to honestly grade yourself on where you fit on this scale: 

Worldly Christian ----1----2-----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10----World Christian

·       

• We ask, ‘Where does God fit into the story of my life?’ when the real question is where does my little life fit into the great story of God’s mission.

• We want to be driven by a purpose that has been tailored just right for our own individual lives, when we should be seeing the purpose of all life, including our own, wrapped up in the great mission of God for the whole of creation.

• We talk about ‘applying the Bible to our lives’. What would it mean to apply our lives to the Bible instead, assuming the Bible to be the reality — the real story — to which we are called to conform ourselves?

• We wrestle with ‘making the gospel relevant to the world’. But in this story, God is about the business of transforming the world to fit the shape of the gospel.

• We argue about what can legitimately be included in the mission that God expects from the church, when we should ask what kind of church God wants for the whole range of his mission.

• I may wonder what kind of mission God has for me, when I should be asking what kind of me God wants for his mission.

Perhaps you don’t know God’s mission. That’s not uncommon, many Christians don’t. I will be blogging more about this in future posts and mentioned some resources in this post. To take possession of “my Gospel” we must move along this scale toward living fully as World Christians, and let that define our lives. 

Paul lived to bring definition from God’s perspective in all areas of his life and ministry, therefore, he knew the Gospel was his. No price was too big, no challenge too great, no obstacle too large to find his place in God’s story for God’s mission, toward the transformation of God’s world, for the glory of God among the nations. I am evaluating what this means for me, how I can rethink the Gospel through these 6 points…for Living Sent Today.

Rethinking Apologetics: Why I Didn’t Watch the Nye/Ham Debate

I have been reading a lot this week about the debate between Bill Nye, the “Science Guy” and Ken Ham, the YEC. I didn’t watch it and really didn’t care to. 

One reason I didn’t watch this much publicized debate was because I was preoccupied with my Perspective students, equipping them to live as World Christians. Even if I had the time, however, I wouldn’t have invested it, any longer, in watching a battle of worldviews. Nothing much is gained by doing so. Did the world see a witness for Christ’s love and grace, did any atheist watching come to Christ after the debate, or was it simply another meaningless philosophical argument, with some meaningless scientific data thrown in, but no winners? 

Scientific data will not compel anyone to think, “oh, I should become a Christian, these guys are just too smart.” I have no idea who won the debate, and don’t really care. Of course, one side will say Nye had the better argument. Others will say Ham. It doesn’t really matter. To their credit, I understand it was a respectful debate.

Such debates over creation, and scientific data, tend to miss the point - God's purpose in creation. 

The fact is, creation is a mystery and I don’t find it helpful, any longer, to be dogmatic about a mystery. What is the point, especially when the purpose of creation isn't even discussed? Hebrews 11:3 tells us that "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible"  The mystery is the how (ex nihilo) and when but more important is to understand something of the why (Colossians 1:16). 

Notice, I have now said “any longer” twice. The reason is, I once did argue and debate over these matters and thought I could so with the best of them. First, I did so from the atheist perspective, as I was a professing atheist for several years in my late teens and early twenties. Then, coming to faith in Christ, at the age of 36, I learned the apologetic arguments about creation. I could argue endlessly, in chat rooms, blogs and other social media forums - “defending the faith.” 

The result was, I never got anywhere. No one ever changed their position. No one came to Christ. It was a futile effort amounting to nothing but mental gymnastics that gave me a sense of intellectual superiority.  In fact, I found satisfaction in tearing down my opponents arguments, belittling their position, and threatening them with hell and damnation for opposing God. I could wield Psalm 14:1 as a bloody sword. I thought I was loving God with all mind and strength but did I love my atheist "neighbor" as myself? No and it was evident to them. 

Over the past few years, I have given up this battle. First, because I find no basis for it in Scripture, Neither Jesus, Paul or any of the other New Testament writers argued apologetics with atheists, over origins, cosmology, epistemology or other philosophical position. Sure, Paul talks about the condition of the unbeliever in his Romans letter (Romans 1), but this isn’t license to use those arguments to defeat others. Rather, they should inform us of who we are apart from the grace of God in our lives (Romans 2).

I still appreciate good apologetic reasoning, I just don’t find it all that useful in dialogue with unbelievers. It is not our job to convince people we are right in what we think about "how" we came to be. 2 Corinthians 4:4 tells us that the unbeliever cannot grasp these matters due to having their understanding blinded. Their worldview simply does not allow for them to think in terms of a God who created it all. And, then to make claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old, based on an accounting record of Genesis certainly makes no sense to them. I have come to think it doesn’t make much sense to me either and I'm not alone in that assessment.

I think rather we need to rethink how we use apologetics. Let’s visit the verse in 1 Peter 3:15 from where we get this apologetics idea. 

“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” 

If you have been a Christian for any length of time, you know this verse well. You know that the words “give an answer” is the Greek word ‘apologia,’ from where we get our word 'apologetics.'

Notice that this verse doesn’t give license to use apologetics as a debating tactic. It instructs us to give an answer for our hope - when we are asked. Our hope is not in our cosmological arguments, or our epistemological reasoning. But in Christ alone!  That is why Peter instructs us to set apart Christ in our hearts, to revere Jesus Christ as Lord of all. It is for that reason, Peter tells us that when we give an answer to do so with “gentleness and respect.” I have repented of not doing so, which is another reason I don’t watch these debates. 

But we also need to put this verse in context. Peter was writing to a Christian church, suffering great persecution at the hands of a pagan culture. Still he says, their hope must be communicated in “gentleness and respect.” 

In verse 14, Peter writes, “But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed." Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened." 

Too often it seems apologetics today is used as a weapon against the threats of our increasingly pagan culture, as if we really have something to fear.  In Christ, we don’t. In fact, Peter tells us that when we suffer, for the cause of Christ, we are blessed. That is certainly a counter-intuitive idea for American Christians but a high calling in Christ. 

No, I don’t want to see American Christians or any of our brothers and sisters around the world, suffering for Christ. That’s not the point. The point is are we truly setting apart Christ, revering him as Lord, bearing witness to his grace, mercy, love and truth. Or, do we simply want to see the Bill Nye’s of the world defeated intellectually? 

The greatest apologetic we can offer the world is not a battle over origins. The greatest apologetic we can offer the world is the incarnational presence of the resurrected Christ. It’s time we rethink apologetics in how we love our neighbor as ourselves.  It’s time the Church stop majoring in the minors but embrace the “most excellent way” for Living Sent Today.