Home » Posts tagged 'Christianity'
Tag Archives: Christianity
(This post has now been updated with statements from the Assembly of Eastern Orthodox Bishops, Conservative Baptists of America, Church of the Nazarene, Evangelical Free Church of America, and Anglican Church in America).
As most of you are aware, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision to legalize same-sex marriage and force all 50 states to do the same. What follows is a collection official statements across the different traditions of Christianity, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelical/Protestant, who maintain a high view of Scripture, the living tradition, and “mere Christianity.” This is to demonstrate that the Christian consensus on the issues of life, marriage, and human flourishing will not and cannot change, and that any confusion on this issue is not because of the teachings of the church, but rather the “over-culture” trying to impose itself on the church. The teachings of the church are timeless, because they reflect the one who is timeless!
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops “Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.”
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod “A one-person majority of the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong – again. Some 40 years ago, a similarly activist court legalized the killing of children in the womb. That decision has to date left a wake of some 55 million Americans dead. Today, the Court has imposed same-sex marriage upon the whole nation in a similar fashion. Five justices cannot determine natural or divine law. Now shall come the time of testing for Christians faithful to the Scriptures and the divine institution of marriage (Matthew 19:3–6), and indeed, a time of testing much more intense than what followed Roe v. Wade.”
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod “Lord God, we are grieved that an institution of our government has taken an action which undermines the precious institution of marriage in our country. More important, it is an action which takes a wonderful gift that you created and distorts it into something you, the Giver, never intended. We pray today for our country, asking that you would have mercy on a nation that has once again ignored your Word and will. We pray for our churches and schools, asking that you would give them courage, wisdom, and strength to continue to hold true to your teachings. And we ask that you would bless all the members of our synod with a continuing commitment to hold fast to the truth that you have taught us, no matter what kinds of pressure or temptations this sinful world places on us.”
North American Lutheran Church
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Anglican Church in North America “The Archbishop and Bishops of the Anglican Church in North America have received the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States of America and are deeply grieved by the stark departure from God’s revealed order. We are concerned for the inevitable results from this action to change the legal understanding of marriage and family life.
While this decision grieves us, God’s truth and the goodness of the order established in creation have not been changed. The kingdom of God cannot be shaken. We pray with confidence that God will reveal his glory, love, goodness, and hope to the world through his Church as we seek to follow him in faith and obedience.”
Anglican Church in America
Russian Orthodox “Today’s Supreme Court ruling makes homosexual marriage legal in the United States. It should be made clear that under no circumstances will the Church recognize homosexual marriage, accord it the status of traditional marriage, or bless such unions. However, this is not to state that those who have entered into such a union have stepped beyond a line from which they cannot return. The Church has always strongly condemned heresies (such as Novatianism, Montanism, and Donatism) which deny the possibility of repentance for those having committed certain sins. It is crucial that our clergymen not shy away from the position of the Church as regards the sinfulness of homosexuality and other unnatural expressions of the God-given gift of human sexuality – but it is also crucial that such statements be made with love and with a corresponding invitation to repentance and reconciliation with the Church.”
Presbyterian Church in America
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
Christian and Missionary Alliance
Southern Baptist Convention
Assemblies of God
National Association of Evangelicals
Council on Biblical Manhood and WomanhoodConservative Baptists of America
Evangelical Free Church of America
More to follow…
As many of you may already be aware, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast this past Thursday, a tradition of U.S. presidents going back to President Eisenhower in the 1950’s. The Prayer Breakfast itself is a rather interesting subject on its own, since it seems to be a sort of pan-Christian, and perhaps even pan-religious group, with the Dali Lama receiving invites along with social gospel liberal evangelicals like Jim Wallis. In other words, it is a rather large tent with a variety of different Christian and even non-Christian groups represented. This means that to expect orthodox Christianity from it is a bit of a stretch. While it is true that historically Christians (especially evangelicals) have been the most prominent backers and speakers, there has always been a sort of pseudo-civic religion aspect to the entire experience. This also implies that in an era in which we worship pluralism (everyone is basically the same, which goes for religions also), and “tolerance” is the buzz-word of popular culture, orthodox Christians in the U.S. should not exactly be shocked when things are said and spoken there that either make little sense or are typical of the age in which we live.
Enter President Barack Obama, who professes a form of Christianity, was raised in an Islamic madrassa for a time in Indonesia, and seems to be aligned with the typical academic “elite” view of social gospel Christianity that is professed in Ivy League divinity schools and the like. When you create the environment above with President Obama and mix them together, you get statements like this:
“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ…” Barack Obama, National Prayer Breakfast, 2015
Now this statement followed a listing of a litany of crimes committed by Islamic hardline groups such as ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and the like. Because of this context, it seems (however rightly or wrongly) that Obama is comparing ISIS and Boko Haram to the medieval crusaders as some sort of “corruptive” equivalence. Not surprisingly, the response from the blogopshere and talk radio was swift. Some of this response was of course a bit over the top and full of “red meat” for certain constitutes. This “shock” really shouldn’t be much of one, since this sort of thinking has been dominant in post-Enlightenment and anti-Christian circles (and even some Christian ones) since 18th century France and in Protestant polemics against Rome. And this is key, as Obama’s comment’s here seem to simply come out of the typical historical and sociological ignorance that is reflected in popular culture:
Part of the problem here is that the president knows little, perhaps nothing, about the Crusades or the Inquisition. He is not alone in that, of course. Medieval historians have long lamented the gulf between fact and popular perceptions when it comes to these events. The Crusades were not brutal wars of colonial oppression or zealous attempts to spread Christianity by the sword. The First Crusade was called in 1095 by Pope Urban II in response to desperate appeals from the Christians of the Middle East, who had lately been conquered and continued to be persecuted by the Turks. And these were only the latest in more than four centuries of attacks on Christian peoples by Muslim powers. At some point Christianity as a faith and as a culture had to defend itself or else be subsumed by Islam. The work of the Crusader, who put his life at risk and underwent enormous expense, was to save Christian people and restore Christian lands. This was no perversion of Christianity. Christ had commanded his followers to be like the Good Samaritan, hurrying to bind up the wounds of their brother who had been robbed and beaten. This was the same Christ who said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” That is how Crusaders honestly saw themselves following their Christian faith.
– Dr. Thomas F. Madden, St. Louis University, Medieval History department
ABC News quotes a different Crusades historian in addition to Madden:
(Thomas) Asbridge said he doesn’t have a problem with the president reminding the world that the Christian Church “advocated violence, and at times even encouraged its adherents to engage in warfare” but to suggest a causal link between ISIS and the distant medieval phenomenon of the Crusades is “grounded in the manipulation and misrepresentation of historical evidence.”
Of course we could add quotes about the Crusades in general from other historians and sociologists of religion, many of whom have been quoted on this site (See here and here). The point here is that in spite of the good work done by many, the Crusades still remain as one of the most woefully misunderstood events in the history of the world (the Inquisition a close second). When the presumed leader of the western world, while dealing with an almost weekly account of some act done by ISIS or Boko Haram, seems to use historical ignorance to make some sort of relativistic statement about religion, we have work to do.
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.
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.”
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
For Further Reading:
The following is part 1 of a response to a local newspaper blog which published this:
In the digital column, “The Christmas Story and Other Redeeming Myths” (ISJ, December, 2013), the historical nature of the Nativity of Jesus Christ was severely questioned and minimized. There are two angles of thought in this, one involving supposed historical and textual problems, and the other with the alleged “non-uniqueness” of orthodox Christianity, in which every possible parallel is made between Christianity and other religions. This is done in order to construct a sort of pan-humanistic myth that is a teaching tool only, and certainly not real history. Let’s first look generally at the idea of this “Parallelomania” with the textual/historical issues being addressed at a later date.
The idea of “comparative religions” to try and eliminate the unique features of any religion to make them all similar is described best by 20th century liberal historian Adolf Von Harnack: “We must reject the comparative mythology which finds a casual connection between everything and everything else… 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). Only by the loosest possible scenarios can such comparative “wand waving” even be feasible, and when the Triune God of classic Christianity is examined closely, there is simply nothing like orthodox Christianity.
No other faith in the world has the creator God of the universe, not “supermen” like Zeus, or Krishna, or Saoshaynt, or Buddha, or Mithras, or Zoroaster etc…But the God of which “that which nothing greater can be conceived,” actually taking on human flesh for the redemption of His creation because of our fallen condition. There is simply nothing like it. Any other “miraculous births,” “resurrections,” “communion meals” etc…that are supposedly held in common with the salvation history of Christianity, are modernist constructs that commit several historical fallacies. These fallacies include the “terminological fallacy” (taking Christian terms and concepts and reading them into other religions), the “dependency fallacy” (parallels do not inherently mean borrowing, and form and substance are different things), the “chronological fallacy,” (many of the religions that bear these features were reacting to the spread of Christianity, not the other way around), and the “composite fallacy” (lumping pagan religions together into a sort of narrative par excellence that never existed). Since we are in the season of Christmastide, speculation around the Virgin Birth is a good example of these fallacies in action.
Most of the candidates for “virgin birth” similarities are either pagan gods such as Perseus or Dionysus, historical/legend figures like Romulus, or actual historical figures of great importance such as Alexander the Great. In EVERY case, some sort of actual physical coupling takes place between a god (who is never the supreme ruler of the universe like the Christian God) and a usually mortal woman, with the physical union resulting in a pregnancy. For example, in the case of Perseus, Zeus takes form as a “shower of gold” and physically impregnates Danae. In the case of Heracles, Zeus takes the form of Alcmene’s husband and forms a union with her. When it comes to Romulus, one of the vestal virgins is “ravished,” and Mars is the implied father. Even the “divine” birth of Buddha occurs from one who is already married and has enjoyed “loves delights” with her husband beforehand, hardly comparable to the Virgin Mary. And of course, Buddha is not the creator of the universe taking on flesh.
20th century New Testament scholar Raymond Brown demonstrates the fallaciousness in such an approach when he writes, “Non-Jewish parallels have been found in the figures of world religions (the births of Buddha, Krishna, and the son of Zoroaster), in Greco-Roman mythology, in the births of the pharaohs (with the God Amun-Ra acting through the father) and in the marvelous births of emperors and philosophers (Augustus, Plato etc.). But these “parallels” consistently involve a type of hieros gamos where a divine male, in human or other form, impregnates a woman…They are not really similar to the non-sexual virginal conception that is at the core of the infancy narratives, a conception where there is no male deity or element to impregnate Mary…no search for parallels has given us a truly satisfactory explanation of how early Christians happened upon the idea of a virginal conception unless, of course, that is what really took place.” (Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, 62-65).
It is true that every birth is celebrated as a gift from the Triune God, since He is the author of life, and every child is created in the image of God, which is one of the reasons orthodox Christians believe life to be “from conception to natural death.” However, the birth of the God-man, Jesus Christ, is wholly and completely unique, and perhaps the most momentous event in all of history. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).