Home » Posts tagged 'Apologetics'
Tag Archives: Apologetics
A “Selfie” Abortion, and What That Says….
In a culture of Facebook self-worship, in which increasingly isolated individuals who crave community share everything about themselves, we have passed a new “milestone,” that of the “selfie” abortion video. Meet Emily Letts (Caution: While not overly graphic, the YouTube video is troubling), an abortion counselor who decided to film her abortion “experience” to demonstrate in her words, “that there is such a thing as a positive abortion story,” so that, “I can share my story and inspire other women to stop the guilt.” Throughout the video and the interview in the notoriously sordid check-out aisle magazine Cosmopolitan, Letts seems most obsessed in particular with this guilt aspect, since as one who works in a clinic, she sees guilt on a daily basis. She makes statements such as “I know there are women who feel great remorse. I have seen the tears. Grieving is an important part of a woman’s process,” and “Even women who come to the clinic completely solid in their decision to have an abortion say they feel guilty for not feeling guilty.” This is okay for her because she “(doesn’t) feel like a bad person. I don’t feel sad. I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby. I can make a life. I knew that what I was going to do was right, ’cause it was right for me and no one else. I just want to share my story.”
In the words of Reformed Baptist Al Mohler, “Emily giveth, and Emily taketh away.” While reactions to the video and interview have been overwhelmingly negative, should we honestly be shocked that this has happened? In a culture in which we are told that we are all autonomous individuals who make our own decisions, including deciding morality and truth for ourselves, why this hasn’t happened sooner is the real question. (For good commentary on this incident, see this piece by Al Mohler, and this post by Ben Domenech. For a great compassionate call to Ms. Letts, see “My Abortion Story: An Open Letter to Emily Letts” by Garrett Kell.)
What sort of culture gives birth to this sort of thinking and “experiences” while denying the births of other human beings? The answer is the lie of the autonomous self. The ability to choose one’s own reality, one’s own truth, and one’s own morality is sacred. This allows us to have an increasingly large laundry list of “rights” in which, “as long as I don’t hurt anyone,” or “as long as there is consent,” I can do whatever I want. I can personally oppose something as long as I keep it private, but any sort of attempt to assert a universal truth or moral is automatically “imposing your beliefs on others,” i.e., a violation of my rights to do and feel whatever I want. It damgages my “self-esteem” and my “self-worth.” And if you dare oppose this, you are of course “judgmental,” or “oppressive,” or (gasp) an orthodox Christian! In fact, many would actually define freedom as something like “The ability to decide whatever I want for myself in order to feel self-fulfilled.” A better working definition of freedom would perhaps be, “the ability to know and pursue the good,” but this would assume we know what good is, and that it is worth pursuing. Augustine was absolutely correct when he said that the natural tendency of man without God is to “curve inward on oneself.”
Yet human beings are NOT by nature autonomous individuals. We crave a sense of community and belonging. Before the rise of the utopian democratic egalitarian state, most found this sense of community in the family, the local community, the local church, and perhaps other common cultural phenomenon (such as music, language, literature, feast days, etc…). However, the combination of the autonomous self and the utopian secular democratic state of have made community virtually impossible to find, unless you can agree with the mob and join the latest sacred cause, and even then, the “community” found here is little better than an organized mob. I believe that Emily Letts, deep down, not only craves community and a sense of belonging, hence the video “selife,” but also knows that there is something spiritually amiss. There are real things such as guilt, and shame, and conversely, honor and truth. Denial for the sake of self-congratulations will not change this, and posting videos and lobbying the government for “rights,” will not change this. Only a knowledge of God’s perfect law and God’s sweet gospel can accomplish such a miracle. So pray for people like Emily, and pray for our culture that sacrifices people for the sake of the freedom of the self.
The Solution? The Way, the Truth, and the Life.
How to Not Write About Biblical Morality
This is a running commentary/stream-of-consciousness response to a rather bizarre attack on the Christian worldview, and especially the Old Testament found in the Holy Scriptures. The original column can be found here, although the entirety is posted here with commentary in italics. It seems the real reason for the column is a rather volatile local political issue here in Southeast Idaho, but the majority of the column is mostly an attack on the Scriptures and Christianity. A more formal columned response is to follow…
Biblical Morality (Idaho State Journal, 3-30-14)
Found at: http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/?p=11925
By Jack Moore
(Running Commentary by Aaron Hayes in Italics)
“I keep seeing quotes in the letters to the editor about objective morality. I still wonder what the writers mean by it.”
Most in the classic Christian tradition mean something akin to “those actions, thoughts, and behaviors which reflect the character, will, and mind of the one God.” This God is Holy, Righteous, judge, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, all-good, just, perfect, simple, love, merciful, etc…and has revealed himself especially in the Holy Scriptures, and also through his church and natural law. This is objective morality, based on God’s transcendent and imminent reality.
“I have come across few objective moral truths. One is: “Treat others with love and kindness.” Jesus said it this way: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:27-29). I fail at this one small morality often.”
These certainly qualify as objective moral truths, although they are certainly not the only ones. And yes, we all DO fail to meet these standards, which is why we need Jesus to save us in the first place. This being said, moral truths and laws only make sense in the Christian worldview. Any other worldview cannot account for the laws of logic and morality, because such laws are based on the character of the lawgiver and His sustaining of creation. If we are here by accident/chance, or if laws are based on culture or the individual, they are completely arbitrary and non-objective. Only the Christian faith can make a coherent and sensical worldview out of the very idea of law and morality.
“Besides that one, I have not found any objective moral truths in the Bible.”
You must not be looking very hard. Ever heard of the Ten Commandments? Ever encounter the phrase, “Thus says the LORD?” That’s pretty absolute and objective!
“If there are some they are well hidden.”
Only for those who refuse to seriously and objectively look. Any basic orthodox Christian systematic text will suffice, or even a good study bible. Talk to any Christian who has been catechized (instructed) and you will get some objective morals and truths right away.
“That is why I cannot understand why people hold the LGBTQ community in such disregard.”
If you cannot see why Christians teach what they teach, then yes, it is probably difficult to understand why the church teaches what it does regarding human sexuality. This is however out of love of God and neighbor, not so-called ‘disregard.’
“Out of all the laws in the Old Testament, the passage in Leviticus concerning homosexuality is the one law that must be upheld (Leviticus 18:22). It is always quoted to justify discrimination against the LBGTQ community.”
This is a woeful misunderstanding on a variety of different levels. First, Christians teach the entire counsel of God, not just a single law. All of God’s laws are upheld, God’s law is perfect, and Christ himself says that not one “jot or tittle” will pass away, and that He came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:16-20, and that word fulfill is VERY important for understanding this issue). It is the law which makes us realize how desperately we need a savior. So no, Christians don’t just uphold one law, but rather know how broken we are when confronted with the whole of God’s law. The question here is how God’s objective truths apply in civil society in a flawed and broken world, and how these are enforced. Besides, do you know any Christians going around saying it okay to lie, to cheat, to steal, and to commit adultery? Those are laws that Christians uphold….so obviously there isn’t just one. And the word “discrimination” assumes certain things that the Christian worldview is not willing to grant, such as sexual behavior being how one defines an individual as a class for example.
“I wish someone could explain to me why society has done away with 99 percent of Mosaic and Levitical law, but has decided to keep this one part of it.”
Where does this percentage come from? 1 out of 100? I hope this is simply rhetorical, and if it is, it is overstated to the extreme. For the record, there are 613 different laws. And no, Christians do not just “keep this one part of it” as explained above. Secondly, the Holy Scriptures contain multiple instances in which God’s design for marriage, family, and sex is demonstrated. Leviticus 18:22 is not the only passage in Holy Scripture that references homosexual behavior. There is another passage in Leviticus 20:13, Paul’s use of “natural” and “unnatural” in Romans 1:18-27; I Corinthians 6 includes such behavior alongside a variety of other sins/vices; I Timothy 1:9-11; and Jude 1:7, which describes the sin of Sodom found in Genesis 19:1-5 as going after “strange flesh,” which demonstrates what the Genesis passage is about. The passages found in I Corinthians and I Timothy use a Greek compound word from the Greek translation the Leviticus passages (arsenoskoitan). In other words, the morality found there still applies “across the testaments” for all people and all time, not just ancient Judaism. Such behavior is also excluded by the created order found in Genesis 1-2, Jesus’ definition of marriage as one man-one woman found in Matthew 19:4-6 (referring back to the created order), and the general prohibition against sexual immorality found throughout Scripture (such as the word porneia, which would include ALL forms of sexual immorality outside of one woman-one man marriage). We also know that God does not lie (Numbers 23:19), does not change (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8), and is not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33). All of this demonstrates that far from being “hidden” or “unclear,” the Holy Scriptures are remarkably consistent and clear on this issue. Natural law also bears this out, given the physiological, emotional, and reproductive complementarity between the sexes. Even if one were to remove the Leviticus passages, the position of the universal church would be the same, as it has been since the beginning.
““Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13) is not even an absolute for most Christians. If it was, the death penalty would not exist, we would not send soldiers into war, and there would be no such thing as an armed drone.”
This is simply a misreading of the KVJ translation. Most modern translations use the term “murder,” and the Hebrew here covers both intentional and negligent killing (what we could call manslaughter and deliberate homicide), not capital punishment or just wars.
“God could not even give us the correct laws about eating. I find this to be very telling. If eating pigs and shellfish is OK now, and God got this wrong then, how can we trust God’s moral judgment on who people should love? (Leviticus 11:7-10).”
God gave perfect laws then, and he gives perfect laws now. There is no contradiction. Why? The ritual and cultic laws of Israel which were to teach them about God’s holiness and how they were to be different to the nations, has been fulfilled/superseded (NOT abolished or contradicted) by Christ. All of God’s creation was originally very good (Genesis 1), and God tells the Apostle Peter that nothing the Lord has made is unclean (Acts 10). Instead of a nation/state theocracy as God’s people (ancient Israel), God has called his people from every nation, tribe, and tongue on the earth, due to the work of Christ. Because of this, the ritual and cultic aspects of ancient Israel are no longer necessary, although it is certainly within the realm of freedom to observe such things if one so chooses. These ritual/cultic laws such as the food laws (some of which may have had sanitation concerns as well), the weaving of fabrics, building fences on roofs etc…still tell us about the character of God, and contain absolute truths behind them. Other laws such as the dimensions of the tabernacle, the priestly garments etc…are fulfilled in the person of Christ. The greater is here (Jesus). This does NOT mean that the universal laws found throughout scripture, such as the teachings on human sexuality, lying, stealing, etc…are abolished. They are still in force and have been since the beginning. To claim that the universal laws and the food laws are the same sort of thing is to commit a category error, or a fallacy of composition.
“How moral is the Bible, anyway? I find the law that says a woman has to marry her rapist or be stoned to death a pretty abhorrent law and very revealing—the rapist has to pay for his plunder (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).”
This is actually an amazingly benevolent action. In the ancient near east, a woman who was violated was as good as dead, an outcast, and most likely would turn to prostitution to survive. Instead of these things, God’s people were quite “liberal” in the good sense of the word, by stating that the woman had rights, and must be taken care of (shelter, food etc…) by the perpetrator of the crime. Compared to other near eastern law codes, this is simply amazing, and demonstrates God’s concerns for both man and woman. Notice that the man cannot divorce her as long as he lives, and the rest of the law in how he treats her would still apply.
“This, by the way, is one form of “traditional marriage.” That kind of “morality” has no place in a civilized society. I don’t know anyone personally that would defend it. That is because it is not moral.”
No, this is not a “traditional marriage,” it is an example of case law. Case law is what you are to do should a certain situation arise. Prescriptive law is a command. The rape example given here is an example of case law, not something that is ideal or normal. And while some certainly use the term “traditional marriage,” it really is just “marriage,” which exists independent of whatever a given society might try to make of it, and anything else is simply a counterfeit. Regardless, this is again another category error, in which case law is confused with prescriptive law. Notice also that how marriage is defined is assumed here, even if the circumstances leading up to it were sinful and requiring justice.
“Conservatives hold onto “Homosexuality is a Sin” for two reasons. Otherness. It is a foreign thing to them. It is a way of thinking that they do not understand, and so it should be punished, because heterosexuality, their way, is what they know. The other reason is control. Sex should be controlled, especially regarding women.”
Translation: Because I do not understand how people could possibly disagree with me, I have to explain this opposition away by saying there is a psychological deficiency in my opponent. There is an inherent arrogance and insulting tone about this, because it implies that the author is “enlightened,” but orthodox Christians fearful power-grabbers. However, Christians know all too well the power of sin, death, and the forces of evil, which is why we say what we say! It isn’t because of “otherness” or foreignness, but because without the grace of God, we are all lost. Teaching God’s design for humanity is an act of love, and a duty for every Christian, not a power-conspiracy or unfounded fear.
“Morality comes from society as a whole. Morality grows and develops as the knowledge of society grows. We know that homosexuality is not a choice and even if it was, it should not be punished by society. There is no morality in consensual sex. It is merely part of nature.”
Saying that there is no morality in consensual sex is a nonsensical statement. To use a term like “consensual” implies a certain morality about individuals and choice. The very statement includes a moral judgment, yet somehow there is no morality in it? This statement is self-refuting. Also, why stop at “consensual sex” if the justification is a “mere part of nature?” We see a variety of other actions in the animal world, and if humans are simply part of nature and nothing more, why arbitrarily stop at “consensual sex?”
If morality comes from society, then there is no such thing as objective morality, since as the author admits, it grows and develops. This implies change. If morals change, they are inherently non-objective, and subject to the whims of the majority or culture. If this is how one views morality, then having difficulty seeing objective morality isn’t exactly a surprise, and should be expected. Morals are based on truths about who we are, our place in the universe, how we relate to each other, and the like…If this is changeable or society-contingent, we might as well give up now, since morality will collapse into despotism (people are made to agree) or anarchy (each individual decides for himself) or some combination of the two. Either way, morality as a useful term has disappeared, and we should stop using it. Perhaps we should start talking about utility instead….
“I believe there are objective moralities.”
Which makes no sense in a naturalistic/materialistic worldview.
“A couple that most people agree on are slavery and genocide are evil, both of which the Old Testament encourages (Leviticus 25:44-46 and Deuteronomy 13:13-19).”
This is quite telling, the statement “most people agree on.” A democratic or majority consensus does not decide truth, truth is truth regardless of the number of people who believe in it. To say “I believe there are objective moralities” and then appeal to “what most people agree on” undermines the case (if there is one) being made. To use a term like “genocide” and apply it to Scripture is another case of a category error. Taking a modern concept (the systematic eradication of an ethnic group) and comparing it to Israel’s conquest of Canaan because of pagan immorality and evil is not even close to the same thing. God does not command Israel at any point, “kill them all because they are Canaanites,” but rather because these people were so morally corrupt their culture was being judged. In fact, God’s people pass by at times because some cities’ “iniquity was not yet full,” meaning they hadn’t corrupted themselves yet (Genesis 15:16). It is also quite telling that God would use the other nations to punish his own people, hardly the act of someone engaged in “ethnic cleansing” or genocide. In regards to slavery, a better modern equivalent would be “indentured servant,” not the slavery of the antebellum south, which most moderns have in mind. The idea of case law and prescriptive law also comes into view again here.
“Another couple of evils that God perpetrates are child ritual sacrifice and infanticide (Exodus 12:12 and Judges 11:29-40). Most people agree that these things are evil, but they completely gloss over it when the evildoer is their God.”
Other than the faulty “most people agree” basis for determining morality rearing its head again, both of these passages have rather straightforward explanations. The case of Jephtha’s daughter (Judges 11) is not perpetuated by God (it is because of a rash vow by a man in a troubled culture in a troubled time), and both Christian and Jewish scholars have demonstrated that the text is far from clear in terms of the daughter’s fate, and the church fathers such as Chrysostom and Ambrose say that God is permitting an evil (notice permitting an evil is not the same as endorsing it!) for teaching purposes. Either way, God doesn’t do this, does not endorse it, and to claim he does means one has completely misread (or not even read) the text. The killing of the firstborn in Exodus 12:12 is the 10th plague, in which Pharaoh (a ‘god’ in Egyptian culture and law) was given every opportunity to stop his evil actions, and brings death and destruction down upon himself and his people. Remember here that there is no such thing as “separation of church and state” or even “individual rights” in many senses, so cooperate guilt was a very real thing. Secondly, it is also likely that Egyptian law contained within it the idea of “reciprocity,” and since Pharaoh was actively killing Hebrew children without discrimination (true infanticide) over the course of decades, God acting in a limited sense (only males of a certain age) in a limited amount of time, was perfectly just based on the practices of Egypt. If anything, it demonstrates God’s restraint (“I take no pleasure in the death of a sinner” Ezekiel 18:23).
And again, to somehow argue that this means God endorses this as normal or ideal is to completely misread the entire counsel of God, and assumes that one can judge God. This is key, as the entire piece seems to assume that a created being with finite understanding who has to rely on what the majority has agreed on for any sense of morality, and presumes to judge the perfect creator for His acts of justice. This would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.
“The most dangerous idea in the Bible is the idea that there are “the chosen.” Apparently these chosen can do all kinds of evil, but because they are “chosen,” their evil is good or acceptable. It is the antithesis of “No one is above the law.” The idea of the chosen never made any logical sense to me. Yet people espousing their faith speak of an objective morality found in the Bible.”
I’m not sure how this can even be taken seriously. Surely the author is aware of the multiple times God judges His own people for their evil? The Babylonian captivity and exile anyone? The Persians? Philistines? Etc….So no, in God’s eyes, being part of God’s people does not exclude you from judgment. God also “chastises those he loves,” (Hebrews 12:6) which isn’t exactly an endorsement of evil for being on the right team. To claim that being part of God’s redeemed people is permission to violate God’s laws is to completely misunderstand the nature of the gospel. Christ saves us in spite of our violations, in spite of our selfishness, in spite of our rebellion, in spite of our evil. He saves us from ourselves. If you would like to know the consequences of our evil, look at a crucifix. Again, we have terms like “evil” being tossed around as if we should know what that term means. Since the author is rejecting the source of all creation, the very definition of good and love, how does a term like evil have any meaning except that which society decides it does? Why should I take the author’s word for it, since he is admitting that his “objective morality” is based on society’s whims. The term “evil” only makes sense in reference to what “good” is, meaning it is a parasite, a negation of the eternally blessed source of goodness. Also, orthodox Christians long and want ALL of humanity to come to faith, even though we know many will not. We want you to be part of the “chosen,” including the author of this hit piece. We are trying to reach the lost, as much as we fail to do so. “God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”(II Peter 3:9). How exactly does this excuse evil? We are told to repent, not just do what we want…
“Dr. Archie B. Carroll says “As religion and faith are being driven out of the public square, the Judeo-Christian ethical foundations that have sustained our country since its beginning are being replaced with a humanistic amorality, a self-centered, pragmatic indifference that will ensure that our moral compass will fail to point us in the right direction in the future.” Is Dr Carroll saying that this country is going to be morally corrupt because it is losing its ties to biblical morality? I say just the opposite. I say that women’s and civil rights have done a great deal to undo the moral corruption that the Bible brought to this great country.”
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.” (Isaiah 5:20). And any historian worth his salt will gladly stack up Christianity against competing worldviews in history regarding the status of women, slavery, etc…see the work of Dr. Alvin Schmidt or Dr. Rodney Stark for more on this. Of course, without the Christian tradition, there wouldn’t be “this country” in the first place.
“Where exactly does this moral compass that Dr Carroll speaks of point? If it points in the direction of the Sermon on the Mount, then I can go along with it. I don’t think that is what he had in mind though. The direction he is pointing is not where I want to go.”
In other words, I want to pick and choose what is convenient for me, or whatever society thinks is useful or popular, not what God actually says. I am the god of my own universe, so I pick what I want, and throw out the stuff that I don’t like. You can’t speak of morality in a coherent way while denying the source. You can still live morally, but the worldview is incoherent.
“My moral compass points to this. Our laws should reflect our awareness that everyone has worth. If our society is rich enough, no one should go hungry, go without a roof over their head, lack proper medical care, or live without proper sanitation.”
Why should your compass matter? Why does everyone have worth? Why should hunger, shelter, medical care, sanitation etc…matter when society decides what morality is? What if society decides that the elderly are too much of a burden and lack a high quality of life and should be eliminated? Since the source of morality here is completely arbitrary, it can arbitrarily rejected.
“There are a lot of people that believe these basic rights are things that should be earned. I hope they, themselves, never have to suffer the indignity of what they propose.”
Where do these rights come from, and why should they matter? What exactly is a ‘right’?” and why should I care if we are just materialistic products of nature, about someone else’s rights? After all, what they are and what they are there for will simply develop as society develops.
“With all this in mind, then, how can someone argue from a moral standpoint that homosexuality is evil? They cannot.”
Sure they can, because they actually read the text seriously from “cover to cover” and not by copying and pasting from Richard Dawkins style diatribes. They actually look at textual context, the church in history, natural law etc…something that this author has not even bothered to do in the slightest.
“The Bible is not a book that you can argue a moral code from—at least not one that does not contradict itself. The LGBTQ community is about as evil as a woman eating a piece of fruit. Yes, quite benign.”
Of course, this world is a paradise, or soon will be…that’s news to…everyone? But denying original sin isn’t exactly a surprise here.
“LGBTQ individuals should be treated with the same respect and dignity that you treat your church-going neighbors.”
No one is arguing that those with these predilections should be treated as less than human. What is being questioned is whether or not such behavior should be endorsed, and whether people of conscience and who own private property should be forced to endorse or become a material party to behavior they deem morally wrong. Of course this assumes that we should start defining people by inclinations and behavior (people are just animals) rather than their worth as people created in the image of God.
“That is why you should vote NO on May 20 to keep Pocatello’s ordinance in place. It is the moral thing to do.”
No comment.
The main problems with this column/hit piece on Christians can be summarized as follows:
1. The author simply has not done his homework in dealing with the biblical text, but seems content to take cheap potshots without consulting any source that might have answers to some of these “difficulties.” The relationship between the law and gospel has been discussed and written about since the time of the New Testament, so I’m not exactly sure why the author seems ignorant as to the variety of different solutions that have been offered throughout time, space, and culture, many of which are the same (reflecting, *gasp, objective biblical morality).
2. The author presumes to make moral arguments as an authority, but gives no reason why we should trust him as an authority, other than the vague and completely arbitrary, “most of society says…”
3. Only the Christian worldview can account for universal laws of morality, laws of logic etc…To make an argument for some sort of objective reality whilst denying the source of what makes such thinking even possible is inherently irrational.
4. The opposition to the sort of behaviors the author references is not limited to Christians, but also includes orthodox Jews, Muslims, and proponents of natural law (including some atheists). Taking uninformed cheap shots at the Bible in order to demonstrate one’s superiority isn’t a new tactic, but it is completely unhelpful and has no place in the “civilization” he seems so concerned about.
The Text is Right (Response 2)
The following is part 2 of a response to a local newspaper blog. Part 1 can be found HERE.
The original article that prompted the response can be found HERE.
In the digital column, “The Christmas Story and Other Redeeming Myths” (ISJ, December, 2013), several historical and textual objections to the Christmas narrative were raised. While the “comparative religion” parts of this column have already been addressed, the historical and textual issues remain.
The Wisest of the Wise…but ignorant of basic geography…?
First, in regards to the wise men (Magi) seeing a star “in the east,” (Matthew 2:2) many scholars and translators have translated this phrase “at its rising,” with the phrase “in the east” a reference to astronomy, not geography. In other words, the Magi had seen the star when it first appeared. In Matthew 2:1 the Greek word “anatolai” in the plural form usually refers to the rising of the sun, and can indeed refer to the direction of the east. However, in Matthew 2:2 (and 2:9), the word is singular, and usually refers to the rising of a star. No, the magi were not directionally challenged! It is also important to remember that the Magi were looking for the King of the Jews, and that the star is actually moving before them to Bethlehem, after which they actually worship the Christ-child, the Second Person of the Trinity in the flesh. The Magi knew who they were looking for and where to go to find Him.
Josephus doesn’t mention this, so therefore it isn’t true?
Considering the “Slaughter of the Innocents,” (Matthew 2:16-18), it is not really that odd that the historian Josephus doesn’t mention this. Given that the total amount of children that fit the bill in 1st century Bethlehem (males under two) is likely a couple dozen at most (although certainly enough), it is not a surprise that Josephus would not report something that was “trivial” by Herod’s standards. The silence of Josephus says nothing about the truth or falsity of the event. Given the general historical reliability of the gospels, and what is known about Herod, the Slaughter of the Innocents is perfectly feasible, and one could even say likely. Of course the gospel authors DO count as historical sources, something often forgotten.
The Apostle John…Unaware?
Next, the Apostle John’s gospel, while not mentioning the virgin birth in explicit terms like the narratives of Luke and Matthew, DOES contain one of the highest statements about the person of Christ in all of Holy Scripture, in which Christ is considered fully God as the Word that created all things taking on flesh (John 1:1-4, 14). In other words, He is not of human (or pagan ‘gods’) origin. That Nathanael seems to be ignorant of the Virgin Birth, or Christ in general in John 1:46, is hardly surprising since he hasn’t met Christ yet! The whole point of the surrounding passage is to demonstrate that Christ’s divine knowledge causes Nathanael to become a disciple and worship Him. How this impacts the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke is hard to determine.
It is rather strange to claim silence about the Virgin Birth in John’s gospel, in which Christ is so clearly presented as God (including famous I AM statements, which no Jew would have missed), somehow means we should doubt the Virgin Birth. The passages usually brought to bear on this, such as the crowd disagreeing about Jesus’ origin in 7:40-52, only indicate that the crowd was disagreeing. The passage demonstrates the uproar that Jesus’ ministry was creating, and to say “no one answered the crowd” as if that means John or the other disciples were ignorant of the Virgin Birth is reading far too much into the text. John is reporting the events, not answering every critic walking around Judea.
Finally, the historical veracity of the census reported by Luke is disputed. That Caesar Augustus was famous for his census taking is not really disputed among scholars. What seems to be questioned is whether or not a census took place in 4-6 B.C in the area of Palestine. Let’s look at one possible answer to this, bearing in mind that there are more which are perfectly compatible with Luke’s gospel. One important fact to consider is how long some of these censuses took to complete. It took around 40 years for the Romans to complete a census of Gaul, a province relatively next door. Josephus mentions a census in A.D. 6. If it took the Romans 40 years to complete one nearby province, finishing up around 10 years after the initial call in a province 1500 miles away is understandable. So, one solution is that Josephus is reporting the end of the census that started around the birth of Christ. And contrary to some skeptical thinking, we DO have records of censuses requiring people to go back to their homelands, including a 1st century census in Egypt, and also records that women and children were also registered (See historian Dr. Paul Maier’s book, “In the Fullness of Time” for more on this evidence). Luke’s census is perfectly legitimate.
As much as we moderns/post-moderns would like the gospel writers to arrange their material in a scientific and systematic manner and answer every minute objection with footnotes, the gospels thankfully resist such piecemeal attacks on Christ’s integrity, and refuse to bow to those who self-congratulate themselves as “enlightened.” Whether it is obsessing over the tiniest of details or blurring the difference Christianity has over other religions, missing the salvation offered by the God-man, Jesus Christ, is the most tragic mistake of all.
HE took on flesh…thanks be to God!
For Further Reading:
In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church
Extended Discussion on the Issues involving the Census found in Luke
The Objective Nature of Love
Virtually everyone has heard comments in our current cultural climate such as, “Who are you to deny two (or more) people loving each other?” “Love has no boundaries,” “Jesus preached love, and you orthodox Christians are just a bunch of haters,” “I follow Jesus, not Paul,” “We should be supporting commitment, regardless of arrangement”, “Love does not deny people rights” and so on and so forth. Implicit in these remarks is the idea that love is an inherently experiential concept that is reliant on the parties involved, rather than an objective reality. This is often combined with a sort of “Christianesque” language, as post-Christian westerners appropriate Christian terminology in order to further so-called “progress.” Even some Christians are confused by this, because after all, it is certainly true that Christ preached love, and most people do not want to be seen as a “hater.” So what is it exactly about this popular language about love that is dangerous for the culture? Why is this sort of thinking and language foreign to the biblical and Christian worldview?
Love in the flesh.
In classic orthodox Christianity, love is an objective reality, because God IS love (I John 4:8). Put another way, because love is an inherent attribute of the Triune God’s nature, and because God is the ultimate source of all things “both visible and invisible,” the definition of love is contingent upon who God is, and how He has revealed Himself both generally in nature (natural law/revelation), and especially in the person of Jesus Christ, and His continuing actions of grace and forgiveness found in His Word and Sacraments in the church. It then follows that certain behaviors and feelings that contradict God’s will and nature as He has revealed them, are simply NOT love. These behaviors and feelings may be powerful, potent, and perhaps very real to the people involved, but they are a corruption or counterfeit. Counterfeit money after all, is more than an idea, can feel quite real, and can fool all but the trained expert.
The greatest commandment for Christians in the words of Jesus is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:20). The second greatest commandment follows from this, which is to “love your neighbor as yourself.” What is important here is that one cannot claim to follow the second commandment while not practicing the first. If the greatest commandment is God-centered, all forms of love, including that between humans and in societies at large, must be God-focused in order to be true love. Claiming that the love of neighbor (in the name of nebulous “rights”) allows one to justify the acceptance of immoral behavior, or to promote laws that violates God’s law is as contradictory as it gets. True love of neighbor flows from a correct conception of God, and takes into account God’s full revelation, not just the parts that are socially convenient.
Destination…?
Imagine if you will, a man riding a horse at full gallop towards the edge of a cliff. He is happy to be doing so, finds meaning in it, and believes one of his purposes in life is to gallop at full speed in that general direction. He may pick up companions on the way, all of whom share in his goals and aspirations to gallop off of the cliff, and they all perhaps “love” each other. With this scenario in mind, what is the Christian loving response? The current culture would have us believe that we should congratulate him on his lifestyle, be affirming and accepting, perhaps come along side him for a time, and “love him on his journey.” We might even have a special support group for others like him, and catering programs of outreach, since we should be about “love and acceptance” and warning of the danger is too “judgmental.”
Instead of affirming or assisting in his ultimate demise, the Christian does not encourage the rider and his friends to gallop off of the cliff. Instead, the Christian does everything in his power to warn the rider, and may use a variety of methods to demonstrate the danger, and the alternative route for a means of escape. This is true love, both of God and of neighbor, and true hatred would be to become a party to destruction, or to turn a blind “live and let live” eye to it. It may at times be a tough form of love, and it may at times be offensive, but it is love nonetheless. One of Christ’s last commands after his Resurrection was to command his disciples to “go into all the world and preach the gospel” baptizing in the Triune name of God (Matthew 28:18-20). True love takes this command seriously, and true hatred would be to deny the gospel message in the name of what the current culture thinks is “love.” The Christian walk is a walk of repentance centered on the cross, not of agenda-driven secular humanitarianism. And regardless of what temporary societies do and teach, the true love that comes from God in the person and work of Christ is eternal and life-giving, not beholden to votes and litigation, and perilous to ignore.
Love IS and defined by God the Holy Trinity, not us.
Not Colonies (Crusades)
As part of my continuing work on the Crusades documentary, here is another printed section from the documentary dealing with another common crusader myth The first of this series can be found here. This time, we look at the idea that the crusades were the first European colonies.
Not Colonies
“proto-Colonies?”
Much nonsense has been written about the crusader states in the modern era, including the idea that these states were the west’s first colonial venture. For example, this idea can be found in the writings of English apostate nun and religious syncretist Karen Armstrong, who writes that these states “were our first colonies”. This view is also common amongst historians influenced by Marxism and modern economic theories, in which the crusaders took advantage of the locals, and those who stayed in the Holy Land were “landless younger sons” motivated by greed and land-lust. There are several reasons why such ideas have no basis in reality.
The modern conventional definition of colonialism is when one society forces another into an unfair economic situation which causes the stronger society to profit. This is done by direct political and military control of the weaker territory. This requires a class of rulers from the host country enforcing the arrangement. If this is the idea that most have of colonialism, a 19th and early 20th century phenomenon viewed through a Marxist lens, then the crusader states were nothing of the sort. Only in the loosest definition of the word colony is this even possible, in which the word seems synonymous with the word settlement. If this is the case, then the western Christians merely took a colony from the Muslim Turks, who were also a ruling minority. If this is colonialism, then every conquest is colonialism, and the crusaders as rulers were remarkably benevolent by medieval standards.
Future governors for the empire…? Hardly…
In addition, the crusader states were never beholden to European powers, and instead functioned as completely autonomous and independent states. As far as economic exploitation, it could instead be argued that the transfer of wealth went from Europe to the Middle East, meaning Europe was the colony! Regardless, accusing the crusaders of launching the first colonial venture is at best ignorant, and is perhaps intentionally malicious.
Who Stayed and Why? How Did they Govern?
Since the majority of crusaders left the Holy Land after fulfilling their crusading vow, and since the colonial and economic advantage arguments fail, the question then becomes, who stayed and why? In a manner similar to the recruitment and execution of the crusade, those who stayed were attached to great lords and their large extended household. When Godfrey of Bouillon was named the “Defender of the Holy Sepulcher,” the fighting men, aristocrats, and others attached to him also stayed, just like they joined him on crusade. Instead of landless lesser sons, the significant decisions to stay were almost always the heads of households, who due to their wealth had no economic reason to stay. These decisions are better explained by the religious idealism of the crusade leaders, and the strong bonds of love and honor that existed between lords and vassals, or patrons and clients.
The western Christians who remained in the Levant never amounted to much more than 10 percent of the population. The rest was made up the majority Muslims of both the Sunni and Shiite traditions, with sizable minorities of Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and Jews. Even though the crusader states were under constant threat from the Muslim world around them, with raids and robberies common, the local Muslim population seems to have been quite content under Christian rule. There was no attempt at forcible conversion, and Muslims were still allowed to worship, which contradicts those who think the crusades were about finding converts or a new religious market. Taxes were lower in the crusader states than in the Muslim areas next door, and most Muslims peasants were allowed to keep their land and their trades. By also having a reputation for maintaining a just legal system, many Muslims found such an arrangement enormously tempting. As a Muslim pilgrim from Spain to Mecca writes, “(the Muslims) live in great comfort under the Franks; may Allah preserve us from such a temptation…(Muslims) are masters of their dwellings, and govern themselves as they wish. This is the case in all the territory occupied by the Franks.”
The Crusaders actually took their medieval Christianity seriously? Go figure…
What Does It Mean?
It is no secret that those who hold to the traditional classic Christian consensus on issues involving human sexuality, marriage, and family life are extremely unpopular these days, especially in the media and political arenas, in which the biblical, patristic, and orthodox consensus is frequently demonized and ostracized. Faithful Christians (and others who hold to other traditional worldviews/ethics) are considered to be “bigots” or “purveyors of hatred” for not compromising with the modernist and politically correct definitions of love and freedom. So how does this take place and what does it mean? How should faithful Christians respond?
These ideas are usually couched in high-sounding language of “equality,” “tolerance,” and certain libertarian ideas (it doesn’t hurt anyone right?). Those who oppose are immediately labeled as “homophobic” (implying that one has a psychological disorder), “intolerant” (with tolerant = endorsement), or “anti-progress” (progress is inherently good). As discussed in several other places on this site, this tactic is a favorite for the modern chauvinist, and involves even deeper philosophical assumptions that come out of late modernity. Two articles that have recently been published from different orthodox Christian traditions help shed light on this, and should help those struggling with how to articulate why this is important, and also help those who think the historic-living church is wrong.
The first article is by Reformed Baptist pastor Jonathan Leeman who specializes in political theology, and discusses the nature of what it means to be human, and how those who argue for “marriage equality” are actually making a dehumanizing argument. Those who argue for it are actually at root arguing for a sort of determinism, in which one’s behavior or tendencies define what it means to be human. The Christian worldview offers something much deeper, and much more liberating than this sort of behavioristic naturalism:
“There are several assumptions behind the idea that a person with same-sex attraction might say “I am a homosexual” in the same way someone might say “I am a male” or “I am black.” First, one assumes that homosexual desires are rooted in biology and therefore a natural part of being human. Second, one assumes that our natural desires are basically good, so long as they don’t hurt others. Third, one assumes that fulfilling such basic and good desires are part of being fully human.
All the talk about “equality” depends upon these foundational assumptions about what it means to be human.
Marriage then becomes an important prize to be won for people with same-sex attraction because, as the oldest and most human of institutions, marriage publicly affirms these deep desires. Everybody who participates in a wedding—from the father who walks a bride down an aisle, to the company of friends, to the pastor leading the ceremony, to the state who licenses the certificate—participates in a positive and formal affirmation of a couple’s union. It is hard to think of a better way to affirm same-sex desire as good and part of being fully human than to leverage the celebratory power of a wedding ceremony and a marriage.
Make no mistake: The fundamental issue at stake in the same-sex marriage debate is not visitation rights, adoption rights, inheritance laws, or all the stuff of “civil unions.” Those are derivative. It is fundamentally about being publicly recognized as fully human.
Biblically minded Christians, of course, have no problem recognizing people with same-sex attraction as fully human. There are members of my church who experience same-sex attraction. We worship with them, vacation with them, love them. What Christianity does not do, however, is grant that fulfilling every natural desire is what makes us human.
Christianity in fact offers a more mature and deeper concept of humanity, more mature and deep than the person engaged in a homosexual lifestyle has of him or herself.”
The full article is well worth the read, and also discusses why faithful Christians cannot participate in this sort of revisionism: “Love and the Inhumanity of Same-Sex Marriage”
The second article is by a Roman Catholic priest, Rev. Marcel Guarnizo in response to a famous media personality, who discusses the sort of argument in the public sphere involving reason and law and those who claim “I don’t care” or “it doesn’t hurt anyone.” One of the most dangerous things about this cultural debate is the inherently subjective nature of creating classes and categories based on behavior and tendencies, rather than actual objective realities. In other words:
“The problem here is that if non-normative tendencies become the criteria for constitutional or state law, law itself will become biographical. This atomization of law, culminates in the inability for us to have fundamental rights, as human beings. Things are institutionalized after centuries in law and custom, because they are recognized as normative, and, in the case of marriage, as a good for society. The legal institution of marriage is the normalization of that which is de facto normative in man. Marriage institutionalized in law and by religion is the proper effect the fruit of a normative tendency in man. Heterosexual, monogamous unions were not simply admitted into the marriage franchise (to which others now seek entry), it is rather the author that produced marriage as we know it. They have as it were, authorship rights over marriage since they produced the institution.”
“Creating institutions in law and possibly at a constitutional level, using non-normative tendencies (which are many and vary greatly in our society), as the justification is unreasonable and theoretically unsound. Equality under the law in this sense is already being assaulted by post-modern philosophy, as unfair. Precisely for this reason, “the notion of “equality under the law,” is now seen by many as failing to address the biographical preferences and tendencies of all kinds of biographical groups in society. If we continue down that path, there will be no end, except the end of what we now know as the rule of law. It is unreasonable to legislate on constitutional order in this fashion.” Full article: A Response to Bill O’Reilly on Homosexuality and Marriage
It is important to note that both the Baptist and the Roman Catholic are passionate about (and the articles include this) reaching those who struggle with this in love, and that the church should not simply “shut out” those for which this is a real struggle. In fact, it is love and concern for those struggling on this, and society as a whole, why these were written (and why I am writing).
After reading both articles (please don’t comment without doing so), what should the Christian response be? How active in the public sphere should Christians be in contending for the Christian worldview in love?
The Great Realignment
“This is not the protestant/catholic divide; it is not the evangelical-charismatic vs. mainline divide. It cuts across all communities in the West, even affecting the Orthodox and Roman Churches in some degree…It is creating a massive realignment within Christianity; those who hold to the traditional Scriptural and patristic Faith and discipline of Orthodox Catholicism; and those who reject it, criticize it, and I will add, as you well know, persecute it…There is a radical cultural shift away from traditional Christianity, toward something unrecognizable.”
– Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), addressing the assembly of the Anglican Church in North America (ANCA).
What is happening to the church in the West? To summarize Metropolitan Jonah, 
an apostasy is taking place, where good portions of people claiming to be Christian are utterly compromising with the post/anti-Christian western world, to the point of claiming God endorses sin as part of his design, and denying the exclusive truth that is the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and everything that entails. While heresies have always plagued the church from the very beginning (Gnostics, Arians, etc…), the wholesale rejection of the classic Christian ethic on issues such as the family, sexuality, life, and evangelism is new in the history of Christianity. It is an interesting time when the “global south” or “third world” has to call out Christians and church bodies that previously evangelized them!
This split has its roots in some of the “higher criticism” that came out of the misnamed “Enlightenment” of the 18th century, and the radical break with traditional Christianity in academic circles in the 19th century. In fact, this conflict would come to a head in the 1920’s-30’s “fundamentalist vs. modernist” controversy that affected all of the major Christian communities in the United States. While the “modernist” group early on compromised on essential parts of the Christian faith (such as the Virgin Birth, bodily Resurrection of Christ etc…), there was enough residual Christian worldview and Western culture that the shift wasn’t as noticed in the overall culture until later on in the 20th century, when the invention of “new theologies” and the rise of ultramodern/postmodern thought came to the fore. While the following chart is not absolute by any means (thank God for the faithful still remaining and trying to turn things around, and every faithful group has goats), it does demonstrate where the general trends are in the different Christian traditions, and what groups are at least attempting to be faithful to the “traditional Scriptural and patristic faith” as Jonah put it (for brevity, I will focus on three traditions in the U.S.):
Confessional/Traditional/Orthodox —- Modernist/Compromising
———————————————————————————————————-
Anglicans Anglicans
Anglican Church in North America Episcopal Church
Orthodox Anglican Church
Continuing Anglican Groups
Lutherans Lutherans
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod ELCA (Evan. Luth. in America)
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
American Association of Lutheran Churches
Presbyterians Presbyterians
Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Bible Presbyterian Church
With very little variance, those on the right-hand side tend to take a “progressive” and “new” view on things such as women in ministry, sexuality, abortion, euthanasia, liberation theology, and the like. The biblical text is considered “important,” or “central,” but modern chauvinist readings of the text and “alternative theologies” are accepted or even encouraged. The classic consensus of the church (based on the Scriptures, the fathers, the ancient councils and creeds etc…) are given historical value, but are not part of an active, living and breathing faith handed down since the beginning. This allows them to engage in politically correct sociopolitical actions, and to change theology on the whims of cultural trends. Those who actually maintain the faith handed down are branded “(prefix)-phobic, patriarchal, oppressive, unloving” and many other favorite pet-labels of the modern chauvinist.
By contrast, those on the left hand side almost always subscribe to a confession of faith that is considered normative and binding on believers everywhere (all three include the ancient councils and creeds), and maintain the biblical (as the actual inspired word of God) and natural law positions on sexuality, family, etc…The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions officially maintain what has always been taught on these issues like those on the left-hand side, but there is much rebellion in the ranks of the average congregant and some of the lower clergy, as Jonah notes above, meaning the most tradition-minded churches are not immune.
The Great Realignment is taking place, so where do you stand? One encouraging development has been a renewed interest in the consensus-bearing era of the church (first 700 years or so), as a way of Christians expressing a common heritage. Other developments include faithful Christians joining together in statements such as the Manhattan Declaration, or in visual support such as that of Metropolitan Jonah to the faithful Anglicans. We should also pray for those who have been seduced by the post-Christian west to return to the faith handed down, and for those faithful who remain within to try to work for renewal. Kyrie Eleison!
Hill of Slane Ruins-Ireland
(Let us hope and pray that the new Pontiff of the Roman church is firm, faithful, and addresses these issues head on).
Copycats and Truth
(This column originally appeared in the Idaho State Journal and can be found here, which is response to an earlier column found here).
In a recent column that appeared in the Journal, the idea of Christianity as not unique was put forth, even arguing that it is dependent to a certain degree upon pagan religion (or pagan-influenced Judaism). To the author’s credit, it is noted that there is no proof that the major religions borrowed from each other, with a couple of exceptions involving Christianity. This requires a response, both on how orthodox Christianity views truth and other religions, and also to address the “copycat” idea.
First, it is important to remember that orthodox Christians have always recognized a fundamental principle: that all truth is God’s truth. This should not be a surprise, since God (by definition, if you believe in such) is the ultimate source of all things, including time, space, and matter. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the blessed Trinity, con-substantial and co-eternal with the Father and Holy Spirit, claims to be the Truth Incarnate (John 14:6). Because of this, we should not be surprised when we find throughout the world similar statements about matters of faith and philosophy, since we all live in the same world created and sustained by God. All humans naturally yearn for their creator, born with a “God-shaped vacuum” that only God can fill as C.S. Lewis (and others such as Augustine) aptly puts it. Moreover, the Holy Scriptures also attest that all mankind is created in the Image of God (Genesis 1-2, 5:1-3,), and that all have access to a certain amount of natural revelation, so that people are without excuse (Romans 1:18-22), and that the law of God is written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15). So rather than being shocked by finding similarities in the religions in the world, it is to be expected! This can be seen in the early figures in the history of the Church, such as the Greco-Roman convert Justin Martyr calling Christianity “the true philosophy,” or Clement of Alexandria postulating that God gave the Greeks philosophy just as he gave the law to the Jews. However, orthodox Christians still maintain people can only can come to the Father through the work of Jesus Christ exclusively (John 14:6), and that false religions can be even malevolent in character (I Timothy 4:1, I Corinthians 10:20).
It is unfortunate then, that there are some modernists who claim that these easily observed similarities of human experience equate to some sort of inherent dependency. Much of this line of reasoning comes from the discredited “history of religions” school that was in vogue in the late 19th century into the middle of the 20th century, which sought to read a certain progressive view of culture into the religions of the world, past and present. One way in which this idea has become popularized is claiming that the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is somehow based on pagan mystery religions or Gnostic sects, with figures as diverse as Mithras, Osiris, Dionysius, and Attis being postulated as “sources” for the Christian narrative. Sometimes this is also expanded to other religions such as Zoroastrianism because of a supposed reliance of Judaism on Persian thought via the exile. Most of these supposed parallels are only such if the very loosest forms of similarity and definitions are utilized, and are often a case of trying to find what one wants to find. In the words of 20th century liberal historian Adolf Von Harnack, “By such methods one can turn Christ into a sun god in the twinkling of an eye, or one can bring up the legends attending the birth of every conceivable god, or one can catch all sorts of mythological doves to keep company with the baptismal dove…the wand of “comparative religions” triumphantly eliminates every spontaneous trait in any religion” (Quoted in “Reinventing Jesus 227, by Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace). It should be noted also that often the dependencies arrived at are the reverse of what skeptics are asserting, with paganism trying to imitate Christianity!
For examples of this, let’s examine two proposed sources for Christianity that appeared in the aforementioned article, Mithras and Zoroaster. Contemporary scholarship asserts that the Roman version of Mithras (not in continuity with the Persian version earlier) arose in the 1st century A.D. in Turkey, and there are no features of what we know as Roman Mithraism existing before 100 A.D (Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, 322-323). This is important, since Christianity was founded 60-70 years before this, meaning if there is any dependency, it is Mithraism reacting to the spread of Christianity. It also seems that Mithraism was a religion of the soldiers, meaning it did not spread among the masses like Christianity, and excluded women. Mithras also did not experience a death or resurrection (at least not a true physical death, and the Tertullian reference to this is again much later, and based on his recollections), which eliminates much of the supposed Eucharistic/Sacramental parallels. The idea that Mithras quotes a parallel to John 6 in a sort of Eucharistic celebration comes from a medieval text published by Cumont, meaning if there is any copying, it is Mithraism responding to Christianity. It is true that Justin Martyr alludes to some sort of celebration in the mid-2nd century, but this is again 100 years after the founding of Christianity, and no formula is included (for more on Mithras, see http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html ).
When it comes to Zoroaster, there exists no scholarly consensus on who did the borrowing, with some arguing that the Persians learned from the Jews (such as Daniel or Ezekiel). Our primary source for Zoroaster, the Avesta, dates from the 4th century A.D., with our earliest manuscript showing up in the 1200’s. There is also a huge range of dates regarding the figure of Zoroaster himself, and given the late date of the main sources, one should not expect a consensus anytime soon. Contrast this with the huge amount of manuscript evidence for the New Testament (over 5800 manuscripts, some dating to the 2nd century), and also how early books in the Old Testament contain the ideas supposedly borrowed. The book of Job for example, is dated by many scholars to the divided Monarchy (over 300 years before the exile, and Gleason Archer dates it back to Moses as the earliest book), and includes the figure of Satan, and the idea of the bodily resurrection (Job 19:26-27). The “devil-equivalent” in Zoroastrianism is the dualistic opposite of the good god, which is not congruent with the Judeo-Christian worldview, in which nothing can be the opposite of God, since everything derives from God (for more on Zoroaster, see http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html).
There is simply nothing like the Christian message, that of the creator Triune God of the universe (not finite “gods”) taking on flesh through His creative power for the salvation of man. Taking Christian concepts and reading them into the past, searching for similarities does not change this. Truly at the birth of Christ in Bethlehem, “the hopes and fears of all the years, are met in thee tonight.”
Not Surprised
According to a new Pew survey, and as publicized by news organizations such as CNN, the number of Americans claiming “no religion” has reached 1 in 5, the highest ever. Anyone who has observed the culture in the last few decades should not be shocked by this number. In fact, the number in all likelihood is actually higher, since many of those who officially “affiliate” are still “practical atheists,” meaning that their supposed faith has no bearing whatsoever on their daily lives, and that their religion is a completely private affair. God is weightless in this type of Christianity. If a Christian is better defined as one who is active in the church, takes scripture seriously, tries to live an upright life, and tries to implement and practice a comprehensive Christian worldview, the number is actually probably reversed. In other words, only 1 in 5 are actually committed Christians. Since the Pew survey also includes other religions and heretical groups, the number might actually be optimistically 1 in 8. Of course many secularist and atheist organizations are ecstatic, thinking that this will lead to some sort of secularist utopia, where man can worship himself (read some of the Christian-bashing comments on the bottom of the story if you feel up to it).
In typical post-Christian (and post-modern) fashion, many of these “non-affiliated” call themselves “spiritual but not religious,” a statement symptomatic of the highly individualized “personal religion” that is in vogue currently. The number is even higher for young people, with numbers in the 30-40 percent range. Interestingly, the “header” on the top of the CNN page involving this story includes an article of how the “spiritual not religious” statement is in reality an intellectual cop-out, and is worth a read. With this in mind, here are a few thoughts (not necessarily systematized, as this is pretty fresh):
1. Apologetics is and will continue to be extremely important for the church, especially in the education of the young. The vast majority of Christians who are still making an attempt to be faithful, are woeful when it comes to “knowing why you believe what you believe,” and in many cases fail to even successfully articulate basic Christian doctrine (such as the Trinity, person of Christ, etc…). Young people can see through the latest and greatest programs and gimmicks, so let’s give them some meat and teach them how to defend it. If your response to questions about the faith is “that doesn’t matter as long as you have a personal relationship,” you may be making the problem worse. Educate thyself!
2. The church (especially those classified as “evangelical”, although other orthodox Christians as well), in order to “reach the culture,” has preached such a stunted view of Christianity that this is a highly predictable result. When it is preached constantly that “all you need is a personal relationship,” and that “personal study” is the be-all/end-all, every person becomes a pope unto himself. Who needs the church, the creeds, the councils, the fathers, Greek, etc…when it is just me and my Jesus over a cup of coffee? What is amazing about this is how many assert this version of evangelicalism dogmatically while saying “we don’t need dogma/doctrine” without missing the irony of the statement.
3. This is also why grounding one’s self in historic Christianity is a position of strength, as it inoculates you from being “tossed about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14). Become biblically literate, know the Creeds and Councils, and live and defend them. Do NOT just do this because “we’ve always done it that way.” Keep in mind the axiom of the late Jaroslav Pelikan, “Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition is the living faith of the dead.” We have a living faith that has been dearly bought by blood, sweat, toil, and tears. Receive it and pass it down faithfully, “tearing down every argument that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (II Cor. 10:4).
4. Faithful orthodox Christians will become increasingly unpopular and unwelcome in the culture. Modern chauvinists will try to marginalize, persecute, and ridicule those of us who hold to the faith and worldview that results. The culture will continue to deteriorate as the West undercuts the foundation that made it great in the first place. We should rejoice when we are subjected to this however, and be ever more bold when opportunities arise.
5. Orthodox Christians everywhere, who are already starting to cooperate together (in movements such as the Manhattan Declaration), should start taking seriously the idea of forming cultural alternatives, not just aped versions of what passes for culture today. You may be viewed as a reactionary, “anti-progress,” “old-fashioned,” or whatever label that usually comes with such things. The great classical Christian culture of the West is now counter-cultural, and this is a good thing. Our own heritage in the West can be a witness against the West.
Anyone else care to comment on this story? Possible Solutions? Experiences?
Jesus was married? Really?
If you read the headlines trumpeted on Fox News, CNN, and a variety of other sites, than the answer is a definite maybe. However, when one actually reads the stories, and when one does a little research, this “new discovery” is nothing more than media sensationalism. Why is that you ask?
First, the discoverer herself, Dr. Karen King, is very quick to admit that this is not evidence at all. From the CNN story: “What I’m really quick to say is to cut off people who would say this is proof that Jesus was married because historically speaking, it’s much too late to constitute historical evidence,” she continued. “I’m not saying he was, I’m not saying he wasn’t. I’m saying this doesn’t help us with that question,” she continued.”
Yet the headlines say “Harvard scholar’s discovery suggests Jesus had a wife.” This is enormously misleading, and simply isn’t fair to either her or the text itself. Thankfully, both the Fox and CNN articles reference Dr. Ben Witherington III and Dr. Darrell Bock respectively, who together demonstrate what is really going on.
The text is “4th century Coptic,” meaning it is from the 300’s in the local Egyptian language (it is claimed it might be from an earlier copy, but that is an assumption with no evidence). This is 200 years or more later than the actual time of Christ, whereas the actual New Testament dates within the first century (and some parts within the first few decades, i.e. eye-witness testimony). The manuscript itself is a tiny fragment, 1.5 inches by 3 inches (3.8 x 7.6 cm for my metric friends). In other words, the surrounding context of the original might make the whole discussion moot in the first place, since it is a tiny isolated part of text.
Also, the articles do (at the bottom of course) make it clear that the text bears resemblances to other gnostic “gospels,” such as Thomas, Phillip, Mary, etc…Texts that have long been asserted by modern chauvinists as catalysts that supposedly cause us to question the teachings of Scripture and the Church. Like this new discovery, the vast majority date much later than the N.T., are filled with gnostic notions completely alien to both Jewish and Christian thought (one says that all females must become male to enter heaven for example, and that the creation is an abortion), and are based on a extremely minimal manuscript tradition (consider this one fragment as opposed to 5-6,000 Greek N.T. manuscripts, and over 10,000 early translations).
The media continues to do both Christians and non-Christians alike a grave disservice by engaging in this sort of sensationalism. While sometimes certain scholarly figures (such as Bart Ehrman or Elaine Paigles) are complicit in this, and this requires a response, there is a reason why the early church so universally and vociferously condemned gnosticism in all its forms (until the 1940’s, historians knew very little about gnosticism, save for what we found in the church fathers). As far as the marriage issue, there is no evidence for it, and as Dr. Darrell Bock says, “One could say the text is silent on Jesus’ marital status is because there was nothing to say.” This lines up with the historical evidence, Scripture, and the received teachings of the Church.
For further reading: The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities, by Dr. Darrell Bock.
***Updated**
My brother pointed out that another possible response to this can be found in this article on The Atlantic
Apologia and the Occident 