Idol Vegetarians?

So I’ve been inspired by a colleague and fellow theology graduate to post some of my favourite/best essays, and well this is one of the ones I enjoyed writing and got some pretty good results in. The question was:

“What was the problem with ‘meat offered to idols’ and how does Paul deal with it? (1 Corinthians 8-10)

Your answer should reflect the implications of this situation for the practice of Christian ministry today. i.e. Contemporary relevance.”

The Historical Context of 1st Corinthians

The city of Corinth was less than 100 years old when Paul arrived circa AD 52, after have been destroyed and then re-established as a Roman colony in 46 BC.[1] Julius Caesar re-colonised the city with war veterans, ‘freedmen’ (former slaves), traders and labourers.[2] By the time Paul wrote to the Corinthian church the city had become a bustling multi ethnic city home to Romans, Greeks, Jews (many of whom were prisoners of war from the Jewish revolt in AD 70), and other ethnic groups from the Roman Empire.[3] Much of this growth was a result of Corinth’s strategic location on one of the key trade crossroads in the Roman Empire.[4] Located on the ‘isthmus of Corinth’ a narrow piece of land separating the Aegean and Ionian seas, Corinth had a port on both coasts and an ingenious system whereby ships were transported across the isthmus by slaves.[5] The sea route around the peninsula was long and dangerous, therefore merchant and military captains alike preferred to travel via Corinth, contributing to the cities cultural diversity and commercial wealth.[6]

Corinth’s cultural diversity bought with it a great deal of religious diversity, Pausanias, writing in the second century AD, records at least twenty six ‘sacred places’ dedicated to Greco-Roman gods and Egyptian or Asian ‘mystery cults’, however Corinth underwent significant redevelopment in AD 77, thus the exact number present during Paul’s lifetime is unknown.[7] Corinth’s numerous temples bought great quantities of religious pilgrims, especially the temple of Aphrodite located on the Acro-Corinth, a large mountain overlooking the city.[8] The goddess of love, beauty, fertility and marine travel, Aphrodite has a close association with sexual activity, as well as being the considered the patron goddess of prostitutes.[9] Furthermore according to some sources Corinthians believed that sexual intercourse with a priestess was considered an act of worship to Aphrodite.[10] Amongst the other temples found in Corinth there was also a temple dedicated to Asklepios, the god of physical, emotional and mental healing, located near the temple of Asklepios was “the Lerna with its dining facilities and bath and fountain house,” as a result of this the temple was a popular area for social dining.[11]

On the subject of Corinth’s immorality there is some disagreement between scholars as to the level of vice that filled the city. Some writers refer to Corinth as a city with, “a history of being an exceptionally immoral city and that it was still filled with immorality in Paul’s day.”[12] Writers who take this viewpoint of Corinth look to a number of sources for support of this view. Paul’s own words seem to voice strong support to the notion that Corinth was exceptionally immoral: “since there is so much immorality…”[13] The ancient geographer Strabo wrote that the temple of Aphrodite housed a thousand scared prostitutes, whilst a Greek slang term for promiscuity, korinthiazesthai was derived from Corinth.[14] As well as the sexual acts related to the worship of Aphrodite, worship of Apollo is also thought to have included acts of homosexual behaviour with young boys.[15]

However many recent scholars disagree with this extreme assessment of 1st century Corinth’s immorality. The key objection that these scholars have against the extreme view of Corinth’s immorality is that Strabo’s comments and the origin of the slang term korinthiazesthai both refer to old Corinth, prior to its destruction in 46 BC.[16] Recent archaeological investigations have shown that Strabo’s comments were a gross exaggeration.[17] James Dunn further believes that the reputation Corinth gained for immorality stemmed more from rivalry from other cities than actual truth.[18] It is generally considered that Corinth’s immorality has been exaggerated and, while there was no doubt sexual sin in abundance, the city was no worst than any prosperous Greco-Roman port.[19]

Jews, Gentiles and Idols

For the first century Christians issues relating to idols were commonplace, the Greco-Roman world was rife with pagan religions for which idols were a major feature.[20] In this context the Jewish religion was unusual because it was Monotheistic and idolatry was forbidden under the Mosaic Law.[21] Despite this direct command from God the nation of Israel had often turned from God and worshipped idols, which led to the destruction of the nation.[22] However it appears that the Israelites had moved away from their ancestor’s apostasy and removed idolatry from the Jewish religion by the first Century.[23] Indeed whilst the Old Testament prophets frequently condemned the Israelites for their idolatry, Jesus makes no mention of this practice in the Gospels, which some scholars take as an indication that this practice was rooted out of Jewish religion by this time.[24]

Some commentators state that for the Jewish Christians the matters regarding idols were simple, “an open-and-shut matter.”[25] Others argue that issues regarding idols were far more complicated than this for the Jews living in the Greco-Roman world.[26] Bruce Winter records the difficulty that Jews felt at reconciling the belief that idols were nothing possessing no power with the healings that occurred at the temple of Asklepios.[27] The question “how can ‘nothing’ that possesses no power heal a crippled man?” must have frequently challenged their monotheistic beliefs. Furthermore diverse opinions arose as to the extent to which Jews were to avoid association with idols; one example is the use of bath houses that had been dedicated to pagan gods.[28]

For the Gentile converts to Christianity the issue was made more complicated, since many of them had spent years living as pagans, worshipping idols and honouring many gods.[29] For these Christians the transition between their pagan pluralistic worldview and their newly found Christian faith would require far more of a change of perspective than that required of Jewish Christians, who were used to monotheistic religion.[30]

Meat Offered to Idols: The Problems

The problems that Paul was dealing with in these three chapters can be broken down into three issues, firstly the relationship between the Christians and the surrounding culture, secondly the way different social classes within the church related to each other, and finally the roles of love and knowledge in the life of the Christian community.[31]

Christians and Culture

The new Christians of Corinth found themselves facing a difficult situation; they had embraced the teachings of Christ and for many that meant a complete change of lifestyle and perspective. For some that meant a whole new understanding of the Mosaic Law which had guided their whole lives.[32] For others it meant an entirely new understanding of the nature of God, as one rather than many, and a completely new way of life as a result of that.[33] However regardless of the background they had come out of these new Christians were still ‘in the world’[34] and had to learn how to relate to those who were not believers. After all if these Christians were to remove themselves completely from the pagan society around them and form purely Christian ghettos they would lose any chance of positively influencing unbelievers with the Gospel.[35] In relation to meat offered to idols this problem has three branches.

Firstly the question arises regarding whether Christians could eat meat bought at the Corinthian market, which ‘could’ have been offered to idols.[36] Because Corinth was so saturated with pagan temples in which animal sacrifices were often performed, it was quite likely that some of the meat found in the market had been sacrificed to an idol then sold to gain profit for the temple.[37] Some of the Corinthian Christians feared that perhaps the very act of sacrificing the meat to an idol tainted it and made it unsafe for them to eat.[38]

The second part of this problem for these Christians was how they were to deal with meals at private homes of pagans, should they be invited for a meal and presented with meat.[39] Should the Christian ask about the origins of any meat offered and risk offending social courtesy[40] or avoid eating with pagans (even their own families) altogether, as the Jews did with Gentiles.[41]

The final part of this problem relates to social dining in Corinth’s many temples which often had significant dining facilities amongst the temple buildings.[42] These temple dining facilities performed the tasks of modern day restaurants where all manner of celebrations, social gatherings, business deals and political manoeuvring took place.[43] For many of the residents of Corinth these events were vital to their social and economic lives and rejecting invitations could cost them dearly.[44] Therefore as a result they would have found themselves torn between their civic duty and Paul’s earlier command to avoid idolaters.[45]

Social Differences

The second problem this passage highlights is a tension between the higher and lower classes within the Corinthian church.[46] In the first century meat was not a regular feature in most diets, and tended only to be eaten regularly by the more privileged members of society.[47] Indeed for those who were not part of the social elite the only opportunities to eat meat would likely be at public pagan festivals, a special occasion where the association with idols would be unavoidable.[48] Conversely, as mentioned previously, the more affluent Christians would likely downplay the religious aspect of the feasts they attended in order to maintain their social status without jeopardising their conscience.[49]

Another aspect of social strain which may have relevance to this part of the discussion would be the difference between the different factions that had developed within the church.[50] Some scholars believe that the church may have been split into two factions; those legalists who insisted on total avoidance of ‘idol meat’ and those who saw idols as nothing and felt the legalists were ignoring their freedom in Christ at the cost of their evangelism.[51]

There also may have been a good deal of strain caused by differences in strength of faith, with some thinking that they were strong or knowledgeable enough that being present at idol feasts caused them no problems.[52] Furthermore they were causing problems for those with ‘weaker’ consciences by insisting that they take part in these feasts to strengthen their faith, when the reality is they are being drawn back to their old pagan ways.[53]

Love and Knowledge

The final strand of the problem is that some of the Corinthians were founding their faith on knowledge, gnōsis, rather than love.[54] This faction of the church was claiming that, because they had gnōsis, they knew idols had no power over them and therefore they could take part in idol feasts with no qualms.[55] It also appears that they believed that Christian sacraments had a ‘magical’ effect, meaning the baptised Christian was safe from falling.[56] As a result of this focus on knowledge rather than love, many of the ‘strong’ or ‘knowledgeable’ Christians were pressing other Christians into activities that would bring them harm, all in the name of gaining gnōsis.[57] Another area of concern for Paul may have been that the gnōsis party may drift towards a Gnostic worldview, which was fiercely attacked as heretical by later Christian writers.[58]

Meat Offered to Idols: Paul’s Solutions

When Paul and Barnabas were ministering in Antioch a faction demanded that all Christians should obey the Mosaic Law, including Gentiles, this caused a great deal of controversy and the apostles and elders called a council.[59] At the Jerusalem council the apostles and elders decided on four requirements for believers to follow, one of which was the avoidance of meat offered to idols.[60] Thus the question arises, ‘why does Paul not simply mention the council, reinforce those commands and leave the matter at that?’ When seeking an answer to this question scholars differ. Some see Paul’s strong opposition to legalism as the reason he avoids citing the ‘Jerusalem decree.’[61] One such commentator writes that, “…it would have been fatal to yield one iota to the rigorists,’ on the grounds that if they should gain an inch they would seek to take a mile.[62] William Ramsay disagrees with this, he stresses that the Corinthians had met with many practical difficulties in applying the decree therefore they had decided to disregard these teachings as impractical.[63] Thus the ‘Jerusalem decree’ formed the basis for the discussion as Paul sought to help the Corinthians apply their theology in the less than black and white world.[64]

Paul’s first concern is to address the root cause of the problem, an incorrect attitude which in turn affects their ethics and behaviour.[65] For the ‘strong’ faction within the church the basis of their behaviour is their knowledge, which gives them freedom to do as they will.[66] It is quite likely that the ‘knowledgeable’ members of the church viewed those who challenged their conduct as ‘weak’ brothers who needed to exercise their freedom in order to deepen their knowledge.[67] As a result the ‘strong’ were pushing the ‘weak’ into activities which went against their conscience and lead them to expose themselves to harm.[68] Paul seeks to counter this false foundation for behaviour by contrasting the flimsy puffing up of knowledge with the solid building up that love brings.[69] Whilst knowledge may appear to benefit the church the truth of the matter is different, there is no substance to something that has been ‘puffed up’ when pushed the puffed up object breaks.[70] Contrasted to this the way love builds up, benefiting and strengthening both those who are being treated with love and those who love their fellow man.[71]

Paul’s next concern is to confront those factions within the church who reject his authority as an apostle, after all unless he can show them that his teachings do have authority they will likely disregard his teachings.[72] Therefore throughout chapter nine Paul seeks to defend his authority as an apostle and the rights he has as an apostle, finally and most surprisingly Paul then explains why he has refused to use the rights his apostleship grants.[73] In establishing his authority and rights, and more importantly, the reasons for refusing to make use of those rights, Paul provides an excellent example of the principles he teaches in chapter 8, love and the success of the Gospel over exercise of individual rights.[74]

Paul now looks to the history of God’s people to help teach the church how to behave and to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.[75] As Paul looks to the children of Israel and their spiritual experiences in the wilderness he sees a number of comparisons with the Corinthian church.[76] Just like the Israelites the Corinthian church has been delivered by God from oppression and they drank from Christ, despite all of this the Israelites compromised with idols and as a result were excluded from God’s family.[77] From the example of the Israelites in the wilderness Paul points to four activities that the Israelites took part in; idolatry, sexual immorality, testing God and grumbling, which led to their destruction.[78] Warning the Corinthians not to become proud and self-assured and therefore fall into immorality, Paul then sets out the prohibition towards which he has been building; ‘do not have any involvement in the sacrificial feasts that take place in the pagan temples and festivals’.[79] Following this absolute statement Paul then clarifies the two grey areas regarding the meat market and invitations to pagan homes; here Paul takes into mind the real world situations and grants the Corinthians permission to eat, always in the case of market purchases, while in the case of meals it is permissible unless someone indicates a connection with idolatry.[80]

Finally as Paul brings the discussion on this particular issue to an end he reminds the readers of the essential principle; consider the message of the Gospel and of others and seek to build them up in love.[81]

Contemporary Application

For the 21st century Western Christian questions regarding meat offered to idols seem completely irrelevant, although for some Christians immersed in certain cultures these questions are still very applicable, the underlying questions, problems and solutions are extremely applicable to daily life.[82]

A key example of the problems the Corinthians had that are repeated in the 21st century relate to questions about the boundaries between Christians and culture.[83] Should Christians be involved in activities like Freemasonry, yoga, martial arts, or role-playing games where pagan links or activities form part of the activities or at least play a part in their backdrop.[84] 1st Corinthians 8-10 should encourage us to review our lives and wonder if we are unknowingly ‘eating in an idol’s temple’ and be prepared to remove ourselves from all idolatry as Paul commands.[85]

The key principle which applies to the church throughout the ages and which is at the core of Paul’s writing in these chapters, and indeed is found throughout scripture, is that of loving each other.[86] As Paul writes later in 1 Corinthians 13, love is the most important factor in life, and Christian living without love is nothing, indeed it is an affront to God.[87] This loving of others before ourselves should form the basis of Christian behaviour and is the key application of these texts to 21st century Christianity, indeed as Jesus said love would be the mark of his disciples.[88] The 21st century Christian should always seek to review motives and attitudes, are rights and knowledge taking pride of place over love, and thus harming others and ourselves?[89]


Whilst the surface issues and teachings of some parts of 1 Corinthians may appear to be archaic and irrelevant to the 21st century the underlying principles have deep implications for the contemporary church. The principles of boundaries between church and culture, reviewing of attitudes and their foundations and the principle of loving others above ourselves are essential to any church that wishes to follow the example of Christ, who loved us and gave himself for us.[90]


Blomberg, C, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994

Calvin, J (Translated by Fraser, J), The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1960

Comfort, P in Hawthorne, G & Martin, R (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Leicester: IVP, 1993

Drane, J, An Introduction to the New Testament, Oxford: Lion Publishing plc, 1999

Dunn, J, 1 Corinthians, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995

Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1987

Hafemann, S in Hawthorne, G & Martin, R (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Leicester: IVP, 1993

Hays, R.B, First Corinthians, Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997

McRay, J, Paul: His Life and Teaching, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003

Naylor, P, A Study Commentary on 1 Corinthians, Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2004

Prior, D, The Message of 1 Corinthians, Leicester: IVP, 1985

Ramsay, W (edited by Wilson, M), Historical Commentary on First Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1996

Soards, M, 1 Corinthians, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999

Thiselton, A, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the Greek Text, Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000

Wikipedia Contributors, Aphrodite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite, October 2006

Winter, B, ‘Theological and Ethical Responses to Religious Pluralism-1 Corinthians 8-10’ as cited in Tyndale Bulletin 41.2 (1990), 1990

Winter, B in Carson, D & France, R & Motyer, J & Wenham, G (eds), New Bible Commentary (fourth edition), Leicester: IVP, 1994

Witherington III, B, Conflict & Community in Corinth: a Social-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995

Yamauchi, E in Hawthorne, G & Martin, R (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Leicester: IVP, 1993

[1] Drane, J, Introducing the New Testament: p.310-311

[2] Thiselton, J, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text: p.3

[3] Naylor, P, A Study Commentary on 1 Corinthians: p.17 & 18

[4] Hays, R.B, First Corinthians: p.2 & 3

[5] Hays, R.B, First Corinthians: p.2 & 3

[6] Naylor, P, A Study Commentary on 1 Corinthians: p.18

[7] Pausanias cited in Hafemann, S in Hawthorne, G & Martin, R (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: p.173

[8] Witherington III, B, Conflict & Community in Corinth: a socio-rhetorical commentary on  1 and 2 Corinthians: p.12

[9] Witherington III, B, Conflict & Community in Corinth: p.12 & 13

[10] Wikipedia Contributors, Aphrodite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite

[11] Witherington III, B, Conflict & Community: p.14 & 15

[12] McRay, J, Paul: His Life and Teaching: p.166

[13] 1 Corinthians 7:2

[14] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.3 & 4

[15] Prior, D, The Message of 1 Corinthians: p.12

[16] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.4

[17] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.4

[18] Dunn, J, 1 Corinthians: p.16

[19] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.2 & 3

[20] Comfort, P in Hawthorne, G & Martin, R (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: p.425

[21] Leviticus 19:4

[22] Ezekiel 6:1-7

[23] Comfort, P in Hawthorne, G & Martin, R (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: p.424

[24] Comfort, P in Hawthorne, G & Martin, R (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: p.424

[25] Naylor, P, A Study Commentary on 1 Corinthians: p.206

[26] Winter, B, ‘Theological and Ethical Responses to Religious Pluralism-1 Corinthians 8-10’ cited in Tyndale Bulletin 41.2 (1990), p.215

[27] Winter, B, ‘Theological and Ethical Responses to Religious Pluralism-1 Corinthians 8-10’ cited in Tyndale Bulletin 41.2 (1990), p.215

[28] Winter, B, ‘Theological and Ethical Responses to Religious Pluralism-1 Corinthians 8-10’ cited in Tyndale Bulletin 41.2 (1990), p.216-217

[29] Hafemann, S in Hawthorne, G & Martin, R (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: p.173

[30] Naylor, P, A Study Commentary on 1 Corinthians: p.205-207

[31] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.135

[32] Matthew 5:17

[33] 1 Corinthians 8:6

[34] John 17:11-18

[35] Ramsay, W, Historical Commentary on First Corinthians: p.89

[36] 1 Corinthians 10:25

[37] Blomberg, C, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 Corinthians: p.159 & 160

[38] Blomberg, C, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 Corinthians: p.159

[39] 1 Corinthians 10:27

[40] Ramsay, W, Historical Commentary on First Corinthians: p.89

[41] Acts 10:28

[42] Witherington III, B, Conflict & Community: p.188

[43] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.136-137

[44] Dunn, J, 1 Corinthians: p.58 & 59

[45] Witherington III, B, Conflict & Community: p.186

[46] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.135

[47] Witherington III, B, Conflict & Community: p.190

[48] Witherington III, B, Conflict & Community: p.190

[49] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.137

[50] 1 Corinthians 1:12

[51] Prior, D, The Message of 1 Corinthians: p.141

[52] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.362

[53] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.362

[54] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.362-363

[55] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.136

[56] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.362

[57] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.362

[58] Yamauchi, E in Hawthorne, G & Martin, R (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: p.350-352

[59] Acts 15:1-6

[60] Acts 15:19, 20 & 23-29

[61] Prior, D, The Message of 1 Corinthians: p.141

[62] Prior, D, The Message of 1 Corinthians: p.141

[63] Ramsay, W, Historical Commentary on First Corinthians: p.89-90

[64] Ramsay, W, Historical Commentary on First Corinthians: p.90-91

[65] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.363

[66] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.363

[67] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.366

[68] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.362

[69] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.137-138

[70] Prior, D, The Message of 1 Corinthians: p.143

[71]Soards, M, 1 Corinthians: p.171

[72] Dunn, J, 1 Corinthians: p.91-92

[73] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.392

[74] Calvin, J, The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians: p.182

[75] Winter, B in Carson, D, France, R, Motyer, J & Wenham, G (eds), New Bible Commentary: p.1176 & 1177

[76] Winter, B in Carson, D, France, R, Motyer, J & Wenham, G (eds), New Bible Commentary: p.1176

[77] Winter, B in Carson, D, France, R, Motyer, J & Wenham, G (eds), New Bible Commentary: p.1176 & 1177

[78] Winter, B in Carson, D, France, R, Motyer, J & Wenham, G (eds), New Bible Commentary: p.1177

[79] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.442

[80] Fee, G, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: p.478-485

[81] 1 Corinthians 10:31-33

[82] Blomberg, C, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 Corinthians: p.167

[83] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.143

[84] Blomberg, C, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 Corinthians: p.167-168

[85] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.143-144

[86] John 13:34-35, Romans 12:10, 1 Corinthians 13, Galatians 5:13,

[87] Calvin, J, The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians: p.171

[88] Hays, R, First Corinthians: p.145 & 180-181

[89] Soards, M, 1 Corinthians: p.178-179

[90] Ephesians 5:1 & 2



Well I’ve decided, after a long break to bring my blog back to life!

I promise to try and write more frequently, and to write about vaguely interesting stuff too!

Apologetics 101

So I’ve been thinking recently about apologetics: which is the technical term for defending the Christian faith i.e. discussing and debating with atheists or those from other religions, it comes from the Greek term meaning ‘speaking in defense’. As I was thinking about it I found myself part of (or observing) a number of different apologetics situations and this has set me thinking about what the place of apologetics is and what good apologetics looks like, and that is what todays blog is about!

Place of Apologetics

The first place to start is thinking about the purpose of apologetics, what part does it play in the journey people take to knowing God? I guess a key question is this:

Can somebody be talked into becoming a Christian?

In answer to that I’d say no. Someone can be convinced that Christianity is reasonable yes, they can be shown that the teachings of Christ are definately the best path. However the actual change, the conversion event so to speak, is solely the work of the Holy Spirit responding to our willingness to let him into our lives. This is a great relief because it takes the burden off of us: it is not our job to make people into Christians, which means when we reach the end of our very finite abilities God doesn’t turn to us and say “you’ve failed” rather his response is “now watch me do the rest”.

Therefore the role of apologetics is to remove the barriers so that people become open to God, becoming willing to say “okay” to God, how many times have you heard people repond to the Gospel message with “yes but what about…?” well thats where apologetics comes in, it responds to that question with “well…” Of course sometimes people come to faith despite the questions (and we never reach the end of questioning, but thats another post!), but for some the obsticle is so big it needs to be broken down first.

Some guidelines for good/successful apologetics

So how do we do apologetics well? Well let me make a few suggestions:

  1. Listen: Oh man this is a huge one, its so frustrating when people don’t listen, whether its trying to convince the telesales operator that you don’t want double glazing or life insurance, to explaining some deep worry thats been bothering you to someone who clear isn’t focusing at all. This is a major factor in apologetics; listen to what the person is saying, and more than that listen to what they are not saying. If you are talking to someone who is raging about how can God allow suffering listen to the inflections of their voice, it may be that someone close to them is dying and the last thing they need is to be told cold hard truth rather it may be just a listening ear or someone to rage at that they want, sometimes not saying anything are the best words you can give. Especially don’t shout people down, dismiss what they are saying or interrupt them unless it is really necessary (for example in a group discussion where someone is drunkenly ranting).
  2. Know your audience: This is pretty important, especially with the increasing influence of post-modernism in our culture. You don’t share the Gospel in the same way to everyone you speak to (or at least you should think about it if you do!), different people will respond to different things, for example a person who is focused on facts and thinks in a logical and linear way (Myers Briggs type T) is likely to listen to a step by step logically exploration of Christianity, where as someone who is focused on feelings (Myers Briggs type F) will be more interested in the people involved.
  3. Don’t fight out of your league: By this I mean if all you have is a GCSE in biology don’t try and argue the scientific evidence for God in biology with a person who has a doctorate in biology and has been in that field for 40 years! If you know you are outgunned either refer to experts in that field (for example with the above point them to Prof Frances Collins one of the worlds top biologists) or stick to something you know. This doesn’t mean that you should never debate/discuss Christianity, but stick to stuff you know and don’t pretend to be an expert on everything. Be prepared to admit that you don’t know something, that’s totally fine, but do try and find out suitable sources to refer people to (e.g writers in that field or friends who know more in that area)
  4. Be graceful: Don’t ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever (got the point!) tell the person they are stupid or belittle their struggles. This doesn’t mean you can’t respectfully disagree or challenge what they are saying but do it with love and respect. Unloving/ungraceful Christians who shout abuse at everyone who disagrees with them are the best advert for atheism there is, and never lead people closer to God.
  5. Know your own faith: Exactly as it says on the tin! Know things about Christianity and know your bible, if you want to do a good job of apologetics and evangelism in general know about what you are sharing with people, you can’t properly introduce someone to Jesus unless you know him! Again this doesn’t mean waiting until you are an expert or have done a theology degree, but rather make sure you are immersed in the Bible and Christian teaching, and be willing to admit when you don’t know.
  6. Look out for truth in culture: There is a wealth of truth in popular culture (amongst a lot of junk), look out for it. For example lines in songs or films that express an eternal truth (for example the Matrix or the Dark Knight, and so on), then use this to point back to the Bible or Christian theology, as people are more likely to react positively to something they are familiar from than something they are alien to.
  7. Know the aim: Remember that the aim of apologetics is not to get someone saved (that’s God’s job) its to assist in removing the barriers. This therefore means that ‘winning the argument’ isn’t the main aim (although neither is losing it!), rather having a reasonable discussion is. There are times when you can have technically ‘won the argument’ but have not had a good apologetics discussion (a major mistake oft made I think), leaving the person with lots of questions is a pretty good result as it will cause them to continue thinking about the issue and potentially meet God through the questioning. Essentially people don’t want answers shoved down their throats, they want information which will allow them to make their own conclusion (sadly sometimes people make the wrong one)
  8. Jesus is the key: This is the most important point, this is why the Alpha course starts with Jesus, its why Paul said; “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” in 1 Corinthians 2. You can argue til the cows come home the existential arguments for God in creation or with science (science has neither proved there is a god or that there isn’t), but it is Christ that things stand and fall on. If you can show someone that (a) Jesus existed (which the evidence supports), (b) that the biblical narratives about him are true, and (c) what this means, then you are on a very good road!

So there are my suggestions for ‘doing’ apologetics, let me know your thoughts…


A top class message from Ben Witherington 3rd on judgement and the oft (and indeed hypocritically) misused passage from Matthew (you know the one fellow Christians use to shut you up when they disagree with you but can’t be bothered to have a proper discussion!)…

“YOU BE THE JUDGE—- Mt. 7.1-6

Some texts in the NT ought to be able to sue for abuse and misuse. Mt. 7.1-6 is one of those texts. How many times have you heard someone say ‘judge not lest you be judged’ to neutralize this text and in effect promote doing nothing at all, since we are all sinners who have fallen short of God’s highest and best for us? The Greek verb krino here however does not mean ‘expose not, lest you be exposed’, it does not mean ‘do not be morally discerning lest someone discern your flaws’, it does not mean ‘never correct or hold someone morally accountable, lest you be held accountable for your behavior’. It means none of those things.

Much nearer to the mark would be a translation ‘condemn not, lest you be condemned’. In other words it is basically the synonym of the slightly stronger verb katakrino in John 8.11 where Jesus says ‘neither do I condemn you…’ This is legal language, and it may well be the ancient equivalent of saying ‘do not damn someone to Hell, lest you be so damned’. It has to do with passing full and final judgment on someone’s life or even their souls, and only God has the right, the knowledge, the authority to do that. Jesus is preventing his followers from assuming the posture of judge, jury, or executioner of someone else’s foibles, and deeming them irretrievably lost and undoubtedly heading for outer darkness.

Instead, Jesus is trying to refocus the disciples on getting their own houses in order. He does this is several ways. First of all he reminds them that they will be evaluated with the same severity that they evaluate others. A lot of folks can dish it out, but they can’t take it when it is their conduct that is being critiqued. Jesus suggests that we have an infinite capacity for maximizing the critique of other people’s sins, and minimizing and rationalizing our own.
But Jesus’ sapiential metaphor of the speck or the plank in the eye suggests that the moral critique meter might well actually be pointing in the opposite direction. We strain over the gnat in someone else’s life, and swallow the camel in our own, so to speak. We totally ignore or are oblivious to our own even greater flaws, sins, shortcomings. And even worse, we assume the condescending posture of one who is in a morally superior position by saying “here let me help you with that speck in your eye”. Notice in vs. 5 Jesus does not suggest that one shouldn’t morally critique others or hold them accountable. What he says is, don’t be a hypocrite—first take the plank out of your own eye, and then go deal with others. It’s a matter of the order of things. We must get our own house in order first.

The term hypokrites is certainly an interesting one. It is a term that comes from the ancient Greek theater and refers to a person who plays a role, rather than being in real life what they seem. We of course take the English derivative of this term to mean someone who does not practice what he preaches, someone who does not walk what he talks. But in fact the actor is not actually trying to be or become the person he depicts, he is simply playing a role.
Too often in the church, leaders play roles which do not in fact represent what they are living into. An actor who plays the role of Jesus, such as Henry Ian Cusick, the character we know as Desmond from ‘Lost’ who did play Jesus in the movie the Gospel of John, (he was found before he was ‘lost’), is not pretending he is actually Jesus, and certainly thereafter will not be held accountable for not being just like Jesus once he finished making the movie, anymore than he will be held accountable for not being Desmond when ‘Lost’ finishes its run in another two seasons.

The point is, Jesus doesn’t want actors or pretenders, nor does he want hypocrites either. In view of a whole series of texts in Matthew where Jesus insists that his followers be morally discerning, hold each other accountable, and to be critically evaluating conduct, (see Mt. 7.15-20; 10. 11-15; 16.6-12; 18.17-18), this text provides no excuse for pretending or abdicating one’s responsibilities to be thy brother’s or sister’s keeper. The issue here has to do with unfair critiques, uncharitable evaluations, and judging others by a different standard than the one uses to judge yourself.

The text calls for rigorous self-examination instead, not merely a ‘non-judgmental’ attitude. We are reminded however that God will judge us by the same strict standard by which we judge others. We can morally evaluate and critique words and deeds of others, but not hearts, heads, persons, lives. T.W Manson puts it this way:

“The whole business of judging persons is in God’s hands, for he alone knows the secrets of men’s hearts. This does not mean we are not to use all the moral insight we possess in order to discover what is right and wrong; but that we are to confine ourselves to that field and refrain from passing judgment on persons. For our judgment is a factor in shaping their lives, and a harsh judgment may help a fellow-creature on the road to perdition.”

There is an important and interesting play on Greek words in this little passage between merely ‘seeing’ and ‘seeing clearly’. In vs. 3 the verb means see where it speaks of seeing someone else’s faults. But in vs. 5 the verb of sight means ‘see clearly’ and what is being suggested is that when one has truly seen and dealt with the plank in one’s own eye, only then can one see clearly enough to help the brother with the speck in his eye. Self-examination and self-critique, and self-reformation leads to more accurate seeing of others flaws, and the ability to help them.

In his wonderful and convicting non-fiction book, An Innocent Man (which should be required ethical reading before one leaves seminary), the Christian writer John Grisham tells the tale of a man condemned to death row and to execution for a crime he never committed. It is, quite rightly, a powerful critique of the whole enterprise of capital punishment as implemented by fallible human beings whose knowledge is limited, whose moral insight is even more limited at times, and whose right to condemn another person to death is frankly debatable and morally dubious from a NT point of view. It is precisely this sort of human legal condemnation and consigning to execution and even damnation that Jesus is critiquing in this passage.

The Bible is ever so clear “Vengeance is mine says the Lord, I shall repay”, or as Paul puts it – “do not repay anyone evil for evil… do not take revenge, but leave room for God’s wrath, for God says ‘Vengeance is mine…’ but to the contrary if your enemy is hungry feed him….etc. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Had we ever thought as Christians that when we condemn a lost person to capital punishment we might well be consigning them to Hell, by depriving them of the time and opportunity to repent and know the Lord? Its worth thinking about. And please do not tell me that they have forfeited the right to such a consideration, because none of us have such a right as the right to time for amendment of life. That is something that is a mercy to all of us sinners, not a right.

The last verse of this passage, like the first, is equally one that has been subject to abuse and misuse. Do not throw pearls before swine, or what is holy to the dogs. Swine and dogs are images of unclean animals, and they were indeed images used by Jews to refer to Gentiles, on whom Jewish pearls of wisdom would be lost entirely, or so it was often thought. Jesus’ point here however is that certain highly precious and valuable teachings are for insiders, not outsiders who will cast them aside, or make no good use of them. In other words, here we have a reminder again that this whole Sermon on the Mount ethic is not for just anyone or everyone, but rather for those who are committed to being Jesus’ disciple. To whom more is given, more is required.

God does indeed expect of us a higher standard of righteousness and also of mercy. He does indeed expect of us a higher standard of moral discernment and understanding of others. He expects that we entirely refrain from putting on the judge’s cap and condemning someone else to death, or into outer darkness, and for me at least that means I could never serve on a capital murder jury if we lived in a state where capital punishment was the possible outcome of the trial. Only God should have that power of condemnation and execution, not human beings. And honestly for me, a consistent life ethic means no abortion, no capital punishment, no war. But that is a story for another day. What Mt. 7.1-6 calls us all to, is more self-awareness, more self-examination, more repentance, more humility, more living into a higher righteousness, and with Emily Dickinson we should all say: “Judge tenderly of me” remembering whenever we are about to condemn another to final judgment “there but for the grace of God, go I.”


I’m loath to write anything more on this matter (all I’ve written on it is on my facebook page and won’t be put up here unless asked) as its all to easy to keep flogging a dead horse, and at the same time all too easy to become a heresy hunter, which I really don’t want to be, but something I read today in my RSS feed really struck me and I felt it important to share, so here goes:

Ever since the truth about events at Lakeland came out, theres been a lot of noisy made about it, and a lot of excuses coming from those who endorsed the whole thing. Its ranged from outright lying (one ministry leader claimed all who disagreed with Lakeland were wrong, then when all this stuff came out, fired those members of her staff who went to Lakeland and told everyone God had warned her about it), through changing sides, or throwing TB to the dogs, to blaming it on everything but them, but the one thing that has been consistent in all these comments from God TV, NAR, the Elijah list, and others has been the distinct lack of an apology (please note, Dutch Sheets has kind of apologised, but it doesn’t appear that he has actually done anything about it).

Why is it so hard for these people to apologise? After all they made a mistake (or quite a number of them), they placed someone on stage who wasn’t suitable for that position, they disobeyed the Bible’s guidelines on who should be a Christian leader, they presumed to speak for God when they clearly were not. Surely that should merit an apology? Surely a public confession of repentance and Godly sorrow would be the right response to this?

Well today I read a really short post from Alan Hirst, which answered the question, heres the post:

“False prophets are not godless. [Rather] They adore the god ‘success’. They themselves are in constant need of success and achieve it by promising it to the people. But they do honestly want success for the people. The craving for success governs their hearts and determines what rises from them. That is what Jeremiah called the ‘deceit of their own hearts’. They do not deceive; they are deceived, and can breathe only in the air of deceit” – Martin Buber

The meaning of false prophecy lies in the umbrella of deceit that includes both the teller and the told. Both false prophet and audience believe the lie they patently want to believe in…and they are both given over to it. They are in M.Scott Peck’s phrase ‘people of the lie’.

Think about prosperity doctrine, theological liberalism, or fundamentalism, cultism, etc. with this in mind.”

That kinda makes me feel sorry for them, they really are blind guides. I just pray that God would open their eyes and bring them to repentance, before its too late for them and the many ‘little ones’ they are leading astray…


Holy Spirit in Hindsight

Getting Here from There Syncro-Blog:

RobbyMac writes:

Brother Maynard has suggested that September should be a month of post-charismatics giving voice to what apostolic leadership could/should look like. I’d (RobbyMac) like to propose a synchro-blog to get the ball rolling – namely, as I’ve just shared my earliest “charismatic” experience (after becoming a Christian, that is), let’s remind ourselves and tell each other our stories of how we first became acquainted with, and eager for, the felt presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives.”

So here goes:

I wonder what comes to mind when you hear the Holy Spirit mentioned? Is it a picture of a dove? a person falling over? tongues? healing? prophesy? Or are those things finished, are you cessationist (someone who believes those things were just for the early church)?

It’s interesting for me reflecting on this idea, you see if I look back, its not the ‘traditional’ charismatic concept of ‘manifestations’ (I don’t like that word at all, sounds like a phrase from Ghostbusters!) of the Holy Spirit that comes to mind. No loud voices from heaven, no sensations of being ‘slain in the spirit’, not tongues, not healing, or any of the ‘noisy’ ones.

Don’t get me wrong I have experienced those, I’m not a cessationist by far, I believe in the supernatural, I believe in the Holy Spirit, I know that, but those visible, loud, whatever you want to call them experiences, don’t stick out, they are vague memories, shadows almost… I vaguely remember once speaking in tongues and falling over at Stoneleigh (New Frontiers conference) one year, but to me that isn’t etched into my brain as I would expect a major encounter with the Holy Spirit (gotta remember we’re talking about Almighty God here!).

I’ve had a couple of experiences where the sense of God the Spirit has been so tangible, that its pierced right to the core of my heart.

I guess the first time was when I became a Christian, I can’t even remember most of the details like what was said, but something in the message at that meeting cut right to the core, and I knew I had to respond. I’ll share more about that when I get around to posting my testimony…

Another occasion was at Bible college, right whilst I was in the middle of dealing with a really screwed up relationship, I stumbled upon a spontaneous worship session, and since I was on an essay avoidance mission I sat down to listen, anyway we started singing the song (can’t remember what it is called) with the line “your love is the anchor” and I just broke inside, all the junk and sorrow and anger and unforgiveness poured out in tears and I knew the Holy Spirit was dredging all the muck that had built up in  my heart.

Now whilst these experiences are stuck in my mind, the ones that really mean something to me are those where at the time I haven’t really felt or seen anything, I’ve just kinda wondered aimlessly and its only looking back that I see just how powerfully God’s hand was in it… Its really those times that I’ve truly experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, even though at the time I haven’t realised it!

For an example one time that really sticks in my mind, was during a time when I was particularly struggling with the whole self-confidence thing (those who know me will know this is a big issue for me), I was feeling utterly useless and that I had no purpose, anyway I went along to church and ended up chatting with someone (who has become a good friend) after the service and we randomly began discussing a subject that I have no idea how we started on it as it had nothing to do with anything, looking back I can see that the Holy Spirit led us to that subject. Anyway it was something that had come up once at Bible college and I remembered the discussion, and related it to my friend, who was struggling with exactly that subject! He said so, and that really spoke to me in the midst of my doubts – that I could actually do something useful, and it helped my friend with his faith struggles.

That to me is the really power of the Holy Spirit, the power that directs us to speak to that person we can encourage with our particular story, that power that leads us to forgive rather than strike back, that power that power that helps us make the right choice and turn from wrong paths, that power that helps us love those the world doesn’t.

That for me is the power of the Spirit, the quiet, behind the scenes, ordinary work of God in our lives, that we only see in hindsight maybe even not in this lifetime…

Well I think I may have completely missed the point of the question that first triggered this post, but I just had to keep going, so I hope you’ll forgive my ramblings!

Well…now I have a blog…

Hi I’m Nick, and I, well its like I, you see I…

I like to think;

There, I’ve confessed it, I’m a sold out thinker, I can’t help    it, my mind just keeps ticking away and producing these random and sometimes worrying things called ideas.

So I decided that there were two options:

(1) I could have a lobotomy, which is an expensive, messy and not always reliable procedure (although some in my favourite dysfunctional, but amazing, community called the Church highly recommend it!), or

(2) I could find a productive way of airing these ideas, and since I generally think I’m a better writer (although you may question that after reading some of the stuff on here!) than speaker, but nobody is daft enough to publish an eccentric like me, I’d get a blog!

So here it is – enjoy or virtually run away screaming and never return to this dark corner of the blogosphere (!) whatever as long as it keeps me out of (too much) trouble…actually no trouble can be a good thing!