What post-modern dangers do you see confronting the church today?

The church is faced in this postmodern age by several challenges. Internally, the church must defend the faith against ignorance, against compromise, against doctrinal apathy, and against denial. The Gospel must be defended against secular atheism, postmodern relativism, naturalistic scientism, materialism, and alternative worldviews. The church now suffers from a breathtaking deficit of doctrinal instruction and biblical truth. In some churches, the great truths of the Christian faith are unknown; in other churches these truths are left dormant and untaught yielding to real danger of doctrinal corrosion and heresy.

We live in a nation filled with the idols of self-realization, material comfort, psychological salvation, sexual ecstasy, ambition, power, and success. Millions of Americans embrace New Age spirituality in a quest for personal fulfillment and self-transcendence. The ancient paganisms of nature worship have emerged once again, along with esoteric and occult practices.

Confusion marks the spiritual understanding of most Americans. Pollsters report surprisingly large numbers of Americans who profess a belief in God, but live like atheists. The vast majority of Americans profess to be Christians, but have no concept of Christian belief or discipleship. A quick look around local, yes even religious bookstores will reveal something of America's spiritual confusion. Books on religion and spirituality abound, but most are empty of content. You know you are in a confused age when a popular book is entitled, That's Funny, You Don't Look Buddhist: On Being a Faithful Jew and a Passionate Buddhist.

Sadly, this confusion has invaded our churches as well. An amazing number of Christians allow for belief in reincarnation, channeling, or other spiritualist manifestations. The current popularity of angels is another symptom of our spiritual confusion. Americans now love to decorate their homes with angel figurines, artwork, calendars, and inspirational messages.

In postmodern America, the Christian Gospel is strange in its whole and in its parts. Most Americans assume themselves to be good and decent persons. They are amused at the notion that they are sinners against God. We assume our need of therapy but the Gospel insists on our need of salvation. We want to work it out ourselves. The Gospel argues that this leads to death. We want to look within. The Gospel points us to Christ. We want to do our part. The Gospel insists that Jesus paid it ALL. We demand to get what we deserve. The Gospel warns that this is exactly what we will receive, unless we turn to Christ in faith. But when we say that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and the Gospel is the only message of salvation, we find we are hauled off to the "court of public scorn and derision." To contend for biblical morality in this culture is to run the risk of being cited for hate speech. The Gospel sounds not only strange, but also threatening to the local deities.

Grace is an alien concept in American culture. Americans are consumers of meaning, religion and churches in the same manner in which they buy cars and clothing. They will test drive new spiritualities and try on a whole series of lifestyles. For many, the Gospel is just too strange, too counter-cultural, too propositional, and too exclusive. Sin is almost outlawed as a category. A substitutionary atonement sounds unfair and the word propitiation has all but disappeared from our theological vocabulary. God in human flesh is too much to take. But that is precisely what we must teach and preach.

What was the Oxford Movement?

The Oxford Movement (1833-1845) is often described as the Catholic revival in the Church of England. The movement began at Oriel College of Oxford University by a small group of scholars who insisted that the Church of England was not a department of the state but a divine institution, a true branch of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. These Oxford dons (professors) produced a serious of ninety tracts, written mainly by John Henry Newman, E. B. Pusey and John Keble who were known as the Tractarians. The research done by these men into links with the patristic (medieval) church led some of them, most notably Newman, to become Roman Catholics. In Newman's Tract Ninety, he argued that there was nothing in the Thirty-nine articles of the Church of England contrary to the Council of Trent, a position with which many other theologians disagreed and continue to disagree. For example, it is difficult to concluded how those articles which deal with works of supererogation (XIV), purgatory (XXII), the number of the sacraments (XXV), the Lord's Supper with regard to transubstantiation (XXVIII), the marriage of priests (XXXII) and several other statements within the articles could ever be reconciled with Roman catholic doctrine.

As a result of this movement, Christian beliefs were taken more seriously. Private confession was reintroduced, fasting and adoption of a rule of life were advocated, theological schools were founded, monastic life was revived, groups within churches devoted themselves to the care of the under-privileged, Communion was often received on a daily basis, personal and corporate holiness were stressed, communicants believed in the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, vestments, candles and incense were promoted in worship, and a high view of Scripture was shared.

What are the thirty-nine articles?

The Christian church has from the outset declared that Jesus was the Messiah. Since the Reformation there have been a myriad of creeds and confessions such as the decrees and creed of the Council of Trent, the Heidelberg Confession the Canons of Dort and the Thirty-nine Articles, which various churches have relegated to the status of historic statements of faith. For Protestants at least, the various creeds and confessions can only be secondary to Scripture and are subject to the judgment and revision of Scripture, as many of the creeds and confessions explicitly state. Baptists often refuse to subscribe to any creed and confession, claiming the "Bible only," which of course is itself a creedal statement. Therefore, churches find that they cannot do without a creed and/or confession in some form.

The Church of England on September 12, 1801 established the Thirty-nine Articles as its basic confession. They were derived from Crammer's Forty-two Articles of 1553. In dealing with predestination, the articles would bring a smile to both Luther and Calvin. While the articles are more Lutheran in allowing beliefs and practices not contrary to Scripture, they are more Reformed on the Sacraments.

What is your opinion of the recent action of the PCUSA to receive a report advocating alternative language for the Trinity?

On June 19, the 217th General Assembly of the church voted to receive and commend to the church for study the paper entitled "The Trinity: God's Love Overflowing." The recommendation before the General Assembly was modified so that the report was received rather than approved, but the result is practically the same. The paper is now a part of the official proceedings of the General Assembly and it is now forwarded to local congregations for study and application.

The report was amended to assert that the biblical language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit remain standard for use during baptisms, supposedly because the language Jesus used in the Great Commission is more specific than in other biblical texts. This is itself seems to be an odd assertion, since the other references to God's names throughout the Bible are equally specific and precise. The proposed alternate names for the Trinity included "Rainbow, Ark and Dove," "Speaker, Word and Breath," "Overflowing Font, Living Water and Flowing River," "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-Giving Womb," "Sun, Light and Burning Ray," "Giver, Gift and Giving," "Lover, Beloved and Love," "Rock, Cornerstone and Temple," "Fire that Consumes, Sword that Divides and Storm that Melts Mountains," and "The One Who Was, The One Who Is and The One Who Is to Come."

With the exception of the last Triad, none can be interpreted as referring to three distinct persons who are one in essence or nature or being. That is words like breath, font, womb, sun, gift, love, rock, fire, etc. clearly denote things and not persons. True, some of Triads may be loosely interpreted as three "things" of one essence, like "Sun, Light and Burning Ray;" but other suggested Triads like "Fire that Consumes, Sword that Divides and Storm that Melts Mountains" logically are not one in essence or being.

Still, the proposed triad of "The One Who Was, The One Who Is and The One Who Is to Come" implies a distinction of temporality between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. At the very least, this confuses the fact that the three divine persons of the Trinity are coeternal and coexistent.

One commissioner who opposed the report rightly stated: "Words matter. If we use them loosely, unthinkingly, others might use them. Good people are led astray. Our Triune God is not a compassionate mother, a womb or a rainbow or other metaphors that have been lumped together." Reverend Jonathan Lovelady argued, "The question that cries to be answered is, 'What does God want to be called?'"

That question is answered decisively in Scripture, where God does name Himself. The Christian faith is based exclusively in the understanding that God alone has the right to name Himself. Furthermore, Christianity is based in God's revelation of Himself. Without God's gracious self-revelation, we would know nothing about Him at all. The doctrine of the Trinity is itself a truth revealed by God about Himself as an act of His own self-giving grace and mercy to His human creatures. He does not invite His creatures to experiment in worship by naming Him according to their own desires.

Some who argue for the use of an alternate terminology for the Trinity are quick to point out that it took the church a span of centuries to reach the developed doctrine of the Trinity. That's undoubtedly true. But it did not take the church long to learn to worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and to use these revealed names clearly recorded in Scripture. The names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the revealed names. The Trinity is indeed a mystery, but their names are plainly revealed in Scripture.

In its opening sections, the report appears to be deeply rooted in Christian orthodoxy, and I applaud that. It states that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be properly understood apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the gospel cannot be fully understood apart from the doctrine of the Trinity. The report rightly points out that when we speak of the three distinct but inseparable persons of the Trinity, they are not to be understood as three modes or names in which God was successively revealed, as modalism erroneously teaches. Nor are Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit secondary or subordinate deities as subordinationism erroneously teaches in an effort to emphasize the oneness of God the Father by denying the equality of the three persons of the Trinity. Against these heretical views of modalism and subordinationism the church has always declared in the doctrine of the Trinity that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are, together with God the Father, fully and eternally God.

However, after that eloquent statement the report jumps off track. Having established the link between the Gospel and the Trinity, these PCUSA theologians then propose that the church is "liberated to interpret, amplify, and expand upon the ways of naming the triune God familiar to most church members. We are freed to speak faithfully and amply of the mystery of the Trinity. We may cultivate a responsible Trinitarian imagination and vocabulary that bears witness in different ways to the one triune God known to us from scripture and creed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Faithfulness to the gospel frees us to honor and continue to use traditional ways of speaking the triune God even as it frees us to adopt new images and names." WOW!! Really??

The dangerous theological proposals found in this report all grow out of that amazing paragraph just quoted. There is absolutely no scriptural warrant for the church to "interpret, amplify, and expand upon the ways of naming the triune God." After establishing that all language related to God employs analogy, the report then "relativizes" these analogies in support of an agenda to liberate women from Trinitarian language stating that such language "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women."

The report rightly states, "God is not male." But on the other hand, God has named Himself as Father, and the linguistic framework God has revealed about Himself, including His names, is grounded in masculine, and not feminine, language or images.

In the Old Testament, God is particularly concerned to name Himself over against the idols that were so pervasive among the Canaanites and other peoples.

For the report to claim as it does that "exclusive use of the traditional Trinitarian names" would potentially "foster idolatry" is nothing less than amazing. Furthermore, there is absolutely no biblical mandate to "glorify God imaginatively" by changing the names by which He has named Himself.

Since the report itself points to John Calvin's writing on Isaiah 46:3, others also cite this to justify terming the Trinity "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-Giving Womb," but even a cursory reading of that passage reveals that it is stating that God's "care" (not His name) is like that of a mother for her children. One should note that the word is children (plural and not the singular word child) and refers to the house of Jacob and ALL the remnant of Israel. Likewise, Isaiah 49:15 makes it clear that God's New Covenant with the Gentiles does not negate His Old Covenant with Israel. Here again the "child of the womb" refers to Israel and not to the second person of the Trinity. Again it shows God's maternal care for His own. Moreover in discussing these passages, John Calvin never suggests that they are to be interpreted as alternate names or terms for the Trinity.

Calls for theological innovation and the employment of "theological imagination" have become routine among mainline Protestants and others prone to theological revisionism. Dismissive of doctrinal orthodoxy and biblical language as out of date, oppressive, patriarchal, and worse, the proponents of theological reformulation intend to restructure Christianity around an entirely new system of beliefs, playing with language even as they reinvent the faith. It is little wonder that conservative non-denominational churches, with all their shortcomings, are growing.

Roland M. Frye, a leading scholar of literature observed that according to biblical religion "only God can name God." In other words, the rejection of biblical language by which God has named Himself in favor of imaginative new language that fits the church's current tastes and re-imaginings is not merely a shift in language, it is a reformulation of the faith itself. Beyond this, it inevitably runs the risk of turning into a new form of paganism, a new linguistic form of idolatry.

Language matters. It always has, and it always will. This explains why God is so clear in naming Himself in Scripture. We have no right to tamper with the names by which God has named Himself. It is enough for us to confess those names, which we have received from Holy Scripture, and we should shun all innovations about them. The line here is not merely between traditional and imaginative language, it is the line between the worship of the one true and living God and the worship of idols. The biblical language for the Trinity should always and everywhere (not just during the sacrament of baptism only) be conceived of a three persons of one essence or nature and always be spoken of as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

How can you, as a former college president, claim to hold to academic scholarship in your answers if they are based on the presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God?

The reader raises an interesting argument made by many in academia that faith-based scholarship is not possible. Their argument generally states "any discipline that deliberately imports extraneous, inviolable axioms (that is invincible self-evident truth) into its work belongs to the realm of homiletics or spiritual enlightenment or moral guidance etc., but it is not academic scholarship."

I would agree that when one does theology such study is based on the presupposition of Deus dixit, which is that "God speaks." But does this mean that scholars who study the Bible as believers forfeit any claim to academic scholarship?

The naïveté of such a statement is self-evident because even an atheist brings a certain "faith" to the work of academic scholarship. Can anyone, from believer to atheist, for that matter, come to the task of academic scholarship with absolutely no extraneous presuppositions or personal predilections? Obviously not. Why is the presumption of atheism any less inviolable than belief in Jesus Christ as Lord?

In its own way, the same argument holds true for assertions of agnosticism, since the true agnostic argues that the question of God's existence simply cannot be answered. That is about as inviolable an axiom as one is likely to encounter. To hold otherwise would mean that scholars who live in separate intellectual spheres can operate as authentic believers in one sphere but not in any other. Since no one is viewpoint neutral and everyone has presuppositions, why exclude Christian presuppositions? Why should the premise of biblical errancy be considered ideologically neutral and hence worthy of academic scholarship, but the assertion of biblical inerrancy be considered as evidence of a distorting bias?

All scholarship is based in some faith and is deeply grounded in some set of presuppositions. For the vast majority of those engaged in academia today, that faith is some form of ideological secularism.

Christian scholars should be honest and clear about their confessional commitments. I have always made it clear to the readers that I hold to a Christian worldview that is obviously colored by my Reformed bias.

To counter the alleged charge that only Christian scholarship is based on "extraneous, inviolable axioms," Christians should be quick to point out that those academic scholars who presuppose purely naturalistic or other alternate worldviews are equally ideologically biased or intellectually committed to their own secular presuppositions. Unfortunately, the secular world is not as academically objective, honest and pure as it pretends to be.

Is the God of the Bible the same as the Allah of Islam?

The God of the Bible is definitely not the same as the Allah of Islam. While Muslims passionately defend the unity of God they vehemently deny His tri-unity. They recoil at the notion of God as Father; they reject the deity of Jesus Christ the Son; and they renounce the divine identity of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus taught His disciples to pray, "Our Father which art in heaven," yet Muslims find this notion offensive. For them, calling God - Father and Jesus Christ - Son suggests sexual procreation. The Qur'an states in Sura 19:35, "It is not befitting to Allah that He should beget a son," and in 112:3, Allah "begetteth not, nor is He begotten." But the Bible does not use the term "begotten" with respect to the Father and the Son in terms of a sexual relationship but in terms of a special relationship. In John 1:14, when we read of Jesus as "the only begotten from the Father" (NASV), John is stressing the unique relationship of the Son to the Father. When Paul refers to Jesus as the first-born of all creation (Colossians 1:15) he is emphasizing, as he does in verse 16 to 19, Christ's preeminence as the Creator of all things.

Muslims also dogmatically speak of our Christian declaration of Christ's unique deity as the unforgivable sin of shik. "God forgiveth not the sin of joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this." (Sura 4:116.) It is true that Muslims affirm the sinless- ness of Christ but they adamantly deny His sacrifice on the cross and His subsequent resurrection. Regarding the resurrection of Jesus, the Qur'an sates in Sura 4:158, "Allah raised him up," which means that Jesus was supernaturally raptured from the dead and not resurrected. The Islamic story is that God made someone (probably Judas based on the Gnostic medieval Gospel of Barnabas) look like Jesus and this "twin" was crucified in Jesus' place. Sura 4:157 of the Qur'an states, "they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them."

Muslims also reject the divinity of the Holy Spirit. While Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity who inspired the text of the Bible, Islam teaches that the archangel Gabriel dictated the Qur'an to Muhammad over a period of 23 years. Islam identifies the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus, as Muhammad, but not as a divine being. The Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit as neither angel nor mortal, but rather the very God who redeems us from our sins and will one day resurrect us to eternal life. For these reasons and many more, the God of the Bible is NOT the same as the Allah of Islam.

Do you think that many of the mainline churches are declining because liberal theologians, pastors and members are in the majority in those denominations?

Actually I do not believe that is the case. While there are probably just as many conservative believers in the mainline churches today, neither liberal nor conservative believers, even combined, comprise the majority. I believe the fault lies with those whom I would define as the "accommodationist middle" who refuse to take a stand, or who refuse to draw essential biblical distinctions and who refuse to defend necessary theological and biblical boundaries.

Why do Christians make a distinction between religion and Christianity?

Christians maintain that the road of "religion" leads steeply uphill, while the road of Christianity descends downward. That is, religion is fallen humanity's attempt to reach up and become acceptable to God by what WE DO. Christianity is just the opposite; it is a divine gift based on what GOD HAS DONE. Thus, all the teaching of all the religions of the world may be summed up in the one word "do," while the teaching of Christianity may be summed up in the one word "done." God through Christ lived the perfect live that we could never live and offers us His perfection as an absolutely free gift. Jesus clearly taught that He was the only way to the Father and validated His claim by the fact of His resurrection.

Then is there no hope for the innocent native who never heard of Jesus?

The innocent native has no problem IF he is innocent. The problem is that no one is innocent; every one of us sin and fall short of the glory of God.

People are not condemned for not believing in Jesus, they are condemned because of their sin. The question is not how God can send someone to hell, but how can God condescend to save any one of us?

Our personal commitment to Jesus is a poor substitute for His personal commitment to us. The Gospel is not so much an exhortation to take Jesus as our personal savior but rather it is the stunning proclamation that in the Gospel events, He has taken us as His personal sinners.

Were there not Thirteen Apostles, since Paul also called himself an Apostle?

It is surprising how few persons, even when they are generally familiar with the Bible, are able to name the Twelve Apostles or dis­ciples of Jesus. Many, when asked to name the Twelve Apostles, will start by naming Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But Mark and Luke were not among the original Twelve Apostles and it is not known that either one of them ever knew Jesus personally.

The New Testament itself is vague as to the identity of several of the Twelve Apostles and virtually nothing definite is known about them. The word Apostle is not restricted to the original twelve disciples of Jesus. Paul, for instance, was not one of the twelve disciples, but he continually calls himself an apostle and is generally known as the Apostle to the Gentiles. The term is derived from Greek apo, off and stello, send, and signifies envoy, messenger or missionary. Disciple is from Latin disciPulus, meaning student or pupil.

The original Twelve Apostles, that is, the original twelve disciples of Jesus, were: Simon (also called Peter), Andrew (Simon's brother), James (called James the greater or the elder), John (brother of James the elder), Philip, Bartholomew (also called Nathanael), James (also called James the less or the younger), Jude (the same as Thaddaeus and Labbeus), Thomas, Matthew (Levi), Simon (known as Simon the Canaanite or Zelotes), and Judas Iscariot. There were really thirteen original named Apostles, because, after Judas Iscariot betrayed his Master and com­mitted suicide, the other eleven cast lots to determine who should fill the vacancy and the lot fell upon Matthias; and in that sense, Paul might be numbered as the fourteenth Apostle.

Of the original Twelve, the deaths of only Judas Iscariot and James the Greater are recorded in the Bible. In the opening verses of Acts I2 it is recorded that Herod the king stretched forth his hand to harass some from the church and then he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword. Tradition says John died peacefully at a great age and was the only one of the original Twelve (or even of the "fourteen" if you will) who did not meet a violent death.

What is meant by the Apostolic Fathers?

Certain Christian writers who lived in the time of the Apostles are known as the Apostolic Fathers. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the reputed authors of the Four Gospels, are called Evan­gelists, although the term does not occur in that sense in the New Testament. Evangelist, derived from Greek eu, well, and angelistes, messenger, signifies a bearer of the gospel, which itself is from Anglo-Saxon god-spell, literally meaning good news or glad tid­ings. Disciple is applied in the New Testament to others as well as the Twelve. Mark 3:14 says Jesus ordained twelve, "that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach." These Twelve Apostles were chosen from a larger number of disciples. Luke 10:1 tells us that "after these things the Lord appointed other seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go."

Apparently the number twelve was chosen in reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, for Jesus promised them, according to Luke 22:30, that they would "sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The number seventy for the larger group was probably chosen in reference to the seventy elders appointed by Moses in the wilderness. Some of the disciples of Jesus deserted Him, for John 6:66 says: "From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked with Him no more."

What is the meaning of prove in the Bible?

When the King James Version of the Bible was made, prove had not yet generally acquired the sense of "to establish the truth of." Generally in the English Bible prove retains some of its primary Latin meaning of "to try, to make trial of, to test or to examine a person or thing to determine his/her or its goodness, worth or genuine­ness."

In Exodus I5:25 it is said, after Moses sweetened the bitter waters of Marah, that the Lord "proved them." Exodus I6:4 says: "Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no." Deuteronomy 8:2 quotes Moses as saying: "And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his command­ments, or no." In I Kings 10:1 we are told that the Queen of Sheba "came to prove" Solomon with hard questions. "Prove all things; hold; fast that which is good, says Paul in I Thessalonians 5:2I. In II Corinthians I3:5 Paul says, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves."

The modern sense of prove, "to make manifest by argument," is approached in Acts 9:22, which says, "But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ." But in Luke I4:I9 one of those invited to a wedding feast said, "I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused."

We have a survival of this original meaning of prove in "proving ground," which is a place where military equipment or ammunition is proved or tested. Prove also probably retains its original meaning of "to try" or "test" in the proverbial saying, "The exception proves the rule," an apparently senseless maxim that is often quoted to baffle us when we point out an exception to a general statement that we think covers too much ground. As popularly understood the saying is absurd. It is generally accepted as implying that a rule is not a true rule unless it has an exception, or that the existence of an exception in particular somehow demonstrates the correctness of the rule in gen­eral. In the modern sense of prove, an exception would not prove a rule, but rather would tend to disprove it.

"The exception proves the rule" is probably a descendant of the ancient Latin legal maxim­, "Exceptio pro bat regulam de rebus non exceptis" which freely trans­1ated means that an exception or exclusion tests the rule as to things not excepted. The common expression, "the exception proves the rule," is merely a popularized technicality and ignores the true mean­ing of the original.

Likewise proof does not always mean "convincing evidence" or "that which is found to be so." Sometimes it retains its older meaning of "a trial" or "the act of testing." For instance, the proofs submitted by a photographer to the subject from which selec­tions may be made are "test" prints.

Does the Bible mention a person named Dives?

Dives (DI-vees) is the name popularly given to "a certain rich man" who figures in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus, recorded in Luke 16:19-31. The word dives, however, does not occur in any English translation of the Bible, either as a proper name or as a com­mon word. It is merely the Latin word for "rich," and accordingly it occurs as an adjective in the Vulgate, a Latin version of the Scriptures translated at the close of the fourth century largely by Jerome and declared by the Council of Trent to be the official text of the Catholic church.

Even in that version dives is not employed as a noun or proper name. As a matter of fact, in no version of the Bible is the rich man in the parable given any name. Apparently it was during the Middle Ages that it became customary to apply the names Dives to the rich man at whose gate Lazarus begged crumbs. This no doubt arose from the fact that the parable was referred to in Latin as "Dives et Lazarus," which literally means simply "the rich man and Lazarus." It could just as well be written "Lazarus et dives," in which case dives is not capitalized.

Since the fourteenth century the word has been used as a proper name even in theological literature. Dives is often employed to signify "a rich man" or "a rich worldly person."

How can you trust God when you reflect on the events of September 11, 2001?

The Christian answer to issues of suffering and tragedy always has to do with the Cross. Imagine you are an admirer and companion of Jesus Christ during His ministry. He is such a powerful worker of miracles that disease and hunger are almost banished from the countryside when He is present. He is such a powerful teacher and spiritual guide that thousands of people hear Him gladly and get hope. Then suddenly this man who is the one helping the whole country is cruelly, unjustly cut off in the very midst of His life--at only age 33.

What if you stood at the foot of the cross in front of this apparently senseless act of violence and tragic waste of life, and you said, "I can never, ever trust God again after an event like this!" What if you went home and completely renounced all belief in God saying, "This proves that God is either a monster or indifferent or there is no God"?

If you did that, you would have been missing the greatest act of God's love and redemption in history. But of course no one at that time could fathom what had happened.

The cross of Jesus Christ is the main reason I can trust God after this kind of event. First, the cross is the best proof that God is not remote from us in our suffering. Second, the cross and its aftermath show us how dangerous it is to judge God on surface appearances. His way is to work strength through weakness and bring resurrection and new power through death.

Again reflecting on the events of September 11, how does vengeance not manifest itself in the Christian community?

In most people's minds there is a false "either-or" between vengeance and forgiveness. That is a mistake because forgiveness is not simply resignation or capitulation to evil.

In vengeance we simply pommel the enemy to hurt them worse than we were hurt. Our motivation is neither the common good nor the upholding of justice and truth per se. We simply want to assuage our own pain by seeing our enemy in worse pain than we were.

Forgiveness, on the other hand, is not letting our enemy off "scot free." Forgiveness is a means of giving up the hate and the desire for personal vengeance so that we can then pursue justice and maybe even reconciliation.

I have personally found that I can't really confront a wrongdoer effectively until I've forgiven him or her. Then I am sometimes able to help the person see the wrong, or at least I am able to wisely pursue justice and restitution. If I keep my heart full of hate, I never get anywhere except fuel the cycle of retaliation. Forgiveness does not let a person off "the hook," rather it frees us to pursue justice and/or reconciliation, depending on the reaction of the wrongdoer. At the very least, forgiveness prevents me from becoming as evil as the other party.

The basic plot of "The Lord of the Rings" revolves around the conundrum of the Great Ring of the Dark Lord. The good people have found his ring, but they can't use his own power against him without becoming just like the one who made it. They can defeat the Dark Lord, but only by becoming an evil Dark Lord themselves. Unless we forgive our enemies, our anger could turn us as demonic as it has turned our enemies.

Now that we know what forgiveness is, how do we do it? I don't know how to do that without embracing the message of the cross. The Cross means at least that God so hates evil and injustice that He is willing to come suffer Himself to end it, and that we are so tainted by evil as well, that Jesus had to die so that we could be forgiven. Both of these truths are absolutely essential for forgiveness. The theologian Miroslav Volf puts it:

Forgiveness flounders because I exclude the enemy from the community of humans and exclude myself from the community of sinners. But no one can be in the presence of [the Cross] for long without overcoming this double exclusion....When one knows that the torturer will not eternally triumph over the victim, one is freed to rediscover the torturer's humanity and imitate God's love for that person. And when one knows that the love of God is greater than [my] sin, one is free to see oneself in the light of the justice of God and so rediscover one's own sinfulness. (Volf, The Spacious Heart, p.57).

What then are Christian people to do when it comes to spiritual, not physical warfare?

In terms of spiritual warfare, in The City of God St. Augustine contrasts the "City of Man" (which is the nexus of human systems based on power and pride) and the "City of God" (which is God's Spirit working through the message of the Cross to create new human communities based on love, service, and giving.) Augustine tells Christians to love the human city in which they live but to remember how it is distinct from the coming City.

The City of God does not respond to a spiritual attack with the firepower of guns but with greater and more sacrificial service in word and deed. This is the way it wins over the world. The old hymn says: For not with swords loud clashing, nor roll of stirring drums, but deeds of love and mercy the heav'nly kingdom comes.

Christianity is unique because its central reality is that real influence comes not to those who take but those who give, not to those who rule but those who serve, not to those who accrue power but to those who sacrifice. This is a tremendous moment for the "City of God" to show Jesus' love in more powerful ways.

We should be available to our neighbors and friends spiritually to listen and pray with and for them, not to preach at them. We should also be available to meet material needs. Christians should not sit back and wait for the phone to ring--we should pro-actively look for ways to help.

After all, nobody asked Jesus to give Himself for us. He came to us and gave us what we needed.

Were the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 a judgment from God on our country?

I do not think we can infer from prosperity that God is pleased with us, nor can we know from disaster that He is displeased with us. In Romans 1:18f. Paul hints that the worst punishment may be to obtain the happy life you want. That way you never wake up to your pride, self-righteousness or need for God.

On the other hand, Luke 21:16-19 asserts that God's loving protection of His people, does not mean exemption for suffering. Jesus says, "They will put some of you to death. All men will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish." This is startling to us. We would think that not a hair of your head will perish, must mean that we cannot be attacked and killed, but that is not so. Jesus is saying that God exercises the most detailed and loving control of our lives (not a hair), and that in the broad scope of things every event works out for our good and His glory (Romans 8:28). But our life-plan may still include terrible tragedies, just as it did in Jesus' life plan. Why should servants be above their Master?

What do we learn from all this? We learn that we cannot be sure that disasters imply divine judgment nor that prosperity implies divine approval. So how can we know whether God is displeased with America or not? The only way to know that for sure is to consult the Scriptures and its standards.

Does this mean we cannot 'hear God's voice' in a time of tragedy? We can. Jesus was also asked whether certain corporate and personal tragedies were "judgments" of God. In Luke 13 He was asked if a massacre and (ironically) a falling tower were signs of God's judgment on those killed. His answer was an unequivocal "no", but He added cryptically "you yourselves should repent." In effect Jesus was saying, "You are asking the wrong question. You should be asking why didn't the tower fall on us?"

So what is God saying in times of tragedy and suffering? If you have actually lost a loved one, I think you are being called to look to the only God of all the faiths of the world who literally lost a Child. Jesus was Himself the victim of a hostile, physical attack.

I don't think you will really be able to handle the brutality of life with a God who has not suffered, or with a universe without any God at all. Neither of those options brings consolation. If there is no God, then even your outrage is trivialized with statements like: this is just the way life is, or there is no justice. On the other hand, if there is a God, how do we know He cares? The God and Father of Jesus Christ gave to us a new resource that comforts deeply. He proved His commitment to ending our suffering by getting involved in it Himself.

No military power or technology or human factor can make you safe. Only in the very center of God's will is there any safety. You don't have the human ability to control things, only God does.

C. S. Lewis pointed out that times of war or disaster do not really increase the amount of misery and death in the world, but they concentrate it and wake us from our illusion that life is manageable. "If we had foolish hopes about human culture, they are now shattered. If we thought we were building up a heaven on earth, if we looked for something that would turn the present world from a place of pilgrimage into a permanent city satisfying the soul of man, we are disillusioned, and not a moment too soon. In ordinary times only the wise realize it. Now (in war-time) the stupidest of us knows it." (C.S.Lewis, "Learning in War-Time")