Wednesday, February 29, 2012

From National Review On LIne

In last Wednesday’s debate, when the Republican candidates were asked about their positions on birth control, Newt Gingrich parried with one of his usual tactics, a fusillade against the mainstream media. He told CNN’s John King, “You did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If we’re going to have a debate about who is the extremist on these issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.”

Two points of Gingrich’s barrage warrant assessment. First, did Barack Obama, as a state senator, vote “in favor of legalizing infanticide,” by voting “to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion”? And second, has no one in the elite media ever discussed his record on the issue? Yes; and no, but essentially yes.


Gingrich’s assertion rests on then–State Senator Obama’s opposition, in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to successive versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions. The bill gave them protection as legal persons and required physicians to provide them with care, rather than allowing doctors to deal with them as they would, literally, with medical waste. In 2008, Obama’s campaign repeatedly claimed that he opposed the bill because it was unnecessary, since Illinois law already provided protection for infants born alive. However, as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on NRO at the time, this extended only to babies whom physicians deemed to have “sustainable survivability.” Thus infants who were not expected to survive could be killed or left unattended to die. Obama, Ponnuru wrote, “did not want the gap filled.” (The National Right to Life Committee has a report on Obama, Illinois’s legal loophole, and its horrific consequences here.)

Obama maintained at the time, with support from Planned Parenthood of Illinois, that the bill wasn’t really about protecting infants’ lives or mitigating their suffering, but was in fact a backdoor attempt to restrict abortion. The argument (which is constitutionally dubious, anyway) goes that, by providing legal protection and “recognition as a human person” for a pre-viable infant, the law could be used to threaten Roe v. Wade. Thus, in his 2004 Senate campaign, and then during the course of the 2008 campaign, Obama claimed that he would have supported a law like the 2002 federal born-alive statute, which stated explicitly that it could not be used to dispute the legal status of fetuses prior to their birth.

In committee in 2003, however, Obama voted against a version of the Illinois bill that contained the same protection included in the federal bill (which passed 98–0 in the U.S. Senate). Thus, Obama’s tenuous constitutional argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

One other excuse for Obama’s opposition to the Illinois bill has been proffered: that the final version of the bill was coupled with another piece of legislation that imposed criminal or civil consequences for doctors who did not properly treat infants who were covered by the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Obama and others deemed this second bill unacceptable. However, this doesn’t begin to defend Obama’s vote on the first bill.

As Ponnuru pointed out back in 2008, and PolitiFact admitted the above facts as such, but have disputed whether they constitute “legalizing infanticide”; FactCheck argued that that question remains a value judgment. Since the Illinois bill would have provided legal protection for born-alive infants who had not been protected before, by opposing it, Obama voted to continue to make it legal to kill them. Thus, the only question remaining in order to determine whether it was “infanticide” is: Were the subjects of the bill fetuses or were they infants? In order for them not to be considered infants, one would have to contend that an unviable prematurely born baby is not an infant — a claim few would be willing to make. And yet, Obama’s votes, three times over the course of three years, indicate that he believes that fetuses who have been born alive, but have not yet reached the age of viability, are not human persons worthy of protection by our laws. Such a position on abortion is, to say the least, extreme, and deserves attention.

Which leads to the second question Gingrich raised: Have the media questioned Obama’s position on the Illinois infanticide bill? Washington Post blogger Erik Wemple has turned up a few media references to President Obama’s extreme abortion stances from the 2008 campaign: two CNN segments discussing his record, including the Illinois legislation specifically; one instance in a debate, where John McCain raised the question of Obama’s record, and he defended his position on the Illinois bill; and one interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, in which Obama was queried on partial-birth abortion, though not the Illinois legislation specifically.

The attention was most intense in August of 2008, after the NRLC managed to generate national debate about Obama’s position on the Illinois bill. Obama was asked about it during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, where he offered a thoroughly deceptive response to the question, saying, “Here’s a situation where folks are lying” about his position. However, Obama was the one lying: He told the interviewer, David Brody, that he opposed the bill because of its threat to Roe v. Wade, and that existing Illinois law already protected infants who were born alive. As we have seen, the first assertion is implausible; the second is just plain false.

This seems to be the one instance in which a journalist asked candidate Obama directly about his support for the bill, and he was unfortunately let off, even by a conservative reporter, with his mendacious explanation.

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times reported on the controversy, noting the points the NRLC had raised about Obama’s inconsistent and extreme positions. The Times, citing sources on both sides, explored Obama’s claim that he opposed the final Illinois bill because of its unacceptable companion bill. However, Obama’s claim has no solid legal basis: Two different bills are two different bills.

Thus, while one cannot say, as Gingrich did, that the media have literally never questioned Obama’s extreme record on abortion, we can certainly say that there has not been a sufficiently revealing discussion of his views. An honest appraisal would depict him as having voted repeatedly to protect a form of infanticide. Instead, the media have willingly accepted explanations that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

And they deserve scrutiny, for two reasons. First, as explained above, Obama has offered deceptive explanations of his own pro-abortion legislative work, while simultaneously accusing his pro-life opponents of being dishonest. More important, Obama’s record as a state senator was not merely pro-choice, but radically pro-abortion. His voting record indicates that he does not believe infants deserve protection even once they have emerged from the womb if they are deemed to be below the age of viability, and he did in fact, three times, vote to keep a form of infanticide legal.

— Patrick Brennan is the 2011 William F. Buckley Fellow at National Review.

Rookmaaker on Georges Rouault, French Painter

‎"Rouault shows that another kind of art is possible. It is an art which is a positive answer to absurdity and surrealism and existentialism. Yet it does not show the rosy sentimentality, more humanistic than human, that so much of so-called Christian art has produced."--Hans Rookmaaker, Art and the Death of a Culture.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

The Urantia Book: Not Credible (from Jesus in an Age of Controversy)

I once received a call from a young radio announcer for a Christian station, who wanted information on a Christian view of UFOs and life on other planets. After a few minutes the man reluctantly confessed that his interest was based on The Urantia Book, a revelation that supposedly supplements, corrects, and updates the Bible. Despite his Christian background, this man had doubts that Jesus had to die in order to atone for our sin and turn away the wrath of God. I spoke with him for almost an hour, earnestly arguing for the biblical teachings on Christ’s sacrificial death. Near the end of the conversation his troubled soul seemed to come back to the Bible. What is this Urantia Book and how could it lead someone away from the teachings of Scripture?

The Urantia Book (1955) is a mammoth tome that credits no human author. Rather, it claims to have been assembled by extraterrestrials entities or “Revelators”--with ostentatious names such as Perfector of Wisdom, Number, Divine Counselor, and One Without Name--and channeled by one unidentified human. This 2097 page volume gives a fantastically convoluted and obscure account of cosmology, anthropology, theology, and history. One of its more objectionable anthropological claims is that the black (or “indigo”) race was the most inferior; although it claims that these people “have exactly the same standing before the celestial power as any other earthly race.”[i] Martin Gardner observes that this “is exactly what southerners in the United States, including their minister, used to say about the African American slaves.”[ii]
One of Urantia’s devotees, Peter Bergman, of the comedy group “The Firesign Theatre,” said of it: “It’s been this major influence on my life since 1972. . . . I find it to be the most complete expression and explanation of our relationship to God and where we’re going and where we come from.”[iii] Under the leadership of the Urantia Foundation in Chicago, the book has gone through eleven printings in the United States, with translations in Spanish and Finnish appearing in 1993. Work is being done on Russian and Dutch editions, and there are plans for other languages as well.[iv]My search of the Internet yielded several home pages dedicated to spreading the gospel according to The Urantia Book. Some of the materials offered were aimed specifically at reaching Christians.

The Urantia Book supplies us with over 774 pages on the life of Christ--much of it concerning his supposed world travels during the “lost years of Jesus” not addressed in the New Testament (see chapters 7-8). It tips the extraterrestrial hat to the biblical Gospels, deeming them influential but inadequate, partial, and imperfect records.[v] From the alien angle, the New Testament was corrupted by the influence of Paul, Peter, and others, and only dimly reflects the real teachings of Jesus.[vi]

To attempt to fathom The Urantia Book one must descend into a dark and foreboding labyrinth of quirky terminology, pseudo-scientific pronouncements, and revisionist ideas about Jesus. In barest outline, the book informs us that God is a “Trinity of Trinities,” that humans are unfallen beings who have a divine spark within them (called a “Thought Adjuster”), that they can become fused with God through evolutionary development, and that Jesus’ death on the cross did not atone for our sin against God.

In its attack the idea that Jesus sacrificed his life for ours, The Urantia Book states that “the Father in Paradise did not decree, demand, or require the death of his Son as it was carried out on earth.”[vii] And: “Jesus did not atone for the racial guilt of man nor to provide some sort of effective approach to an otherwise offended and forgiving God.”[viii] Furthermore, the resurrection of Jesus was, it claims, spiritual and not physical, since his body instantaneously decomposed in the tomb.[ix] It says: “This material or physical body was not a part of the resurrected personality.”[x] These notions contradict the preaching of the Apostle Peter, who proclaimed shortly after Pentecost:

Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know--this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power (Acts 2:22-24, NRSV).

Peter was only echoing his Master, who solemnly asserted that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). The most ancient and reliable records available clearly teach that Jesus offered his life on a bloody cross in obedience to the will of his Father for the redemption of humanity. The first Christians, such as Peter, witnessed and declared that Christ rose from the dead in a perfected physical body, not as a disembodied spirit (Luke 24:36-43; 1 Corinthians 15:1-34; see also chapter 15). However, The Urantia Book, with its Gnostic devaluation of the body, would have us abandon the biblical record and embrace its own unhistorical and idiosyncratic perspective, which it claims is a revelation superior to the Bible or any other source.

The Urantia Book declares that “the gospel of the kingdom is: the fact of the fatherhood of God, coupled with the resulting truth of the sonship-brotherhood of man.”[xi] The true gospel as taught by Paul is that: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” and that he appeared to many witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). These apostolic words bear the marks of historical facticity and personal integrity. For these truths Paul lived and died. On these truths Christianity was born, survived through bloody adversity, and makes its unique appeal today. For all its physical bulk and metaphysical murk, The Urantia Book is devoid of this transformative authority and power.


[i] The Urantia Book (Chicago, IL: The Urantia Foundation, 1955), 725.
[ii] Martin Gardner, Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery (New York: NY: Prometheus Books, 1995), 24.
[iii] Quoted in Peter Stenshoel and Jay Kinney, “Audio Magicians: When is a Cult Figure an Occult Artist?” Gnosis, Summer 1994, 42.
[iv] Gardner, 11.
[v] The Urantia Book, 1341-1342.
[vi] Ibid., 2091-2093
[vii] Ibid., 2002.
[viii] Ibid., 2016.
[ix] Ibid., 2023-2024.
[x] Ibid., 2021.
[xi] Ibid., 2059.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Guest Poem

The Coming of the Messiah Copyright, 2012


I come bearing a Mighty Scheme.

I bring you — Hope — Change – Everything!

I promise to take care of you

from the cradle to the grave,

even help you in it.


I come bearing a Mighty Scheme.

I bring you – Hope – Change – Everything!

I promise to take care of you

Every Day— and – Every Hour in it.

You don't need to do the planning.


I come bearing a Mighty Scheme.

I bring you Hope — Change – Everything!

I promise to take care of you.

You don't need to tax your brain.

I Know What's Best for You.


I come bearing a Mighty Scheme.

I bring you Hope – Change – Everything!

I promise to take care of you.

I'll rid you of your noble soul,

the soul that mapped your Noble Dream.

America! Once the envy of All Nations –

now but a faint, flickering flame –

a soul vastly overrated.

It's not so great a thing – it's just a dream.

Yes – a Dream Supreme! But still – just a dream.

America! I come bearing a Mighty Scheme.

I bring you Hope – Change – Everything!

You've no need for an antique dream.

It's not so great a thing – it's just a dream.

America! Hand it over!

Marietta Bakes Knapp

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Outline for Teaching at Cherry Hills Community Church Sunday, Feb. 19

Douglas Groothuis, Denver Seminary



A. The Jesus question: “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:13-16)

· Americans answer: much confusion

B. The danger of false views of Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:1-4)

C. The need to defend the true Jesus (1 Peter 3:15-16)


A. Jesus’ unique deity

1. Jesus’ own words (Mark 2:1-10, 23-28; John 8:58)

2. Apostolic authority (Colossians 2:8-9)

B. Jesus’ true humanity (John 1:14)

C. Jesus as the only Savior and Lord

1. Jesus’ words (John 14:1-6)

2. Apostolic authority (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

D. Jesus as the only basis for salvation by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9)


A. The New Age world view: pantheism (all is God) monism (all is one)

B. The New Age view of Jesus (see 1 John 4:1-6)

1. Enlightened master, guru, adept, yogi, swami

2. Jesus is separate from the impersonal “Christ Consciousness”

3. Jesus is not uniquely God in the flesh--one of many spiritual examples

(see Acts 4:12)

4. Jesus’ crucifixion not redemptive (see Colossians 1:22)

5. Jesus’ resurrection is not literal (see 1 Corinthians 15)

6. Jesus’ second coming is not personal and physical (see Acts 1:1-11)

7. The Bible is not the final authority on Jesus: other sources replace it

(see 2 Timothy 3:16-17)

a. Other supposedly historical documents (Gnostic, etc.)

b. Channeled material (A Course in Miracles)

c. Near-death experiences (Betty Eadie, Embraced by the Light)

8. Esoteric interpretation of Scripture: texts out of context as pretexts for

theological and spiritual error (see 2 Peter 3:15-16)


A. Spiritual warfare and prayer (2 Corinthians 10:3-5; Ephesians 6:1-10)

B. Communicating the real Jesus to those who are confused

(1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

C. Defending the reliability of the New Testament (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16)

D. Counting on the power of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4;

Ephesians 1:18-23)



1. Douglas Groothuis, Jesus in an Age of Controversy (Wipf and Stock, 2002), Confronting the New Age (InterVarsity, 1988), Deceived by the Light (Wipf and Stock, 2002).

2. Ajith Fernando, The Supremacy of Christ (Crossway, 1994).

3. John Stott, The Cross of Christ (InterVarsity, 1987).

4. Booklet: Douglas Groothuis, Are All Religions One? (InterVarsity, 1996).

"For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all." -- 2 Corinthians 4:17

Friday, February 17, 2012

Doug Groothuis Teaching

I will be speaking on the New Age view of Jesus at Cherry Hills Community Church (Highlands Ranch, CO) this Sunday at 10:30 in the chapel. I will also be selling copies of my book, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.

Fetus Fatigue

I wrote this article, "Recovering from Fetus Fatigue," before the last presidential election, but it is doubly pertinent after four ugly years of pro-choice Obama.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Christian Apologetics and Ethics at Denver Seminary

Douglas Groothuis has established the reputation of being one of the
best apologists and Christian philosophers in the Evangelical
community. Now he has developed a new and exciting program in
Christian apologetics and ethics. This program is very important in
light of contemporary culture, and any student who studies with
Groothuis and his colleagues will get first-rate training. I highly
recommend this program. -- J.P. Moreland

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Distracted from Distraction by Distraction

Neither plenitude nor vacancy. Only a flicker
Over the strained time-ridden faces
Distracted from distraction by distraction
Filled with fancies and empty of meaning
Tumid apathy with no concentration
Men and bits of paper, whirled by the cold wind
That blows before and after time,
Wind in and out of unwholesome lungs
Time before time and after.

The first of T. S. Eliot’s "Four Quartets,” Burnt Norton.

Doug Groothuis Sermon on line

My sermon, "The Crisis of Truth in the Postmodern World," is available from Crossroads Church of Denver.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Book of Common Prayer

For Quiet Confidence.

OGOD of peace, who hast taught us that in returning and rest we shall be saved, in quietness and in confidence shall be our strength; By the might of thy Spirit lift us, we pray thee, to thy presence, where we may be still and know that thou art God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For Guidance.

OGOD, by whom the meek are guided in judgment, and light riseth up in darkness for the godly; Grant us, in all our doubts and uncertainties, the grace to ask what thou wouldest have us to do, that the Spirit of Wisdom may save us from all false choices, and that in thy light we may see light, and in thy straight path may not stumble; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Art Show

Please consider visiting Elayne Moseley's art show at Colorado Community College.
Apologia Report 17:5 (1,097)
February 9, 2011

Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, by
Douglas Groothuis [1] -- as a fellow educator at Denver Seminary
with Goothuis (though part-time), reviewer Robert Velarde uses this
review to laud his colleague's latest book concluding that "no
single volume of apologetics has, in recent years, approached the
comprehensive qualities of Christian Apologetics.
"Intended by the author primarily for use in seminary-level
apologetics courses ... a few portions may pose some challenges to
the lay reader [but] on the whole Christian Apologetics offers an
intermediate level of content that is both scholarly and accessible.
"The approach is that of cumulative case apologetics (chap. 3),
which Groothuis views as superior to fideism, presuppositionalism,
Reformed epistemology, and evidentialist approaches. This, however,
does not mean that Groothuis entirely dismisses competing
apologetics approaches (fideism being the exception).... Cumulative
case apologetics builds a case for the Christian worldview: 'Several
lines of evidence converge on the hypothesis that Christian theism
is the best-attested worldview. ...
"Christian Apologetics strives for a nonpolemical approach, but
in a few instances it will invariably perturb some. ...
"The book is divided into three parts, Part One addresses
'Apologetic Preliminaries' such as methodology, the Christian
worldview, and truth. Part Two, the lengthiest portion, offers 'The
Case for Christian Theism,' in what may be described as a thorough
'systematic theology' of Christian apologetics. ... Part Three
capably confronts three 'Objections to Christian Theism:' religious
pluralism, Islam, and evil." Christian Research Journal, 34:6 -
2011, p53. [3]


Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Groothuis Sermon Outline on Postmodernism

This is my sermon outline for my sermons at Crossroads Church of Denver, February 12, 2012.

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary

The Crisis of Truth in the Postmodern World


A. A tale of three umpires

B. Our command from God: Speak the truth in love to all (Ephesians 4:15;

Matthew 28:18-20)

B. The apologetic imperative: defend the truth of the faith rationally

1. Have a reasonable answer to questions about God (Isa. 1:18; 1 Peter 3:15-16; Jude 3)

2. Know your culture (1 Chron. 12:32)

3. Know the truth: church is “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15)

C. Snapshots of postmodern realities

1. Bumper sticker: “I’ve given up on reality. Now I’m looking for a good


2. Erosion of Christian convictions about truth: relativism and ignorance

D. Preview: Diagnose truth decay, expose it, and give a biblical view to apply


A. What is truth decay? The loss of the proper notion of truth. This renders

Christianity incomprehensible

B. Postmodernity (cultural condition) and Postmodernism (philosophy)

C. Postmodern cultural conditions (postmodernity): air we breath culturally

1. Sociological pluralism (compare 1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

2. Media saturation; “the saturated self” (Kenneth Gergen)

3. Identity choices multiplied and made easier: “reinventing” the self

D. Postmodernist ideas or philosophies (see Colossians 2:8)

1. Constructivism: we are contingent all the way down

2. Relativism: no access to truth; everything depends on perspectives

3. Language creates perspectives: many languages many perspectives, not truth

4. Irony, superficiality, no depth to discover (all is constructed):


5. Implication (a): Revealed, biblical truth is deemed impossible

6. Implication (b): Spirituality divorced from truth; if it “works for you.”


(Proverbs 8:34-35; Matthew 7:24-27)

A. False and illogical view of human language

1. Self-reference problem: uses language to discredit language

2. Language and reality: words can connect with facts: maps and destinations

(Mapquest); doctors and diagnoses; astronauts go to the moon and back

B. Ethical problems with Postmodernism: Counterexamples

1. Particular cultural expressions of true moral good: Martin Luther King’s

stand for civil rights for blacks

2. Particular cultural expressions of true moral evil: Martin Luther King’s

assassination; Osama bin Laden; torturing the innocent for pleasure; rape


A. Knowing the Christian worldview (theology for all of life)

1. The total Lordship of Christ (Matthew 28:18; Colossians 1:15-19)

2. The obligation to oppose falsehood (2 Corinthians 10:3-5: Jude 3)

B. Christian view of God’s truth

1. Clarify the concept of truth, before getting to content of truth

2. General concept and Christian: correspondence view of truth: truth is what

matches reality. See Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay, chapters 3-4.

C. Four Elements of Christian truth: radical monotheism (Deuteronomy 6:4)

1. Revealed—not constructed, created by us (Hebrews. 4:12)

a. God: uncreated, unconstructed, undeconstructed, unreconstructed—

eternal, immutably good in his character. The Rock of our salvation.

b. Language is adequate for communicating truth; God is there to speak to


c. G.K. Chesterton: “I won’t call it my philosophy; for I did not make it.

God and humanity made it and it made me.” (Orthodoxy)

d. Truth from God for his creatures

2. Objective—not only merely subjective (Romans 3:4)

a. Not dependent on opinions or feelings or preferences; mind-independent

b. Biblical truth stands apart from our interpretations as factual; interpretations are not all equal.

c. Truth must be subjectively appropriated; truth sets you free only if you follow it!

d. Truth must be lived out in community, the Body of Christ: teaching, preaching, mentoring

3. Absolute, invariant—not relative (John 14:1-6); no exceptions, exemptions, vetoes

a. Qualifications, nuances

1. We don’t have all the truth (1 Cor. 13)

2. We cannot convince everyone of it immediately, even Jesus and the Apostles could not

3. We are not infallible in our understanding of it; we are in process

b. Benefit: God is not all over the map; God is focused in Jesus Christ, the way out of the spiritual maze

4. Universal—not situational, regional, parochial (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 4:12)

a. Truth covers all of reality: cross-cultural (Matthew 28:18-20)

b. Truth is for all humanity: for their salvation (Acts 4:12). One died for all.

c. No neutral ground; no demilitarized zone; claimed by God, counter-claimed

by Satan (C.S. Lewis)

d. Vastness, multinational throng of the redeemed worshiping the lamb (Rev.



A. Know the truth that sets us free (John 8:31-32).

1. Resist the dumbing down of culture; resist the lies of postmodernism

2. Oppose biblical illiteracy and theological ignorance. How?

3. Study the Scripture like the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11

B. Back to the umpires:

a. Call ‘um as they are: arrogant

b. Not anything till I call ‘um: postmodernist

c. I call ‘um as I see ‘um: Christian. Work to get into the right position to know the truth, as does a good umpire.

C. Live in and live out the total truth of Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:15)

1. Stay true to the truth. Be a holy person of truth. See Os Guinness, A Time for Truth

2. Application (a): Ask God to reveal areas of truth decay in your life; then repent of them (Psalm 139:23-24; 1 John 1:8-10)

3. Application (b): Look for opportunities to present the truth of God in all its fullness conversations, letters, telephone calls, etc. Stay true to the truth; be a holy person of truth willing to live in the holy will of God’s (1) revealed, (2) absolute, (3) objective, and (4) universal truth

4. Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “One word of truth outweighs the world.”

5. Instead of “I’ve given up on reality, now I’m looking for a good fantasy”

“I’ve found reality, and I’ve given up on fantasy. Why don’t you join me in the truth of Jesus Christ that sets us free?”

For more on the biblical concept of truth and how to respond to postmodernism:

1. D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Baker, 1996).

2. Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (InterVarsity Press, 2000).

3. Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics (InterVarsity Press, 2011), chapters 6-7 particularly.

4. Douglas Groothuis web page:

5. Doug Groothuis Blog: The Constructive Curmudgeon:

6. Os Guinness, A Time for Truth (Baker, 2000).

7. J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind (NavPress, 1997).

8. Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth (Crossway Publishers, 2004).

9. Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who is There (InterVarsity Press, 1998); A Christian Manifesto (Crossway, 1981).

10. James Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalogue, 5th ed. (InterVarsity Press, 2010).