YES THIS IS TOO A "FREE SPEECH" ISSUE!

 

( Photo from http://blog.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/StatementIMG_PhilRobertson.png)

I don’t think I need to fill anyone in on the current issue with Phil Robertson and A&E. You’d have to live under a rock to not know what is going on. I just want to address one issue. When this initially came to light, a massive number of people responded that they were concerned primarily because the actions of A&E violated Phil’s free speech. People on both sides of the aisle, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, were making this argument.

Subsequently, people began to respond that it was not a “free speech” issue. The claim is that Phil’s free speech rights have not been violated because of various reasons. Some of those are, “A&E is not the government, so they can’t be held to the Constitution.” Or, “Phil is their employee, so they can do whatever they want.” Or maybe “Free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want and not face responsibility from your employer.”

Since, I mentioned these three conclusions, let me address them. However, my general point is more philosophical, and I’ll make it after I address these. I’m not an attorney; I’m more interested in the philosophical aspect of this. But I ought to refute these examples, since I raised them.

To the first one, that “A&E is not the government, so they can’t be held to the Constitution.” This is just false, and seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t just protect American citizens from the government. It also established (by discovering and defining, not as the origin of those rights) what rights the citizenship has and that the government is responsible for protecting. The purpose of the Constitution is found right in the preamble:

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, the purpose is partly to “defend” the rights of the citizens. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to claim that only the government can violate the right of free speech. An employer can no more usurp your right to free speech any more than they can your right to assemble, own a gun, or petition your government. If an employer terminated you because you wrote your congressman, you’d have Constitutional grounds to claim that your employer had violated your rights.

                As to Phil being an employee, I don’t think that being an employee automatically implies that one has ceded one’s rights to the employer. I would agree that the employer ought to be able to terminate or suspend an employee without giving a cause.  However, in this case, they DID give a cause. They cited Phil’s position on homosexuality. Furthermore, A&E is not just an employer, they are a member of the media. Public speech is their business. Their “employees” are professional public speakers in a sense. It follows that they ought to have a particular expectation to uphold that freedom of speech.

                This obviously raises the question of contract. Did Phil sign a contract saying what he would and wouldn’t say publically? I don’t know. I’ve heard the contract says this, but it seems people are assuming it says this. I’ve also heard that the Robertsons, as a family, have stated that they will not compromise “God or guns” in their show. That seems like evidence that they applied some thought about their public positions on subjects of faith and Scripture before this alleged contract. However, this question raises the question of whether a contract can be drawn up that cedes one’s right to free speech entirely. That would be a fairly cumbersome contract. I don’t know that it is possible.

                The third objection, that “free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want and not face responsibility from your employer”, is accurate. But, I don’t think that applies to this case. The simple fact that Phil’s words offended someone does not seem to me to be sufficient reason to warrant discipline. I’m not the person to lay out what all would be sufficient, but claiming that saying something offensive is sufficient for discipline is just illogical and ridiculous.

                Here’s my main concern. If we claim that this issue is not a free speech issue, then we have to begin to tighten the terms of what is necessary and sufficient to fit the definition of the right to free speech beyond what our Constitution intended. Considering what would follow, I don’t think that is wise at all. We’d end up with a system where we could be censored by all sorts of measures as long as they don’t involve government intervention.  A fascist state could logically emerge where corporations could censor citizens, and we’d have no grounds to defend ourselves because we ceded the Constitutional protection of free speech.  

                So…Yes! This is indeed an issue of free speech! And it is one that should be of particular concern to Christians. The Gospel requires the mention of sin. There is no Gospel message that doesn't include mentioning sin. Mentioning sin offends people. Free speech means we have a right to offend people. (It's not that our intention is to offend people, but rescuing them necessitates it.) We have to protect that right. That involves recognizing when it is threatened. And at the moment, in this situation with the Robertson family, our free speech is threatened.

               

                          

The Touchstone Miracle

 

       Christmas is next week! I can't believe that. I've just begun Christmas shopping and it's almost too late to order things online and get them shipped in time. That means I may have to wade into the chaos of store shopping. I'm not looking forward to it. I'd rather wade into the chaos of Christian apologetics.       

       Apologetics is my passion.  Actually, discipleship and evangelism are my passions, but apologetics is foundational to both. I have chosen to focus my academic education on apologetics, and I have discovered that it means I will never stop being a student. What is apologetics? It comes from 1 Peter 3:15, "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." The word "defense" in the Greek is apologia, and from it we get the word apologetics.  So, Christian apologetics is simply evaluating the biblical worldview and preparing to defend it when challenged. 

       It's a sort of jack-of-all-trades type of academic field and that can make it rather daunting (much like parking pretty much anywhere except my driveway this time of year).  Christian apologetics can take you into any number of topics.  One day you are faced with something such as philosophical questions like "Could we know right from wrong if God didn't exist?" or "Can we trust our senses to give us accurate information about reality?" Another situation may raise scientific questions like "How does the age of the earth, according to scientific discovery, compare to the book of Genesis?" You might find yourself discussing the irreducible complexity of flagellum bacteria in one discussion, and in the next debating the best methods to share the Good News of Jesus with people. It's a pretty complex field, full of possibilities and endless learning. God has equipped some brilliant people to root out the difficult answers, eloquently present the evidence, and make the case so compelling that it is rather easy to conclude that the biblical worldview of Christ as Lord is the only reasonable, rational thing to believe.

       But here's the reality of much of apologetics, and it's only daunting if we lose sight of this one thing. It's all just icing on the cake! The truth of what Jesus did for you doesn't need more defending. You don't need any more evidence than what you already have, if you've been told the whole story about Jesus. This wonderful field of study is merely pointing to the inevitable evidence of God, and it's really just more grace that we don't deserve.

Don't get me wrong, I've dedicated my educational endeavors to it, spent tens of thousands of dollars learning about it, and when normal people are watching TV I usually have my nose in another nerdy book. I do that prayerfully, passionately, and I have no doubt that is God's will for me. In fact, I've seen what the confidence of discovering how rock solid this Truth is. (I used a capital T because Jesus said, "I am the Truth.", in John 14:6. There's more to this Truth than truth, but that's for another article another day.) I've seen people radically go all in, take up their cross if you will, all from exploring the cause of the universe, the majesty of the cell, or the magnificence of the giraffe's circulatory system.  This apologetics is life-changing, powerful stuff! No one can tell me it's worthless, I've seen it in action!  

A timely Christmas apologetics blog post might touch on whether the miracle of the virgin birth really happened; Is there evidence for it? Or perhaps on how a friend and fellow student recently shared a historical astrology report from his native country of China that documented what was likely the star that guided the wise men to the baby Savior. These are fascinating topics, and they would sure fit the season. But, I've had something else on my heart, and it touches on all of the miracles at once, including these Christmas miracles.

I've come to realize that the touchstone of apologetics, discipleship, and evangelism, however, is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  (The rest is just because when God fills a cup, it overflows because He's just that awesome!) In other words, the Christmas miracles are real, because Jesus is risen! Don't take my word for it that the resurrection of Jesus is all we really need.  Look at what Jesus said, "Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."" That was Matthew 12:38-39. Jesus had been ministering and working miracles for about three years at this point, and folks were beginning to treat Him like a circus act. They were taking the evidence for granted. Jesus' response was that all they needed for proof was that He would die and rise again on the third day. He had given them more than that already, but, according to His very own words, all they needed was the resurrection.

Also, look at the story he told as recorded in Luke 16:19-31. Here, Jesus tells the parable of "Lazarus and the rich man". It's interesting that Jesus names a character in this parable. It's the only time that ever happened. The story is that the rich man dies and goes to hell, while Lazarus, who's a poor man who suffered in life, dies and goes to heaven. The rich man begs Abraham to let him go warn his five brothers about hell. Abraham says they don't need to be told, they have the Word of God. The rich man says they need more than that, and Abraham replies, " If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." Remember all those miracles Jesus did? One of them was raising a man named Lazarus from the dead.  Now imagine you witnessed that miracle, heard this parable (with the peculiar naming of the character), heard Jesus say the only proof you need is His resurrection, and then witnessed His physical body after the resurrection. I'm starting to agree with Jesus that all we need is the resurrection!

But this raises a question for us today. Did the resurrection really happen? If it did, that pretty much seals the deal for the rest of the miracles. I mean if the guy can rise from the grave, He can probably walk on water, part an ocean, keep a man alive in the belly of a fish, talk from a burning bush, turn water into wine, and so on and so forth. Right? So if the resurrection is true, the rest of the claims of Christianity are true. Likewise, if it is false, then Christianity is hogwash. Paul even said that very thing in 1 Corinthians 15:14-17.

The resurrection sure seems like a pretty simple thing to falsify, if it's false. The Bible makes some rather bold claims about encounters with Jesus after the resurrection. In fact, there are twelve groups of people to whom Jesus is reported as having appeared, groups numbering from one person to 500. In 1 Corinthians 15:6, where the group of 500 is mentioned, it even says that "most of them are still alive." Now imagine that it appeared in today's newspaper that a prominent figure who recently died has been raised from the grave...and 500 people have seen the man alive!

Assuming the report of our prominent figure's resurrection is false, what do you think would follow? I'd imagine other news agencies would report how absurd the claims were, how none of the 500 people could be located, what motivated the false report, and so on. At best, the report would simply be ignored. Assuming it were true, I'd imagine we'd find multiple reports of the story, have journalist interviewing the witnesses, and subsequent follow-ups digging for more of the details. In other words, there would be evidence one way or the other, and how it was reported would reflect the evidence.

So, which way did it happen with the reports of Jesus' resurrection? It was anything but ignored! There were multiple reports attesting to the real, historical event of a resurrection! In fact, that's exactly what the four Gospels found in the Bible are. Luke's Gospel is even an example of a follow-up report by a non-eyewitness interviewing eyewitnesses and digging for more details. We don't find what we'd expect to find at all if the story were not true.

Let's not forget the fact that many of those eyewitnesses were so convinced that they went to their death for their belief. The exact method of torture and death the apostles faced is controversial, but not that they faced it. We can be certain only that Herod had James killed with a sword from Acts 12:2. That likely means he was beheaded. Now, I'm pretty sure I'd fess up to a fib before I'd have my head chopped off. Even if we assume that James was an exception to common sense, it would be odd for ten more apostles to face a similar fate without letting the cat out of the bag of a conspiracy to fool people into believing in a faked resurrection.  Those 500 witnesses? It's safe to say many of them fell victim to the Coliseum, where Christians were a favorite party favor for the lions and other wild animals that were collected for the spectacles. These Christians could have spared their lives be denying the resurrection. How many of them spared their lives with reports that the resurrection was faked? Zip. Zilch. Nada. Not one of them recanted their belief in the resurrected Jesus in the face of death!

  There's plenty more evidence for the resurrection. If you're interested in discovering more of it yourself, read any of the Gospels and check out books like The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, or  Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace. In fact, my studies into apologetics and this overwhelming collection of evidence available even today has led me to the point where I have a new understanding of what we need to believe in Jesus. I have a new understanding of what Jesus meant when He referred to His resurrection as "the only sign". And I now know precisely what the Bible means when it says in Luke 16 that some won't believe "even if someone is raised from the dead."

So, this Christmas, as you celebrate the miracles that began the life of our Savior, you can have confidence in them because of the miracle on the other end of His life on earth. That's what He wants you to know!

The Resurrection is the central theme in every Christian sermon reports in the Acts. The Resurrection, and its consequences were the "gospel" or good news which the Christian brought: what we call the 'gospels,' the narratives of Our Lord's life and death, were composed later for the benefit of those who had already accepted the gospel. They were in no sense the basis of Christianity: they were written for those already converted. The miracles of the Resurrection, and the theology of that miracle, comes first: the biography comes later as a comment on it. Nothing could be more unhistorical than to pick out selected sayings of Christ from the gospels and to regard those as the datum and the rest of the New Testament as a construction upon it. The first fact in the history of Christendom is a number of people who say they have seen the Resurrection." (C.S. Lewis, Miracles. pgs. 143,144).

We can be confident in the miraculous birth of Jesus this Christmas because of the touchstone miracle of His resurrection. Jaroslav Pelikan, professor of Yale University said, "If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen, nothing else matters." The reports are in and the evidence is clear, Christ is risen and nothing else matters! Merry Christmas!

Book Review of James Spiegel's The Making of an Atheist

 

 

 

I just finished reading James Spiegel's book The Making of an Atheist.  It was required reading in my philosophy of religion class.  I'm glad it was.  In fact, I want to share it with you because it is profound, short, and contains essential information for Christians and non-Christians alike.  If you are not a Christian, I dare you to read it. I promise you will hate it.  Read it anyways.  It's only 128 pages, including the introduction, but it sparked five weeks of classroom discussion.  Spiegel's central thesis is powerful and controversial.  We'll get to that in a minute. This is my chapter-by-chapter review of how he supports that thesis, with all its strengths and weaknesses.  Yeah it's a long blog post. Non-nerds are dismissed. 

 

This guy...Spiegel

 

 

Not this guy...Smeagol

 

 

At the beginning of the book, Spiegel cites the belligerent quotes of three prominent players in the "New Atheist" movement.  Sam Harris says God is "...like Zeus and the thousands of other dead gods whom most sane human beings now ignore."  Christopher Hitchens said, "Religion poisons everything."  Richard Dawkins calls God a "delusion" and "a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, blood thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."  Sheesh! Tell us how you really feel, Richard.  I think some of those are British cuss words.

 

Spiegel points out that the only new thing these men offer the atheist position is their "degree of bombast" and a prose that "seethes with outrage."  Though their intellectual arguments have been repeatedly rebutted by Christian and non-Christian philosophers and theologians over the centuries, they present themselves as having arrived at their conclusions by intellectual inquiry. Who's delusional?

 

Spiegel explicitly states, "I want to show that atheism is not ultimately about arguments and evidence." He elaborates further, "Atheism is not at all a consequence of intellectual doubts.  Such doubts are mere symptoms of the root cause – moral rebellion (emphasis his)."  This is Spiegel's central thesis, that atheism is a consequence of moral rebellion and not intellectual doubt. 

 

Spiegel gives the reader the book's definition of "atheist."  He states, "I will use the term "atheist" to refer to anyone who does not believe in God.  This allows me to just use the term "atheist" rather than repeatedly referring to "atheists and other non-theists" throughout our discussion."  This, in my opinion, is the major flaw in the book.  Is Spiegel's central thesis referring to disbelief in monotheism or the God of the Bible?  There are forms of monotheism, such as deism, that reject the God of the Bible.  Would that not also be a rejection based on moral rebellion consistent with Spiegel's thesis?  It would seem so, but he points to Anthony Flew as an example of rational evidence persuading someone away from atheism.  Spiegel says, "Flew explains his reasons for recanting atheism and affirming the reality of God."  I disagree with Spiegel on this point.  Flew did not affirm the reality of God.  He merely affirmed the reality of monotheism.  His conversion is still a very valid point that supports Spiegel's central thesis as it is, but I believe Spiegel's central thesis should have been more clearly that the rejection of the God of the Bible is the consequence of moral rebellion.

This disagreement aside, the first chapter does well to address the objections of atheists.  Spiegel points out that "the common objection from evil does pack some punch, and it is a genuine problem for theists."  He rightly goes on to explain that it is a non-sequitur to conclude from this problem that there is no God.  Spiegel also points to the deathblow to the atheists' positivism, self-refutation.  Turns out it is actually impossible to scientifically prove that everything should be scientifically proven.  He also offers a compelling argument that moral values and the belief that life is meaningful are "borrowed capital for the atheist." How can the positivist be positive that positively behaving positively is the positive thing to do? I'm positive they can't be. 

Spiegel concludes the first chapter by ceding that atheists are correct in some of their common objections.  There are hypocritical believers.  There are morally complacent believers. Religion has been used "as a pretext for shoddy scientific methodology." I agree that these are valid complaints.  I also agree, as Spiegel points out, that they do not constitute reasonable objections to theistic faith.  At most, they accuse us as believers, not the belief itself.  "Christians are so stupid! Therefore, God doesn't exist!" You can put all colors of lipstick on that pig, it's still a fallacy.

 

In chapter two, Spiegel, as previously mentioned, cites the conversion of Anthony Flew from atheism to deism.  By illustrating the teleological arguments that convinced Flew, Spiegel aims to show the "irrationality of atheism."  I think Spiegel missed an opportunity here to clearly level at least two additional powerful arguments for the existence of God.  The cosmological argument and the moral argument are commonly compelling arguments.  Not everyone finds the teleological argument compelling, though perhaps one of the others they would.  To be fair and clear, Spiegel does present components of the moral argument in other parts throughout the book.  I am merely suggesting that this chapter could have included these arguments in a clear, syllogistic way.  "That would be the logical thing to do, Captain."

 

Spiegel also elaborates, in this chapter, on a biblical diagnosis for atheism.  He points first to Psalm 14:1, "the fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"  Spiegel notes that the Hebrew word for "fool" used here denotes a person who is "morally deficient."  Spiegel puts the quotation marks on "morally deficient" not me.  However, he does not cite a source for this claim.   Because Spiegel's area of expertise is in philosophy and religion, and not biblical languages, I would expect him to cite a source for this. 

Despite that weakness, he goes on to illustrate the scriptural evidence of the cause of disbelief with compelling passages.  Most compelling to me in support of Spiegel's central thesis was John 3:19-21.  Here, Jesus emphasizes the role of wickedness in rejecting the Truth.  Jesus even makes the point that evildoers do not simply reject the light, but actually "hate" it.  Shall we queue Dawkins' whimsical, wordy, wanton rant back up?  Spiegel also accurately cites Romans 1:18-24, 28-29, and Ephesians 4:17-19 to support his thesis.

Chapter three was to me the most intriguing.  Spiegel stands up three causes for atheism.  He cites the work of Paul Vitz in Faith of the Fatherless to show that a look at the lives of numerous renowned atheists have shared a common link of having defective fathers. He makes certain to emphasize that this does not mean that having a defective father guarantees atheism.   Seems from the Amazon reviews that this line was omitted from the fry-cook-by-day-internet-genius-atheist-by-night version of the book, with all the "Muh Daddy loved me and I hate God anyways! So this book is full of LIES!" tirades.   This psychological consideration is both compelling support for Spiegel's thesis and most intriguing to me.  It's also a good reminder that apologetics should involve compassion for the inevitable emotional roots of atheism.

Another cause that Spiegel points to is self-serving depravity.  He points to several leading intellectuals and their accompanying perversions, especially of the sexual sort, as evidence that atheism is self-serving.  For example, Karl Marx was fiercely anti-Semitic, unfaithful to his wife, and sired an illegitimate son whom he refused to acknowledge.  Jean Jacques Rousseau sired five illegitimate children and abandoned them to orphanages, which in his social context meant certain early death.  Ernest Hemingway was a pathological liar, misogynistic womanizer, and self-destructive alcoholic.  These are but a few of the examples Spiegel cites.  His point is taken from the book Intellectuals by Paul Johnson, which Spiegel describes as "a 342 – page historical exposé that recounts behavior so sleazy and repugnant that one almost feels corrupted just by reading it."  I think we call those "voting ballots".  Spiegel best makes his point when he quotes Johnson thus, "the works of these intellectuals were often calculated to justify or minimize the shame of their own debauchery."  This is exactly what one should expect to find if one considers the scriptural truths previously cited.

 

 

The third cause Spiegel points out is the "will to disbelieve."  This he gives as a subtitle to this section, playing on the words of William James' influential essay The Will to Believe, which he cites often.  A quote of James best sums up Spiegel's point: "If your heart does not want a world of moral reality, your head will assuredly never make you believe in one."  He brings up THE quote from Thomas Nagel, which he introduced earlier in the book, as evidence for this position. Nagel ticked off atheist philosophers everywhere when he said, "I want atheism to be true...It isn't just that I don't believe in God, and, naturally, hope that I'm right about my belief. It's that I hope there is no God!  I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that." Wow! Nagel's moment of honesty strikingly confirms this part of Spiegel's support for his thesis. 

Chapter four introduces us to a concept Spiegel calls "paradigm induced blindness."  Those who suffer from this are prevented from seeing the truth, even when it is right in front of them.  Women call these people "husbands".  Spiegel cites Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, to illustrate that it is a naïve notion to believe that scientists are immune to bias.  Geocentric beliefs (the earth is the center of the galaxy) verses heliocentric beliefs (the sun is the center of the galaxy) are an example of two opposing paradigms.  Spiegel asks of the people of the fourteenth and fifteenth century, "Why couldn't those geocentrists, including both church leaders and scientists, see the truth?"  The geocentrists were victims of paradigm induced blindness.  The centers of the two paradigms of theism and atheism are expressed by Spiegel when he says, "God is the center of the theist's worldview...  On the other hand, the axis of a worldview without God is necessarily the self, and the atheist's values and personal experience are shaped accordingly."  

This atheist paradigm naturally prevents one from seeing certain sinful practices as immoral.  In turn, their repugnance at a "narrow" or "repressed" Christian ethic serves to reinforce their atheist paradigm.  Add to the mix the noetic effects of sin (that biblical idea that the fall has cognitive effects on the human mind), and paradigm-induced blindness becomes a vicious cycle that entrenches the atheist in blind disbelief.  This total causal pattern, Spiegel dubs "the psychological machinery of self-deception."  Mortals call it "deception".  I think Spiegel has presented a compelling case in this chapter, and the biblical concept of the noetic effect of sin strongly supports this conclusion. 

In the last chapter, Spiegel makes a positive claim for "the blessings of theism."  He makes the point that there is apologetic value in the life well lived, and that the most effective tools of persuasion are personal virtue and self-sacrifice.  Spiegel gives three reasons why virtue is beneficial to one who is already a believer.  First, one avoids the deadening of the sensus divinitatis (the innate sense of God every human being is born with).  Second, virtue prevents motives for willful disbelief.  Thirdly, living according to a true paradigm, as opposed to a false one, has the power to enlighten, clarify, and sharpen one's experience of the world.

Spiegel also points out that, in addition to the benefits of hope in eternal life and relief by forgiveness of sins, we also have "the right to complain and the privilege to thank."  Because negative emotions can be the first steps towards doubt and disbelief, the right to complain to God is important.  Because offering thanks can be profoundly satisfying and a form of psychological release, thanking God is important.  Furthermore, Spiegel claims that the failure to be adequately thankful can cause one to have a distorted perception of pride and autonomy.  These are indeed beneficial and compelling because the atheist worldview is left with the challenge of showing how this is not the case, while the ideas seem axiomatic.

Spiegel concludes this chapter, and the book, with an eye to the grace that God showed us.  With a reminder that, while everything we do warrants God's judgment, He intervened when we did nothing to deserve it.  This love is a matter of virtue and should be "the first and last order of business for any Christian." 

Spiegel has provided the Christian with a concise and effective resource to respond to the intrepid hostility, baseless conclusions, and deceptive irrationality of the New Atheists.  While there is room for improvement, and I do not think this book provides the complete essentials to equip the Christian to respond to intellectual objections of atheists, I think this is a must read for any Christian confronted with the New Atheism in our society.  Yeah, that's you.  That's all of us.  Spiegel has supported his central thesis, that atheism is the result of moral rebellion and not intellectual doubt, very well.  

 Here is the link for the paperback version on Amazon:

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Atheist-Immorality-Unbelief/dp/0802476112/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1384218029&sr=8-1

And here's the Kindle version:
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Atheist-Immorality-Leads-Unbelief-ebook/dp/B0038U0U40/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1&qid=1384218029

---

Spiegel, James S., The Making of an Atheist, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2010)

 

 

THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT'S NOT A COCONUT, BUT IT OUGHT TO BE!

 

The fruit of the Spirit’s not a coconut!

The fruit of the Spirit’s not a coconut!

If you want to be a coconut, you might as well hear it, you can’t be a fruit of the Spirit!

‘Cause the fruits are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness

and self-contro-o-o-l!

___________________________________________________________________________________

My kids sing those lyrics and it's a cute and catchy way to memorize the "fruits of the Spirit". Those are found in Galatians 5:22 and 23. Those verses say this, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." The passage is contrasting the results, or fruits, of both the spirit and the flesh. The context is that these fruits are the result of living for the desires of the Spirit instead of seeking to fulfill the desires of the flesh, which produces some rather naughty fruits.

Memorizing these words is a great thing for any Christian to do. We could all use these words of wisdom, and often we need to have them right in our heart to be easily reached. These fruits are often most needed in a moment of pressure, when we've had no time to prepare ourselves.

Fruit plus pressure equals juice. My family loves juice! We love to make our own fresh squeezed juice in our handy dandy Jack Lalanne juicer. You can squeeze all kinds of fruit, but you can't squeeze a coconut! Well, I imagine there is some way to squeeze a coconut, but even our Jack Lalanne juicer can't juice a coconut. I wish my spiritual fruit was like that. I wish it was like a coconut.  But it's not.

"Don't let it squeeze your fruit!" My wife and I use that saying to remind each other that the fruit of the spirit is not optional, even though our car is a magnet for numbskulls, our children's behavior resembles scientific evidence of evolution from apes, and the neighbor's dog feels that his role in life is to be the department of homeland security...all night long! The fruit of the spirit is never optional! Since my personal weakness of the flesh is frustration, my wife get's to use this line often. It's a quick and easy way to defuse my reactions and bring to mind a profound message in a few words.

The fruit of the spirit's not a coconut, but it ought to be like one. Whatever has you frustrated, don't let it squeeze your fruit!