The Ancient Near East And Why Is It Relevant To Studying the Bible

Introduction:

    Decades ago when I began my formal theological training, we read as a required textbook Eugene Merrill's "Kingdom of Priests - A History of Old Testament Israel". It was Merrill that piqued my interest in better understanding the Old Testament against its backdrop of what is known as "The Ancient Near East". 

    In that volume Merrill argued that by understanding the Ancient Near East or "World of the Bible", one can better follow God's hand in such major events as His calling forth of Abram in Genesis 12 or the Exodus account in the Book of Exodus. He wrote these words on page 94 of that volume,

"Before the Biblical story is pursued further, however, it is important that some attention be paid to the larger world in which these momentous events were to transpire. This is necessary not only that we may be reminded of Biblical history was part of the vastly larger historical horizon, but that we may be able to integrate the history of Israel with that of contemporaneous people and events." 

    Since those days I've come to read more and more scholarship on the Ancient Near East as a life-long student of the Bible. As a pastor I find one has to strike a careful balance. On the one hand, we should know that wider background mentioned by Merrill. One cannot impose the wider Ancient Near Eastern context onto the Biblical text, otherwise God's intent through the Biblical author will be lost or risk making the understanding of the Bible only for the "experts". 

    On the otherhand, if the Bible student ignores the wider Ancient Near Eastern context, they risk missing a nuance God intended through the Biblical author. Sometimes God utilized features of that wider culture and other occasions He was correcting a worldview or exposing error that was leading the people astray. 

    My goal in this post is to introduce readers to the Ancient Near East and then offer three reading suggestions for further reading at the end.

What is the Ancient Near East?

    When we talk about the "Ancient Near East", were referencing what would today be known as "The Middle East".

    Whenever we consider this vast region, covering roughly 900 miles by 1,500 miles, were talking about an area of nearly 1.4 million square miles, corresponding to almost 15% of the North American Continent. Merrill's observation still resonates with me. Since that time, I've read several other studies and scholars who specialize in relating the Old Testament to the Ancient Near East (George Mendenhall, Gleason Archer, Kenneth Kitchen, and several others). 

    Below is a map of the Ancient Near East which corresponds to the same area known as the "Middle East".

    The reader can note I've labeled the first eleven chapters of Genesis above this picture to help visualize when and where we begin in the Bible to discuss the relevance of the Ancient Near East (covering the Nile River in the Southwest of the Map to the ancient Hittite Empire or Modern day Turkey to the North, to Persia West of the Euphrates River or what we know as Iran and Iraq today, to the Arabian Peninsula at the South of the Map or Modern day Saudia Arabia and Yemen.)

    Within this nearly 1.4 million square miles of the Ancient Near East we find the middle of the map the ancient people groups of "Canaan", "Aram", "Moab", and "Edom". If you just focus on "Canaan", it was this particular piece of real estate that God sent Abram in Genesis 12. Canaan of course would eventually become known as "Israel" in the Old Testament. 

Why is the Ancient Near East Relevant to Biblical Studies today?

    What point is there to familiarizing oneself with the Ancient Near East?

1. God's historic and prophetic activity has centered and will center on the Ancient Near East (or what we know as the Middle East today).  

   As I've studied maps of the Biblical world and Ancient Near East over the years, there are what we could call "eight major theaters" that God providentially orchestrated to bring about the timing of the call of Abram and eventually Israel, as well as the beginnings of the writing of His Word. What is even more remarkable is this wide swath of land, the Ancient Near East, and its centralized location of the Promised land are central to current maps depicting the continents and nations of the world, as seen below.

 
    Not only was this area of the world the backdrop for the Old and New Testaments, but it will also be the final staging area for the unfolding of God's prophetic plan we find revealed by the Book of Daniel, Jesus' remarks in His Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25; Mark 13; Luke 17,21), the Book of Revelation, and several other major eschatological predictive passages in the Scripture. 

2. God orchestrated various theatres in the Ancient Near East to bring about His redemptive plan.

    Below I have depicted three maps of the Ancient Near East with eight areas I've highlighted. 

The final map in today's post will depict the final theatre of God's activity, and what would end up being the central theatre - Canaan, a.k.a "the Promised land", or what would become known as "Israel". 

    This particular area is the same location where the Lord Jesus Christ would become incarnated, ministry, live, suffer, die, rise, and ascend. When you study the geography of Israel in the first-century connected to Jesus' ministry, you find three main areas of Galilee to the North, Samaria in the middle, and Judea to the South.

Closing thoughts 

   My point is that the Ancient Near East and its centralized focus (Israel) would become the key location of every Biblical event we read of in our Bibles. I've not intended to make this post exhaustive, but rather an introductory summary. 

    I would encourage readers to take a second look at the maps one typically finds in the back of their Bibles. Biblical Christianity is not only a revealed faith, but a historic one. Its overwhelming message is God has acted in history, has spoken through His revealed written Word, and that He as the Son came to be man to live, die, and resurrect in history. 

    This same God in the Person of the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son to begin and empower His Church and to draw forth sinners to salvation. Truths such as these is why it is important to become more familiar with the Ancient Near East, the world of the Bible. I close with a listing of resources readers may consult to enrich their understanding of this subject.

Three Resources for better understanding the Ancient Near East 

1. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Paul D. Wegner. A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars. B&H Academic. 2017.

    In my opinion this is the most thorough and accessible history of Israel available which gives much attention to the Ancient Near Eastern Background from a scholar committed to a high view of Scripture and with an expertise in the field.A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars: Kaiser Jr., Walter C., Wegner, Paul D: 9781433643187: Amazon.com: Books

2. Meredith C. Kline. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary. Wipf and Stock. 2012.

    Kline's work in comparing the structure of God's Covenant in the Pentateuch with the wider Ancient Near Eastern Treaty's is illuminating and well-balance. He has a knack for tying together the overall unity of Scripture and relating it to God's wider providence in history. Kline, much like Kaiser, is a solid evangelical scholar with expertise in the Ancinet world of the Bible. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studi – Westminster Bookstore

3. Eugene Merrill. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel - 2nd Edition. 2008. 

    Merrill's vast knowledge of the Ancient Near East and of the Old Testament shines in this volume. This is the book that helped me to place dates and places with Old Testament events and the wider Ancient Near Eastern culture. Merrill's dedication to scholarship from a conversative, Bible believing position has withstood the tests of time. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel: Eugene H. Merrill: 9780801031991: Amazon.com: Books

P4 Faith Deconstruction And Reconstructing Faith: Conclusion - Steps To Reconstructing A Faith In Crisis

Introduction:

    In our last post we evaluated the process of faith deconstruction, concluding that it is not a helpful method for trying to reconstruct a faith impacted by crisis. In this post we want to look at a contemporary example of a Christian who had a crisis of faith and found his way back. My hope is this series of posts have helped readers who are in faith crisis or those who want to help others.

Reconstructing faith.

     As we loop back to our main text at 2 Timothy 4:5-8, after Paul has warned Timothy of what will be mass defection by alleged professors of the faith, he gives this exhortation in 2 Timothy 4:5-8 

“But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.” 

    This urges us to run the race and finish strong. What happens when our faith is in crisis? Let’s look at someone in fairly recent times, a Bible-believing Christian who influenced a whole generation for decades – Francis Schaeffer. 

A man who reconstructed a shattered faith.

      This case study will recall Schaeffer’s own crisis of faith in 1951 when he and his wife Edith were living in Switzerland, what he experienced, and the steps taken to put the pieces back together and to be stronger in one’s faith [two main sources for my case study are these: Edith Schaeffer. “The Tapestry”. W Pub Group. 1985, and Francis Schaeffer. “True Spirituality”. 1971. Tyndale House Publishers].

    Schaeffer remarked how the coldness and staleness of the churches contrasted

with the vitality and love for Christ he saw in the New Testament. This challenged his faith. 

    In her book “The Tapestry”, Edith notes her husband’s words: 

“Edith, I feel torn to pieces by the lack of reality, the lack of seeing the results the Bible talks about, which should be seen in the Lord’s people. I’m not only talking about people I’m working with in the movement. I’m not satisfied with myself. It seems the only honest thing to do is to rethink, re-examine the whole matter of Christianity. Is it true? I need to go back to my Agnosticism and start at the beginning.” 

    As one reads the preface to “True Spirituality” and Edith Schaeffer’s “The Tapestry”, five steps to reconstructing faith were discernable from Francis Schaeffer. As I list these in the prepared slides below, we can not how the following verses of Scripture aided Schaeffer back to a stronger faith (Ps 13; Ps 88; Jer. 29:13; Luke 11:9).

       

     

 In her “Tapestry”, Edith Schaeffer closed Her recollections with this poem penned by Schaeffer after his crisis of faith.

Lord keep our feet in the slippery place

When friends are gone away;

When we stand alone in dark and cold

And all men answer “nay”

Lord keep our feet in the slippery place

When all friends crowd around

When men as echoes with smiling face

Give but an echo’s sound.

Conclusions.

      In this series we’ve looked at faith deconstruction and how to reconstruct a faith in crisis. One path leads to spiritual death, the other to a stronger faith. Let us finish with final thoughts. 

1. First, not everyone who professes faith in Christ necessarily possesses faith in Christ. Assurance of one’s genuineness of faith is found in Christ Himself as the objective anchor (Hebrews 6:19-20). 

2. Secondly, do I love Him for Him? Is He the joy of my heart? (1 Peter 1:8). 

3. Thirdly, are my actions and thoughts overall curved Christ-wardly or only me-wardly (2 Corinthians 13:5)? 

4. Fourth, if you have a loved-one who is undergoing faith deconstruction, be prayerful, be patient, don’t take it personal, be prayerful, and don’t quit loving that person. 

5. Lastly, don’t give up the above, since we cannot be certain who is ultimately apostate and who is not. All we can do is live the Gospel, share the Gospel, and leave the results up to God.

P3 Faith Deconstruction And Reconstructing Faith: Evaluating faith deconstruction.

Introduction:

    In our last post we drew out some important comparisons between genuine saving faith and counterfeit professing faith. Understanding how the Bible presents these will aid us as we continue on in this series. In today's post we want to evaluate faith deconstruction as a process. Before we do that, it is important to note that examining one's Christian faith from time-to-time is urged in Scripture (2 Corinthians 13:5). Whenever a Christian faces any challenge to their faith, they are forced to consider how much they're leaning on Christ versus how much they're leaning on themselves (Proverbs 3:5-6). I would go as far as to say that testing of one's faith is normal for the Christian, and that failure to closely understand where on is spiritually is a sign of spiritual laziness at best and quite possibly a sign of an unregenerate heart at the worst (2 Corinthians 13:5). 

    When one compares Judas Iscariot and Simon Peter in the Four Gospel records, the above observations bear out. We see no evidence of Judas ever evaluating his heart or profession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Whenever he was enticed to sell our Lord for pieces of silver, we never see Judas once checking his heart or truly repenting. Simon Peter on the other hand had a sensitivity to how far short he was in his spiritual life. 

    Although Peter would end up denying the Lord Jesus three times, nevertheless He was repentant. Jesus in a post-resurrected appearance restored him, commissioned him, and reinstated him in John 21. Simon Peter faltered for a moment but ultimately showed He was looking to Christ as His Savior and Lord. Judas, sadly, proved he was only looking to self-interest and ended his life in despair, lost in his sins. Such observations as these are why I am pursuing this current series and am presenting this material at the upcoming apologetics conference I referenced in the first ppost of this series. 

Evaluating faith deconstruction.

     Now that we’ve introduced faith deconstruction and have distinguished true faith from its counterfeit, let’s dig deeper. We can evaluate faith deconstruction by noting its three cycles: unchanged heart, short-term fruit, truth for lies.

A. Deconstruction comes from an unchanged heart.

      In the book I cited in our last post, the authors cite one who underwent faith deconstruction: 

“Deconstruction is not about getting your theology right. It's not about trying to make your views match reality. It's about tearing down doctrines that are morally wrong to you to make them match your own internal conscience, moral compass, true authentic self, or whatever else it's being called these days“ [Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett. The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond. Tyndale Publishers, 2023. Page 25]. 

    A non-Christian or someone who never professed faith in Christ, though in spiritual danger, is in a different category from someone who once professed Christianity but then turned away.

Deconstruction is dangerous because it leads to apostasy if not abandoned – what older preachers call “crossing the dead-line”. Adrian Rogers once preached a sermon called “Crossing God’s Deadline”. He noted this: 

“There is a line by us unseen that crosses every path; it is the hidden boundary between God’s mercy and God’s wrath”. 

Proverbs 29:1 “A man who hardens his neck after much reproof will suddenly be broken beyond remedy.” As to the “dead-line” or “too far to ever repent”, no one knows with certainty when it is crossed, except God. 

B. What prompts a professing Christian to deconstruct?

 There are some factors that legitimately ought not to be in the Bible-believing church today. Too often churches do not own their sins, for which those who deconstruct are not completely off-base for calling out the local church. Jesus certainly warned the seven churches of the Book of Revelation of how they tolerated unbiblical things or acted in hypocrisy. Revelation 3:1 “‘I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.”  

The rate of falling away in our day and time ought to cause us to look closely at ourselves as a people who claim to be loving, yet often are cold; or as a people who champion the truth, yet will tolerate error; or those who promote godly marriages between men and women, yet evidence moral failure and public scandals. With those observations in mind, what leads people to deconstruct?

    Many are unable to square the problem of evil and suffering with what they understood Christianity to teach. 

    Secondly, perceptions that certain Christian doctrines are toxic (examples being male headship in marriage, sexual abstinence before marriage, the Bible's rejection of homosexuality, church scandals, abuse in the church & perceived contradictions in the Bible). 

    Thirdly, any present or past political climate and Christians equating Christianity with objectionable platforms of political parties involved. Fourthly, not knowing how to handle doubts and thus concluding it's better to jettison Christian beliefs than to deal with the doubts. Experience and research has shown that deconstruction doesn't happen overnight. It represents what has been a long-term process of gradual pulling away from church life, prayer, and Bible reading as a response to such factors. Those are the factors that prompt deconstruction. Let’s look at another observation.

C. Those who deconstructed may have shown short-term fruit.

The scary thing is those who once professed faith in Christ did seem to be saved. I’ve listened to many deconstruction testimonies over the years and have noted the following common traits. They were very zealous, sincere people. They knew the Bible very well. They became highly involved in church. 

They’re convinced they’re a Christian because of their profession or because they said a prayer. They may have held positions in the church. Many will speak of a “religious experience” or “an emotional event”. 

In the eighteenth century Jonathan Edwards wrote a classic book that dealt with how we can know we are truly of the faith [“Treatise Concerning Religious Affections”]. He notes: 

“for as we observed before, as we ought not to reject and condemn all affections, as though true religion did not at all consist in affection; so on the other hand, we ought not to approve of all, as though everyone that was religiously affected had true grace, and was therein the subject of the saving influences of the Spirit of God.”

     D. Exchanging truth for lies (Romans 1:25).

     The true possessor of faith, such as the Apostle Peter or Timothy, truly desired and trusted in Christ above whatever benefits He offered (John 6:60; 1 Timothy 3:14-15). A false professor, such as a Judas, or Demas, followed Jesus in so far as it served their motives for wanting peace but not the peace-maker, freedom but not the Liberator. 

       False professors crave acceptance by men rather than accepting Christ who makes them acceptable in the sight of God. The temporary fruit of a fraudulent profession is bent self-ward, only desiring the benefits and not the benefactor and falls away because that person was never saved to start (again 1 John 2:19). 

      The truth of God’s words about us is exchanged for self-deception. In our main text in 2 Timothy, we see how Timothy was truly born again in 2 Timothy 3:14-15 

“you, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”  

      As I noted earlier in this post, faith deconstruction embraces a postmodern view of truth. If truth is not whatever corresponds to reality for everyone, everywhere, and instead is what I personally feel it is, then such an act is an exchange of truth for error. This is why Paul urged Timothy to stick close to Jesus, close to the Bible, and close to those from whom He learned. We’ve introduced faith deconstruction, noted what distinguishes a false professor of faith from a genuine possessor of faith, and have evaluated why deconstruction is not the way to deal with a faith crisis. How then does one rebuild their faith when it seems like everything has fallen to the ground?

More next time.....

P1 Faith Deconstruction And Reconstructing Faith - What Is Deconstruction?

Introduction:

    Years ago my wife and I helped a family pack for their next move. The family had a massive treadmill that needed disassembled. The husband and I worked on the equipment. I asked him if he had the instructions, to which he replied: “Eh, we lost those years ago”.

    As we kept taking things apart, he tossed some parts in one container and some parts in another. I asked him if we needed to label the items, to which he replied: “Eh, we’re just winging it”.

    As we loaded vehicles for transporting their possessions, I noticed we had leftover nuts and bolts, which my friend dumped in a bag to put in yet another unmarked container. Moving can be a difficult time for many people, especially if you don’t have things marked, or instructions, or at least a well thought out plan (trust me, we’ve moved 11 times in our thirty years of marriage!)

    In our culture a similar disorienting experience has taken shape called “faith deconstruction” or what some call “exvangelicals”. In the next several days I'll participate with other speakers in an upcoming apologetics conference here BCNY Apologetics Conference 2026 | Baptist Convention of New York I plan to lead a breakout session that will deal with this very subject.

    Just like the illustration above, those who choose to “deconstruct” a faith they once professed attempt to do so apart from the Bible while winging it and letting go whatever they feel is unacceptable. Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett define faith deconstruction as follows: "Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard“ [Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett. The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond. Tyndale Publishers, 2023. Page 26.]

    In our Scriptural text for this post, we find Paul urging young pastor Timothy to persevere in His preaching of God’s Word as those he knows or others around him walk away or drift away from their profession of faith. Deconstruction is nothing necessarily new – only in name and expression.

    Perhaps someone reading this is going through a crisis of faith. Whether or not your salvation experience is genuine is often part of the reason why such struggles occur (2 Cor. 4:16-18; 2 Peter 1:7). Only as you yield to the Word of God and the Lord’s process can you truly affirm that indeed you are truly born again (2 Cor. 13:5).

    It is to Jesus Christ and our current trust in Him we look to for objective (that is, outside of ourselves proof). It is in detecting trust, love, and joy in the Savior we find personal or subjective proof. With that said, understanding how someone picks apart a faith they once professed and how to reconstruct your faith that is in crisis is the goal of this blog series.

Introductory issues about deconstruction. 2 Timothy 3:13-17

    The denial of Christ by people in Paul’s time motivated him to write what he did to Timothy. Notice 2 Timothy 3:13-17 -

“But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

What is faith deconstruction?

    Now I already gave the definition for this at the beginning of today’s message, but let’s hear Childers and Barnett’s definition again: "Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard.“

    Let me first comment on one word in this definition that might be new to some – “postmodern”. Postmodernism is a
philosophical approach that denies
objective truth in favor of relativism,
decrying any one right way to 

understand all of life. Postmodernism defies ultimate meaning in favor of personal preferences. Its cousin concept, relativism, states there is no one 

“capital-T” “Truth”, but only person-specific “small-t” “truths”. Over the years I’ve observed those who deconstruct adopting the “true for you but not true for me” view of truth.

More to come.....

What Truth Is And Why You Cannot Have It Without God's Existence

Introduction:

    In John 18:37-38a, Pilate, the Prefect of Judea representing the Roman Empire of His day (26-36 A.D.) was having a final conversation, a cross-examination if-you-will of Jesus Christ, whom He would sentence to die by crucifixion. In the exchange we pick up the following short dialogue:  

"Therefore Pilate said to Him, 'So You are a king?' Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38 Pilate said to Him, 'What is truth?'" 

What is truth?

    No greater question was ever asked by an unbeliever in all the Bible at a more pivotal point than this one - "What is truth?" Philosopher and theologian Douglas Groothius in his book "Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith", page 124, notes the following observations about truth:

"A belief or statement is true if it matches with, reflects or corresponds to the reality it refers to. For a statement to be true it must be factual. Facts determine the truth or falsity of a belief or statement. It is the nature nature and meaning of truth to be fact dependent."

    When Jesus stood before Pilate, He did not respond to Pilate's question "what is truth". If anything, Jesus Himself was (and is) Truth incarnate, as He Himself revealed in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father by me". 

    This is a startling statement by Jesus, since no other religious figure in all of religious literature - ancient or modern, and no other philosophical figure have ever claimed themselves to be "the truth". What Jesus meant by that statement in John 14:6 and the question Pilate raised later in that same book of the Bible tells us is that truth as a reality is impossible without God's existence. 

The God who is truth

    The reason Jesus' statement is so startling is because the God of the Bible is truth by nature. John MacArthur notes in his book "The Truth War," page 2: 

"Truth is that which is consistent with the mind, will, character, glory, and being of God."

MacArthur later notes:

"Reality is what it is because God declared it so and made it so."

    Theologians over the years have noted how much the Bible speaks about God as "truth" by nature (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 31:5; Isaiah 65:16; John 10:35; John 14:6; John 17:17; 2 Corinthians 6:7; 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 2:21). 

    For instance, when Jesus was on the cross, He as Truth incarnate cried out of His humanity to the Father in Heaven these words in Luke 23:46 “'Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.' Having said this, He breathed His last." Interestingly enough, Jesus was citing Psalm 31:5 "Into Your hand I commit my spirit; You have ransomed me, O Lord, God of truth." 

    When Jesus arose from the dead, He proved Himself to be what He claimed - The Truth. His resurrection was the public self-vindication of His character, claims, and teachings. He taught that He Himself was The Truth because He was God incarnate and He taught that God by nature is truth.

    Truth by its very nature demonstrates the existence of God. God's very existence and character as truth is the basis for it. I call this "the interdependence of God and truth". One must not see these two as eternal, independent realities. 

    In other words, something is not true because God says it is true, rather, something is true based upon the fact God Himself is true. He is the ultimate standard. Truth is the very nature of God - He is truth by His very essence. The late Christian apologist Norman Geisler has pointed this out in the first three steps of his argument for Christian theism.

1). Truth about reality is knowable.

2). Opposites cannot both be true.

3). It is true that the theistic God exists.

    I do not have time to expound on Geisler's three points. They do however express what I noted already of the interdependence of the reality of truth and God's existence (readers may look further into these three points of Geisler's here 12 Points - NGIM.)

    Due to God being truth by nature, it follows that creation would bear the tell-tale marks of the reality of objective truth in its fabric. Truth, as Geisler notes, is "telling it like it is". Before creation, the Triune God was all there was. When He created the heavens and the earth, He endued it as a truth-bearing reality, awaiting discovery by the creatures He had made. If there was no truth, there would be no reality, and thus no God. Conversely (or put another way), if there is no God, there is no reality, and thus no truth. 

Current post-modern spirituality and three leading worldviews fail in their attempts to deny the reality of objective truth

    Sadly, so much of what passes off as "spirituality" or even movements such as the current "Christian deconstruction" movement, which features a growing number of former professing evangelical Christians denying key doctrines of the Christian faith in place of ideas of their own making, will deny objective truth and will deny much if not all of what the Bible reveals about God Himself. 

    MacArthur again notes: "The goal of human philosophy used to be truth without God. Today's philosophies are open to the notion of God without truth, or to be more accurate, personal spirituality in which everyone is free to create his or her own God."

    Such an approach to spirituality fails because of the influence of three worldviews upon it that I'll spell out below: pluralism, naturalism, and relativism.

    Pluralism, Naturalism, and Relativism are among the three leading worldviews today that rule the academy, the media, postmodern spirituality, and many people in our current generation. They all have in common the denial of objective truth and their rejection of the God of Biblical revelation. In noting each of their weaknesses, we can then note why God's existence is necessary for there to be truth.

    The first of these, pluralism, claims all religions are the same and that no one religion has "the truth". Pluralism proceeds on the assumption that religion is mankind's response to what he or she cannot explain to an otherwise inexplicable sense of mystery. 

    The famous (or rather infamous) parable of the blindmen and the elephant is often evoked to prove their point. In the parable, one of the blindmen holds the trunk and says it's a snake; the second blindman touches the side and claims it's a rock; the third has the tail and claims it is a rope; the fourth as an ear and claims it is a leaf; the fifth has a leg and claims it's a tree. The alleged moral of the parable is all truth claims are relative and personal, with no one having the true picture of "what is real" or "what is true". 

    The parable actually is self-defeating for the pluralist, since the one question not being answered is: who said it was an elephant! Pluralism is self-defeating, since it denies objective truth and claims itself to be objective. 

    It is often alleged that pluralism proceeds on the basis of neutrality and tolerance, claiming that since all religions are equal, then no one of them have the right to claim to be "the one true religion". Yet, this very assertion shows pluralism to be intolerant and non-neutral! This appears especially in its attacks on Christianity as being intolerant and verging on immoral. It fails to recognize that other religions that it touts as tolerant and neutral are themselves claiming to be "the truth". Buddhism in its Dhammapada chapter 14 has these words within its text:

"He who has gone to refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and his order demonstrates with transcendental wisdom the four noble truths."

    To have such wisdom is a claim to be outside other systems devised by men. Hinduism in its Bhagavad-Gita 18:66 notes an alleged conversation between the main character, Krishna, to the protagonist Arjuna: 

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear."

    Pluralism not only fails because of its self-defeating nature, but also due to its ignorance of what other religions that it touts as holding the pluralist ideology say about themselves.     

    Naturalism, our second worldview, denies objective truth, and would claim the search for truth to be irrelevant. According to naturalism, all that exists is physics + chance + time + chemistry. We can never know the true nature of reality, ourselves, or even meaning. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga has noted, naturalism fails because if I cannot know anything to be true (or truth itself to exist for that matter), then we would have to say we cannot know if naturalism itself is true! (see a summary of his argument here Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Alvin Plantinga, Templeton Prize 2017 )

    The third view, relativism, claims "what is true for you is true for you, but is not true for me". Thinkers such as Paul Copan and Norman Geisler have pointed out how relativism, the notion that there is no such thing as "objective truth", but only "personal truths" or "your truth", is actually making an objective truth claim: namely, that it is absolutely the case that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Conclusion: God's existence is necessary for truth.

    We've traced out the Biblical data for God being truth by nature. We've also spelled out what we mean when we say that God's existence and truth are interdependent. The three worldviews of pluralism, naturalism, and relativism were shown inadequate in their accounts of truth. Hopefully this post has caused readers to think more deeply of the interdependence of God and truth. 

P2 Book Review: Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett's "The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond"

Introduction:

    In the last post I began to review the book: "The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond" by Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett. On page 26 of their book, Childers and Barnett offered the following definition of faith deconstruction: "Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard." 

    In my last post I covered the first two parts of the book that readers may review here: Growing Christian Resources: P1 Book Review: Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett's "The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond" In today's post I want to conclude my review of Childers and Barnett's book by summarizing it's third part, followed by some final takeaways.

Part three of the book: #Hope

    The third part of the book offers hope for those who are deconstructing or for those who have loved ones or friends that are undergoing this process. In the opening chapter of this third part, Childers and Barnett share the story of a man who had gone through a decade long period of deconstruction. When he started having children, he realized he needed to know what he was going to teach them about God. 

    He prayed God would guide him to whatever the answer may be. To his shock he felt God leading him to a church where the pastor was, in his words, "fanatical about something called discipleship". The Pastor gently led the man into the Scriptures and would ask questions like "what is the author saying here?" Over time, the man was guided back to the historical view of the Bible as God's Word, was discipled or taught how to think like and live like Jesus and was able to lead His family in that same direction. 

    As the authors recounted that story, they then offered what would be a pathway of hope in the remaining chapters of the book.

    In their next chapter entitled "questions", the authors pointed out how one of the reasons people deconstruct is because they do not feel like they have the liberty to ask tough questions. In sharing findings of a poll conducted by the Fuller Youth Institute, the following statistic was cited:

"According to our study...over 70% of churchgoing high schoolers report having serious doubts about their faith. Sadly, less than half of those young people shared their doubts and struggles with an adult or friend. Yet these students opportunities to express and explore their doubts were actually correlated with greater faith maturity. In other words, it's not doubt that's toxic to faith; it's silence." 

    As the authors go forward, they note the need to make sure the church offers good answers to questions, as well as knowing how to discern when a questioner is asking questions in search of truth versus asking questions for the sake of finding an exit out of the faith (page 218). The ending of the chapter has a good section on what the authors call "how to doubt well". 

    First, express your question. Secondly, express your question in the context of a community of believers whom you trust. Thirdly, understand the question and its implications (this comes about as you and fellow believers work through the question raised). Fourthly, seek the answers with the goal to finding the truth. Fifthly, Jesus can handle our doubts, which implies cultivating a prayer life before the Lord as one works through their doubts.

    The authors then move on to the third chapter of part three they entitle "advice". I really liked this chapter because it aids those who are trying to help someone going through the deconstruction process. The authors note the following steps.

1. Pray for that person.

2. Stay calm and stay in their life. 

3. Do some triage, which is to say, ask evaluative questions about the person deconstructing. 

-What is your relationship to the person?

-Do you have trust built with the person to engage them in conversation?

-How old are they?

-What do they understand deconstruction and what they're experiencing to mean?

-Have they been hurt by the church?

-Are they struggling with their sexuality?

-Have they concluded that biblical ethics are oppressive?

-Are the confused about certain passages of Scripture in the Old Testament?

4. Set boundaries and respect theirs.

    Then in the final chapter of the book, the authors offer closing thoughts on how the disciples were working through doubts between Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. 

    The final chapter, entitled "Saturday", uses the day after the crucifixion to frame the closing of the book. Tim Barnett summarizes this final chapter with these words on page 249:

"I still have lots of questions. Christianity isn't tidy, and neither is the church. As long as there is a church, there will be church hurt. As long as there is a cursed creation, there will be suffering. As long as there is mystery, there will be unanswered questions. But as long as there is a risen Savior, there is hope."

    The book closes with a prayer for those who are deconstructing. The last two sentences capture the intent of the prayer: "Help me to trust you with this relationship, knowing that you will work all things together for good for those who love you and are called according to your purpose. May the beauty of the Gospel be on display in my life that it might be beautiful to all who see."

Final Takeaways.

    Overall, I found this book helpful in getting introduced to the topic of Christian deconstruction. As I read through the book, I thought through something I heard Norman Geisler, one of the foremost Christian Apologists of our time say was the top opposing worldviews of Christianity. He noted that naturalism, pluralism, and relativism were at the top of his list. 

    When one reads or hears Christian deconstruction accounts, these three worldviews are woven into their process. As Childers and Barnett pointed out in their definition of Christian deconstruction, the denial of objective truth in favor of relativism reigned in the thoughts of those who have went through some sort of "deconversion". 

    Many either reduce their view of God, change Him all together, or deny His existence, with many "exvangelicals" going into progressive Christianity, agnosticism, or secular humanism - hence drifting into a naturalistic worldview. Then, those who deconstruct come to believe that Christianity is among a plethora of options - thus the increase of pluralism. 

    In the recent "State of Theology" poll conducted by Ligonier Ministries and Lifeway Research in 2025, when given the statement, "God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam", 47% of self-professed evangelical Christians agreed with the statement (see the link here The State of Theology) 

    The book challenged me as a Christian leader to take seriously the task of equipping people in the church I pastor with tools for defending their faith, discipleship opportunities, and making sure people know that they can ask their questions and find reliable answers. May the Lord help us in this troubled age with the only hope: Jesus Christ in the Gospel. 

P1 Book Review: Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett's "The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond"

Introduction:

    I recently finished reading a book that highly recommend for anyone who is either struggling with their Christian faith or who knows someone who has went through the process known as "deconstruction". In this post and the next, I'll offer a review of Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett's book: "The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond".

What is deconstruction?

    On page 25, Alisa Childers cites online personality Melisa Steward, a former professing evangelical Christian, whom she says epitomizes the deconstruction process. Childers then observes: 

"Deconstruction is not about getting your theology right. It's not about trying to make your views match reality. It's about tearing down doctrines that are morally wrong to you to make them match your own internal conscience, moral compass, true authentic self, or whatever else it's being called these days."

    On page 26, the authors offer their definition of deconstruction:

"Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard."

    As the authors go further in explaining deconstruction, they note how certain people have tried to use the term in a good and bad sense to describe anytime someone critically examines their Christian faith, the doctrines they profess, and the institution of the local church. The authors conclude that trying to utilize the term deconstruction is inadvisable. They describe deconstruction as follows on page 19:

"For the majority of people from the broader culture in the deconstruction movement, the Bible is seen as a tool of oppression to be rejected, not a standard of truth to be affirmed". 

They later add: "In fact, most major deconstruction platforms bristle at the idea that anything other than one's personal conscience should guide an individual toward breaking free from oppressive systems (perceived or actual) and toxic theology, which is defined as any doctrine or practice that someone deems harmful". 

Overall contents of the book.

    Childers and Barnett's book is divided into three main sections. 

Section One of the Book: #Exvangelical

    The first is called "#Exvangelical", dealing with the movement known as deconstruction, its beginnings, and helpful definitions. Alisa Childers went through a period of time where she deconstructed her faith. Tim Barnett is a Christian apologist and main speaker for the Christian apologetics ministry "Stand to Reason". 

    By the combination of Childers' experience and Barnett's Christian apologetics expertise, the opening chapters of the book provide helpful explanations of what deconstruction is and does. In the one chapter they call "fallout", they cite those who have deconstructed and the loved ones of those who have done so as describing the process filled with claims of "freedom" mixed with a profound sense of grief. 

Section #2 of the Book: #Deconstruction.

    The second section of the book delves into "deconstructing deconstruction" or explaining the process in detail. Barnett and Childers note on page 77:

"Every act of deconstruction contains three basic elements: (1) a process of deconstruction, (2) a belief being deconstructed, (3) a person deconstructed." 

    So, what factors contribute to a person starting the process of deconstructing? In Childers and Barnett's research, as well as what I've observed in the lives of those whom I've known going through this process, the following factors are noted.

1). The problem of evil and suffering. 

2). Perceptions that certain Christian doctrines are toxic (examples being male headship in marriage, purity culture or the idea of sexual abstinence before marriage, the Bible's rejection of homosexuality, church scandals and hiding of such, abuse in the church, perceived contradictions in the Bible or inconsistencies).

3). Any present or past political climate and Christians equating Christianity with objectionable platforms of political parties involved.

4). Not knowing how to handle doubts and thus concluding it's better to jettison Christian beliefs than to deal with the doubts.

    As they rightly point out, deconstruction doesn't happen overnight but represents what has been a long-term process of gradual pulling away from church life, prayer, and Bible reading. In my own research I've listened to around a dozen or so deconstruction stories over the years and have even experienced close people in my own life go through such situations. Anecdotally, Childers and Bernett's conclusions are on point.

    Perhaps the most valuable section in the second part of the book had to do with the matter of objective truth. As they note, all who undergo deconstruction embrace a relativistic or subjective view of truth. On pages 102-103 the authors discuss objective truth vss the relativistic view of truth. First, they cite Christian philosopher Douglas Groothius:

"A belief or statement is true only if it matches with, reflects or corresponds to the reality it refers to....In other words, for a statement to be true, there must be a truth maker that determines its truth."

    When Groothius speaks of a "truth-maker", he is talking about any object outside of ourselves to which our mind observes, sees, and concludes to be there as a real detail of the external world. Whenever anything matches with that reality, it is said to fulfill the conditions of truth, since truth is (in the words of the late Christian apologist Norman Geisler) "telling it like it is". For example, my cat is in the same room I'm typing this blogpost. The cat would be a "truth-maker", an object outside of my mind with which I can perceive with my senses and which I can say to myself: "there is truly a cat in front of me, trying to get my attention". My conclusion about the cat is true (it corresponds with reality) because the cat himself is there. 

    This idea of "objective truth" or "correspondence view of truth" contrasts with the deconstructionist's view of "relative truth". As the authors note, and as I myself have noted in listening to former professing evangelical Christians who have deconstructed, they'll speak of "what is true for them". 

    In the deconstructionist view of truth, objective truth claims are nothing more than "power claims" that attempt to oppress those around them. Reading life and doctrine through the dual lens of "oppressor/oppression" is drawn from the popularity of critical theory which makes truth out to be what personally enables someone to align with what culture defines as an oppressed group and opposing an oppressor group. For those who deconstruct, evangelical Christianity is full of "oppression" and people getting their way, all in the name of so-called "objective truth". 

    Ironically, to deny objective truth and claim that no one has the corner market on truth is itself an objective truth claim. As the authors go along throughout the rest of the second part of the book, they rightly note that with the denial of objective truth also comes the denial of the possibility of meaning. 

    Deconstruction as a process among former-professing evangelicals draws its impulse partly from a philosophical movement known by the same name. That movement, promoted by such philosophers as Jacques Derrida and Paul Riceour, claimed we could never know the true meaning of an author or any given text. Time and distance between us and the author, coupled with the changing meanings of words makes the quest for "what the author means" a fool's errand per the literary critics who espouse deconstruction. In the end, the reader is the one who has to determine the text's meaning. 

    It is this impulse that feeds into the contemporary movement of Christian faith deconstruction. In the final analysis, the goal in faith deconstruction is not to arrive at "truth" (since there is no one truth) or even new meaning (since meaning eludes even the most persistent seeker according to their view). Instead, the person who deconstructs can only hope to arrive at inner peace with themselves and chart a course that will help them live out their own personal view of truth. 

    In the next post I'll continue with this book review, noting what we find in the third part of the book and important takeaways for the reader. 

Post #19 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate"

Introduction:

    In our last post we explored how the Son of God entered into our world through the virgin's birth of him as a male human being. In as much as we have devoted quite a few posts to the doctrine of the incarnation, the mystery of how it transpired evades comprehension. 

    What do we "know"? Well, we know "that" the incarnation historically occurred. The Gospels situate Jesus' life, death, and resurrection in the historical world of first century, 2nd Temple Judaism. Numerous books have been written to substantiate the historical claims of the Gospels and their numerous details on political, cultural, and religious life. The historical investigative principle of "double-dissimilarity" states that if a reported event cannot be explained by contemporary groups (Jews and Christians would not have had good reasons to use a virgin birth of Jesus as a center-piece to promote their causes outside of it actually occurring), then we can reasonably conclude that the event in question occurred. 

        The virgin birth is also recorded in two primary sources for Jesus' life (Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke) and indirectly alluded to by Paul in Galatians 4:4 (i.e. "born of a woman"). Thus, this author finds the evidence for the historicity of the virgin birth compelling.  

    We also know "what happened" by key revelatory truths like "the hypostatic union" (the joining of a human nature to the Person of the Son) and the virginal conception that resulted in the birth of our Lord. Still, the "how" remains mysterious. Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3:16 "Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness:

"He who was revealed in the flesh,

Was vindicated in the Spirit,

Seen by angels,

Proclaimed among the nations,

Believed on in the world,

Taken up in glory."

    As we move forward in our study of the Nicene Creed, we find it skipping over the life and ministry of our Lord to His crucifixion. One may wonder why the Councils of Nicaea (325) and then Constantinople (381) didn't include what we find revealed in the four Gospels about our Lord's earthly life and ministry. 

    It's not that such details weren't important. Rather, the Creed aims to summarize the key points of Christian belief that all Christians everywhere confessed and that needed defended.  

The significance of confessing "And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate"

    Out of all the truths confessed in the Nicene Creed, perhaps this particular line situates us most overtly in history. We've already observed the historical situatedness of the virgin birth. What I like about this line "and was crucified for us under Pontus Pilate" is the reminder that Christianity isn't just another body of abstract theological statements. It is a revealed faith that is grounded in history while being revealed by God from Heaven. 

    Other than "Jesus", Pilate is the only figure mentioned by name in the entire Creed. We find in earlier historic Christian creeds mention of Pontius Pilate as part of the confession of one's faith. Archaeology has confirmed the historicity of Pilate, whether in the writings of Flavius Josephus or the discovery of the Pilate Inscription in 1961. What I want to do now is compare what we find in earlier creeds to that of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Below are some examples, with brief commentary that can help us appreciate the inclusion of Pilate's name in the Nicene Creed.

A. The Old Roman Creed, ca 100s A.D.

    As early as the second century, an ancient Creed known as "The Roman Creed" was used to teach converts preparing for Baptism. Many church historians note how this creed was a forerunner to the more familiar "Apostle's Creed". Hippolytus of Rome, writing in the late second century, notes the liturgy used in ancient baptismal rites in his work "Apostolic Tradition, Part 2":

"Before immersion I lead the candidate in renunciation of Satan and his works. The presbyter anoints with the oil of exorcism, commanding all spirits to depart, and then hands the candidate to the baptizer. Entering the water naked, accompanied by a deacon, each candidate is asked the creed: Do you believe in God the Father? Do you believe in Christ Jesus, born of the Virgin, crucified under Pontius Pilate, risen the third day, ascended and seated at the Father’s right hand, coming to judge the living and the dead?"

B. Apostle's Creed - 3rd century onward.

    The more familiar Apostle's Creed contains reference to Pontius Pilate in its confession of Christ's crucifixion:

"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried."

    Thomas Aquinas, the so-called "Angelic Doctor" and foremost theologian of the thirteenth century commented on this part of the Apostle's Creed with respect to Pontius Pilate:

"If you seek an example of humility, look upon Him who is crucified; although He was God, He chose to be judged by Pontius Pilate and to be put to death: “Your cause has been judged as that of the wicked” [Job 36:17]."

C. Heidelberg Catechism - late 16th century

    The Heidelberg Catechism was composed in 1563 to serve as a major catechism in the Reformed church. In Question 38 it asks:

Q. Why did he suffer 'under Pontius Pilate' as judge?

    The answer given by the catechism can aid us in understanding why Pilate's name is part of the historic confession of the church's faith.

 "A. So that he, though innocent, might be condemned by an earthly judge, and so free us from the severe judgment of God that was to fall on us."

The Nicene Creed summarizes what the historic Christian Church has confessed since day one.

     When one reads John's account of Jesus' crucifixion, it is evident that Pilate's "handing over" of Jesus for crucifixion marks a significant boundary line crossed wherein the Son of God was publicly sentenced, condemned, and sent by humanity to the cross for which He was ordained by God to do so. John 19:14-16 "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, 'Behold, your King!'15 So they cried out, 'Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!' Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?' The chief priests answered, 'We have no king but Caesar.'16 So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified."

    In the Book of Acts we see evidence in the early days of the Church in Jerusalem that this particular moment had become codified in the church's prayers and liturgy, as seen in Acts 4:27-28 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." 

    The early church identified itself personally and historically with their crucified and risen Lord. By including Pilate's name in their prayers and confession, the church was situating the cosmic battle for salvation by the incarnate Son of God in the firm soil of history, Roman politics, and the drama of human anguish. The crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ bore our sin, shame, and guilt. His suffering under a tyrant was for our anguish. Truly in suffering "under Pontus Pilate", He fulfilled the words of Isaiah 53:3-5,

"He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed."