10 Answers to the Questions of Christianity

     In the first lecture of my Apologetics 101 class, near the end I list the top 10 questions/challenges apologists get from non-believers.  A kind lady in my audience asked last night whether the answers to these questions could be found on my website, and I had to admit, “No.”  Oddly enough, it had never occurred to me to post answers in my blog, but it seemed to make sense and so I promised I would write up some and post them today.  So this comes as a result of a direct request.

I would like to note at the outset that these answers of necessity are brief.  They are not meant to be exhaustive or even comprehensive regarding the literal reams upon reams of literature on the subjects these questions encompass.  It is certain that follow up questions of certainly a legitimate nature will be left unanswered.  This is simply a function of the format and it should not be construed that such questions do not have answers.  Space and time merely do not permit an exhaustive treatment for which I humbly apologize.

However, that does not mean these answers are without merit.  Far from it.  For what these answers are intended to achieve is to give the questioner a start on pursuing further answers.  They are intended to demonstrate that logical, reasonable answers supported by evidence are available to the diligent student who genuinely wants to find answers. 

So, without further ado, answers (brief though they may be) to the top 10 questions asked about Christianity:

10. Where did Cain get his wife?

This has to be the most famous challenge to the Christian faith now known since Clarence Darrow used it in the Scopes-Monkey Trial in 1925.  Darrow had put the prosecuting lawyer, William Jennings Bryan, on the stand as an expert.  This unusual step was agreed to with the understanding that Bryan could put Darrow on the stand the next day as an expert on evolution.  Darrow agreed, Bryan took the stand, answered all Darrow’s questions, but when the next day came, Darrow rested his case and welched on his promise to testify and support his own case.  One can only suppose that his refusal was a response to a survival instinct based upon his own case, which he ended up losing (a fact most people do not remember about the trial).

One of the reasons Darrow’s loss in the case is not remembered is because in his cross-examination of Bryan, he asked such questions as, “Where did Cain get his wife?” and Bryan either could not or would not answer.  Whichever was the case, Darrow very skillfully and successfully painted Fundamentalist beliefs as vacuous and unreasonable.  Therefore, to this day, anti-theists still use it as a “killer question” to which they think Christians have no answer and, unfortunately, in many cases, they are right.

9. Why would a loving God send people to hell?

This seems like a pointed contradiction, that an all loving God would even contemplate intentionally sending anyone to such a place as hell.  It is, however, a non-secquitor.  I would ask the non-believer to check out his/her Bible.  God never sends anyone to hell.  In fact, He sent His own Son to atone for the sin that would otherwise condemn people to hell in order to atone for the evil that men do.  People choose to go to hell by rejecting His kind offer of heaven.  This, at first, seems nonsensical, for who in their right mind would choose to go to hell.  However, consider, who, when asked by their first grade teacher, ever said, “I want to grow up to be a drug addict,” or “I want to be a prostitute when I get older?”  And yet, so many, unfortunately, do.  Sin is a dream shattering, life destroying proposition with all kinds of unintended consequences, hell being just one.

Further, I submit the testimony of atheists themselves on this point.  I have heard just such admissions from their own mouths.  In a debate, the well-known atheist and lecturer, the late Christopher Hitchens was asked by his theist opponent, “If I could prove tonight, 100% conclusively, that Jesus Christ was in fact the God the created us and our universe, would you get down on your knees and worship Him with me tonight?”  Hitchens, with great honesty and candor, replied, “No, absolutely not.”  He went on to state that he wanted nothing whatsoever to do with God and like Milton’s Lucifer, he would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven a being that he characterized as “wicked beyond all measure.”

Thus, we ask, who would actually choose to go hell?  Apparently, a lot of people.

8. Since dead men do not come back to life, how can we believe Jesus did?

It is agreed and stipulated that dead men do not normally and naturally rise from the dead and if this were the Christian claim, then, yes, this would be a defeating proposition.  However, the fact is, this is not the Christian claim.  Christian’s claim, without any hesitation, is that Christ’s resurrection was first and last a supernatural event.  That, in fact, is the whole point.  There is no natural way to defeat death.  If we are ever to be triumphant over this final specter that awaits us all, we must rely to the supernatural power only found in God.  There can be no naturally based objection to such a supernatural event.

This said, what the non-believer usually is actually asking here is, “How can we know that Jesus rose from the dead?”  This is, substantively, a different question as it is evidential, not merely philosophical.  As CS Lewis pointed out, the only supernatural aspect of any miracle is the miracle itself; all consequences flowing from it take place in the natural world and therefore are subject to investigation on the basis of the evidence they leave behind in that natural world.  The resurrection of Jesus Christ is no exception.

This is one of those questions that brevity does a supreme injustice to.  I would point the interested reader to the works of such noted scholars on this subject as Gary Habermas who has made the historical study of the resurrection his life’s work.  Habermas, I feel, is a good scholar to start with as he is acknowledged by scholars of all walks as perhaps the world’s most noted expert on the subject.  I shall try here to provide a summary, however inadequate, of the works of these scholars.

1.       The resurrection is a preposterous claim, admittedly, but it is one that has formed the core of Christianity since its inception.  There was a fashion in early 20^th century scholarship to claim that the resurrection was a later addition to Christianity, coming in with the penning of the Gospels which scholars of the time dated much, much later than archaeology and manuscript evidence now shows; sometimes 2 centuries or more later.  Since then, we have now found fragments of Mark and Matthew that date to the mid-1^st century AD, where scholars used to think these works were not extant until the late 2^nd or early 3^rd centuries.  This puts the resurrection accounts at the very heels of the events which they describe.  But, there is more and even better evidence to be found in Paul’s writings.  No one disputes the authenticity of the Corinthian and Galatian letters as being anything but genuine early 1^st century writings.  In I Cor 15, Paul clearly describes the resurrection as being core to the Christian gospel.  Further, in that text he tells us that he got the resurrection account from his visit to Jerusalem where he talked to Peter and James, the “brother of the Lord.”  It is in Galatians 3:1 that he tells us this visit was two years after his conversion which is estimated to have occurred 2-3 years after the crucifixion.  This means that the resurrection was being preached in the town where the events occurred (i.e. there would have been eyewitnesses in the crowds) less than 5 years after these events took place.  Now, one has to ask, how could such an outlandish story survive, indeed thrive, in an environment where every citizen and slave would be able to provide eyewitness testimony to the falsehood of such claims if they were untrue?  I dare say, it couldn’t.  Therefore, by the impossibility of the contrary, we must acknowledge there is a strong possibility that they were telling the truth.

2.       Women found the empty tomb.  No first century Jewish male in his right mind would ask anyone to believe a story told by three women witnesses.  In 1^st century society, women were not even allowed to give testimony in court because they were considered to be so hysterical and unreliable as to be totally useless for evidentiary purposes.  Yet, for 2000 years, Christians have asserted, even in the earliest days, that women were the first witnesses to these events.  One can only assume that the writers of the New Testament said this was so was because they knew it to be the truth.  Thus, despite the embarrassment of the truth, we must acknowledge that this story is told as it is told because it is the truth.

3.       The hostile witness to the empty tomb.  Again, from the earliest days, even in the writing of hostile witnesses such as the Jewish authorities of the time, no one has ever denied that the tomb of Christ was empty.  The most common claim was that the disciples stole the body.  Whether or not this is true (see #4 next), the fact is that no one has ever found Christ’s body (the laughable “Tomb of Jesus” Discovery channel special notwithstanding; most participants in that episode are still trying to hide from their colleagues!)  If opponents wanted to smother Christianity in its cradle, all they had to do was produce a body and game over.  But, they never did this.  Instead, they formulated theories to explain the empty tomb, meaning we can be quite sure the tomb was, in fact, empty.

4.       Lastly, for this brief summary of the topic, it is impossible to account for the rise of early Christianity without a genuine resurrection.  This lays to rest many a theory from the so-called “Swoon Theory” to the theft of the body by the disciples.  If, in fact, Jesus had merely fainted on the cross (a laughable proposition on the face of it for a man who has been beaten unmercifully, nailed, not merely tied, but nailed to a cross, hanged there for hours then stuck in the side to his heart by a professional executioner!), if indeed he revived in the coolness of the tomb, managed to roll the stone weighing tons away with broken, pierced hands, managed to slip past the guard at the tomb without being seen, then limped in agony the mile or so back to town, does anyone think that when he knocked on the disciples door and presented himself, “See, I told you I’d come back!” that the disciples looked at him and said “Wow, He is risen! I can’t wait to have a resurrection body just like His!”?  Honestly?  As Habermas says, if this is in fact how it happened, what you have is a resuscitation of miraculous proportions, but resuscitation pure and simple.  The disciples might call a doctor but they wouldn’t call Him “Lord, Conqueror of Death!”  Resuscitation, yes; Resurrection?  No.

Further, if the disciples stole the body, how is it that almost to a man, they all died, certainly all suffered horribly, for what they knew to be a lie.  Yes, it is possible to get people to die for their beliefs, but pre-requisite to that, they must believe it!  If the disciples stole the body, they would not be limited to mere belief; they would be in a position to know that what they were saying was a lie.  And yet none, not a single one, even in the face of horrible torture and death, not a one recanted and admitted a lie.  You are not going to find 10 or more individuals who would die for a lie.  Again, for a belief, yes; but for what they would know to be a lie, never, not a chance.  Maybe one or two, but not 10 or 11.  And yet, without a resurrection, there is no gospel; no gospel, no Christianity.  Thus, as it is impossible to provide an adequate explanation for the rise of early Christianity by any other way, we are reasonably justified in believing the story these men and women told was in fact the truth.

Lastly, we must consider that any natural explanation must cover all the improbable, indeed, impossible events described and known from history.  I give a lecture specifically on this subject in my introductory course on apologetics.  There truly is so much more to this subject than can be discussed here.  However, this should give the reader a flavor for the overwhelming testimony Christian’s have on this topic.  As one former atheist scholar once commented, “If the resurrection of Christ is not deemed true on the basis of the evidence, then nothing that we think we know of the ancient world is true.”

7. Aren't there a bunch of contradictions in the Bible?

There are numerous sites on the internet that deal with specific claims to contradictions on the Bible, so I will not take the readers time to rehearse the many such attempts to disprove the Bible in this way.  Suffice to say, though thousands have been proposed, to my knowledge not a single, verifiable contradiction either in external fact or internal narrative or logic has ever been found in the Bible.  That said, though there are reasonable answers to all such claims, if the reader is determined to see a contradiction, then a contradiction will be seen.  This says more about the reader than the text however.  I would ask such a reader to examine their motives closely before rendering a final judgment.  Are you seeing a contradiction because the facts will not really admit a reasonable explanation, or are you seeing it because, for your own reasons, you have to see it?  Just something else to think about.

6. How can we know the Bible is God's word?

This is a good and perfectly reasonable question since we ask Christians to accept this proposition by faith and faith should always be reasonable, never blind.  Classically, there are two major lines of argument for this case, those being from the perfection of the Bible’s composition and the other being the perfection of the prophecy it contains.

Regarding the Bible’s composition, it is a fact that the Bible is actually a collection of 66 books which are authored by 40 different authors over the course of several thousand years, and yet, despite the wide range of age of these authors, the wide range of cultural background (some were slaves, others aristocrats), and the wide range of occupations (some were simple farmers and fishermen, some were the greatest monarchs of the ancient world), they consistently tell only one story without contradiction either in external fact or internal logic.  Many have tried over thousands of years to prove otherwise (the Bible is the most read and most critically analyzed book in all of human history), all to no avail.  As a French philosopher once observed, “The Bible is an anvil that has worn out many a hammer.”  As one familiarizes oneself with literature, religious and secular, over the ages, one begins to appreciate how incredible such a feat is.  For instance, though there are surely hundreds of thousands to choose from, one could not find 66 books written in America that could be matched to the Bible.  Even in relatively close circles, this becomes an impossibility.  The example I like to use in my lectures is the world of Star Trek.  I have always been a Star Trek fan, and know every episode and most all of the books written and I know for a fact, that even within this closed, tight and controlled writing environment, contradictions creep in.  I do not know of any collection of 66 episodes that could be seen as perfectly consistent on one story.  This being the case, one must consider the claim by Christians to the Bible’s supernatural authorship as being at least credible as a possibility warranting further investigation.

Secondly is what I consider, however, to be an even stronger argument, that being one from fulfilled prophecy.  No other religious book will stake its reputation on fulfilled prophecy in the way that the Bible does.  Many books claim to have prophecy’s of such things as the end of the world, but while we’re all waiting for the end of the world to see if those “prophecies” pan out, the Bible actually gives us what no other book of prophecy gives…prophetic glimpses that have already come to pass.  There are numerous examples from the conquest of Babylon 150 years before it happened exactly as foretold by Isaiah to the fate of Tyre precisely and in detail as given to us by Ezekiel.  One of my favorites (to which I am indebted to Sir Robert Anderson’s classic The Coming Prince) is Dan 9:25 and 26 where the angel Gabriel gives us a mathematically precise date for the arrival of the Messiah:

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself

So, here we are given a definite starting date (the date of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, not the Temple, but the city, after the Babylonian captivity), a definite period of time (69 “weeks” of years; “week” was used in ancient times to mean 7 in the way we would use “dozen” to mean 12), and a definite event to occur on that date (the presentation of the Messiah).  We can find the date of this decree, not just from the Bible, but from an ancient artifact now held in the British Museum known as the cylinder of Cyrus.  That cylinder confirms that the Jews were given permission to rebuild their city on March 4, 445BC.  We can figure the number of days Gabriel gives us by multiplying the 69 times the “week” of 7 to get the number of years, then multiply by 360 days (the Jews reckoned their calendar on a lunar calendar comprised of 12 nominal 30 day months, yielding a standard 360 day year).  That works out to 69 x 7 x 360 = 173,860 days.  Now, transferring that to our calendar, accounting for leap years, we come to April 6, AD32, precisely.  So what happened on April 6, AD32?  That just happens to be the day which Christians call Palm Sunday, when Jesus entered Jerusalem riding a donkey and was proclaimed by the people waving palm fronds as the Messiah.

Now, I’ll place that kind of accuracy up against anybody’s record.  Nostradamus, Edgar Casey, you name anyone; no one has a pinpoint prophecy like that.  What’s more, we know that this was not made up after the fact since Daniel and this prophecy were in black and white in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament 250 years before Jesus was even born!  Did Daniel just grab this date out of a hat and just happen to get it right?  And, remember, this is just one of literally hundreds of prophecies in the Bible that are verifiably accurate and verifiably precognitiant.  Did they all just happen to get it right?  Every one?  This is one that is really not explainable outside of God’s intervention.  Hundreds have tried to disprove the accuracy of these prophecies over the centuries and, ironically, instead have furthered their verification and often converting to Christianity as a result.  So, I would gladly invite any non-believer to just try to prove the Bible wrong here, because I know, chances are, you’ll end up being my Christian brother, just as so many of those who have tried before.

5. Who created God?

I know Richard Dawkins just wrote a best seller called The God Delusion based precisely on the premise of “Who created the Creator?” but, frankly, I’m embarrassed at having to respond to such a sophomoric question from someone who should know better.  It is not an unreasonable question for a 3^rd grader, as virtually all kids, if they're thinking at all, eventually ask this question in one form or another.  But, any sophomore philosophy student knows the answer.  So here it is…

If all things are created, then you could ask, “Who created the Creator?”  The problem is, once you’ve answered that, then you could ask, “Who created the Creator’s Creator?” and again, “Who created the Creator’s Creator’s Creator?”  This can go on to infinity and is, in fact, called an Infinite Regress, because it never ends.  At some point in time, you must get back to an Uncreated Creator, a being whose origin is subsumed within His own nature and existence.  He is neither created nor destroyed.  This is God.  He is the answer, not the question!

It is important to understand that Christianity has never claimed that God was ever created.  In fact, quite the opposite.  The god that would be an answer to Dawkin’s question would not be the God that Christian’s worship.  What astounds me is that Jews and Christians have known this for more than 2000 years.  How come Dawkins doesn’t know?  I suspect there can only be one of two reasons:  1) he is simply plumb ignorant of his chosen field of contest or 2) he does know and simply turns a blind eye to the answer because he does not want to know.  I’m not sure which would be more charitable…to say he’s ignorant or lying, but I really don’t see a third option.

4. Where did Cain get his wife?

Yep, we get this one a lot!  However, it is true, I never actually answered it last time.  OK, let’s take a look at the text first.  We find this seemingly all consuming passage in Genesis Chapter 4:

And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.  And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch

- (Gen 4:16 and 17)

That’s it.  That’s all the Bible has to say on the subject.  Note that the passage DOES NOT say that Cain MET his wife in Nod, merely that he procreated with her there.  The non-believer asking this question usually seems to be under the false impression that the Bible says Cain married someone from a distant land that came from somewhere else other than from Adam and Eve.  The fact is, the Bible explicitly states:

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters

                                                                - (Gen 5:4 emphasis mine)

It is a fact that in all ancient cultures, including Biblical culture up until the giving of the law at Sinai, that brothers married sisters.  Now, we definitely see genetic injuries result from incest, but then, for instance when Pharaoh married a sister, which was very frequently the case, there does not seem to have any harm from it.  Further, realistically, what other choice did Cain have?  Yes, Cain married his sister (or possibly a niece), moved to Nod and had kids.  If indeed, the Bible claimed that there was this whole other group of people living over in Nod that had not been born to Adam and Eve, yes, then there would be a problem, I agree.  But the Bible nowhere, at no time, ever has made such a claim.  Cain married his sister, moved to Nod, then had kids.  That’s it.  No big mystery.

3. Why is there evil?

This is perhaps the most serious and fair questions in this list.  As Christians, we claim that God is an omnipotent (all powerful), all loving God.  It is a fair observation that an all powerful God could conquer evil and an all loving God would want to conquer evil.  Therefore, why does God allow evil?

This is a most difficult question because, existentially, evil disrupts and destroys so many real lives.  This is not merely a matter of philosophy or pointing out a particular text.  Real people really hurt.  So why would God allow such episodes as the Holocaust?

Well, there are three levels on which we must answer this challenge.  One is the logical or deductive argument from evil; the second is the probable or inductive argument from evil; lastly is the existential reality of evil.

Logically, to make his case, the atheist would have to prove that in no possible universe would God have a reason to permit evil.  In other words, is there any real logical contraction between the existence of evil and the existence of God?  Frankly, most philosophers have ceased to make this argument and gone to the probalistic argument because even they have realized that there may be many reasons as to why, though He could eliminate evil and (according to the Bible) one day will, for the present, God would permit evil in the world.  Allowing man to see the real consequences of his own actions might just be one.  Now, one can disagree with God’s reasoning (a wary proposition at best), but one cannot logically claim that evil exists and therefore God is without reason.  This is a non-sequitor.

Regarding the inductive argument, this is the one that most philosophers now propose.  The argument usually takes a form thus:  “There is too much evil in the world, so much so that it is improbable that there is an all powerful, all loving God.”  Note, this hinges on the probability of God and is therefore not a logical proposition, but a probalistic one.  Alvin Plantiga has recently given, what I feel, is the most rational treatment of this argument.  He assesses the questioners assessment of “too much evil,” by asking “how much can one possibly say is too much?”  In other words, in a world where nothing went wrong, but I stubbed my toe, wouldn’t I feel, relative to the carefree existence of my fellows, that I had somehow had “too much evil” heaped upon me?  There can be no objective assessment of what constitutes “too much evil,” and therefore the probability is impossible to assess.  Thus, the argument fails.

Lastly, we must deal with evil on the level of every day existence.  The mother who is watching her child slowly die from some frightful malady does not want to hear a logical or probalistic argument about God and evil.  She just wants her child to be healed and, tragically, so many never are.  There is no argument to be made here.  In fact, words all too often fall tragically short of such moments and we are all probably better off simply being with her in her hour of need, silently sharing her grief with her.  Maybe later, when she needs to talk, the truth of evil’s existence as the result of man’s choices can be explored, but neither I nor anybody else can make the hurt that evil visits upon us all at one time or another go away.  Perhaps, at such times, there can only be the comfort that, despite all else, God does love and will respond to our love.

2. How did Noah get all those animals into that ark?

Many remain in unbelief because they are sure Noah could not have carried 2 of most, 7 of some of all animals on the ark despite the fact that they do not know how many kinds he would have had to take or how big his boat was.  When one runs the numbers, however, one finds that he would have needed space for less than 5,000 pairs of animals the average size of a sheep, for which the dimensions of his ark were perfect, including appropriate provisions for all including the 8 humans on board for the year or more they would have to be on it.  In my presentation on the Flood of Noah, I go into more detail, giving the figures and their sources, which are a bit much to get into here.  What I recommend to the interested reader is that he/she search out the facts of this matter on a reputable website such as AnswersInGenesis.org.  When I have appropriate video of my presentation, I will post it as well, and as always, I remain willing to answer all e-mail inquiries which are submitted respectfully.

1. Where did Cain get his wife?

Oh, my goodness!  We have had to listen to this one for 90 years!  Enough already!  Why didn’t Mr. Bryan just give the right answer when he had the chance?  I don’t know.  Perhaps, given his time, he felt uncomfortable saying someone in the Bible committed incest (which should be no surprise; a lot of them did!  Abraham included!).  Maybe he felt Darrow would make worse hay out of the truth, twisting his words into something salacious.  All I know is I’d rather defend a truthful, honest, logical answer than a weak platitude of ignorance.  But really, is the answer or lack thereof what’s really keeping you from coming to faith in God?  As Christians, we should never shy away from a challenge, but neither should the non-believer.  Is it possible there are answers and that you simply do not like the implications those answers carry?  We all should have our presumptions challenged.  I hope that if you were convinced that these questions had no logical answers that you can see that such a presumption is in error.  You may not like the answers; you may disagree with them.  Fair enough.  But if the lack of any answer has kept you from at least investigating the truth claims of the Bible and the saving grace to be found in the cross of Jesus Christ, I sincerely hope you will reconsider that position.  Our ministry always welcomes honest inquiries and responses.  Why?  Because Christianity is not a set of dry rules of “do’s” and “don’t’s.”  That’s another widely held misconception.  It’s not a “path of enlightenment” or any other such thing.  Christianity is a relationship and in relationships we build trust, we learn about each other, and, most importantly, we talk.  God is willingly to dialogue with you, but only if you’re prepared to listen.  Are you?  Talk to Him and find out. 

Now THAT's a Sign!

ISAIAH 7:14

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

     Many a secular & Jewish scholar today want to say that this verse actually reads, "The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive & bear a son..."  Well, firstly, that is NOT how it was understood for the hundreds of years prior to the rise of Christianity.  The LXX, written some 300 years before Christ, clearly uses the word virgin.  This was the classical Jewish interpretation for at least 1000 years after Christ.

     Then, in the 10th c. AD, in reaction against the dominance of Christian culture in Europe, the Masoretes began saying that, "No, it only means young girl, not virgin," & atheists & secularist have latched onto that interpretation ever since, as it fits comfortably in with their view of scripture. This is because if this reads "young girl" then Matthew got it wrong when he used it as prophetic support for Mary's virgin birth. That would mean there are errors in the NT, which means there is no inspired text; the Bible is just a book of man, not the Word of God.

     However, the facts do not support such a position.  Firstly, the point made above -- the "young girl" interpretation was made in reaction to its use by Christians.  That makes the veracity of the interpretation suspect.  Secondly, simply read the context.  God is to send a sign.  The revisionists would have us believe that the great sign from God will be that an unnamed woman will have a child in the normal, everyday fashion.  This hardly sounds like a sign!  What do you think?  Is a girl getting pregnant so extraordinary an event that you would say, "Oh! Look! A sign from God! A woman is pregnant!"  That hardly seems tenable.  You're left with asking, "Where's the sign?  His name?"  That hardly seems significant.  She's going to give him a name.  Oh! Wow! Must be from God!  No one would ever name their kid "Emmanuel" after seeing it in Isaiah ... noooo!  That's not a sign from God.  Any woman could give their kid this name!  A sign from God has to be seen as coming only by Him, made possible only by Him.  Getting pregnant & giving a kid a name would hardly stand up to that test!

     Now, a virgin having a child -- that's extraordinary.  It would also set this anonymous woman apart from all other pregnant women.  A perfect creation in the womb of woman, ex nihilo by only the Word of God . . . now, THAT's a sign!  Of the two interpretations, only the classic "virgin" interpretation is supported by the context & the intention of the text.

     Remember, there is no dispute that this word can & often does mean "maiden" or "virgin."  It can also mean "young woman."  What determines its use is context.  The context here is that of a miracle, a sign from God, &, sorry, a girl getting pregnant simply does not qualify as a valid interpretation in the context.  "Virgin" does.

     So, Matthew uses the mainstream interpretation of his time; an interpretation that was classical, going back at least hundreds, if not thousands of years; an interpretation that is readily found in all rabbinical literature prior to the rejection of the Messiah by the Jewish rabbinical elite.  Only THEN did it have to mean something else, anything else other than they were wrong in crucifying their own Messiah.  The case is laid bare.  You decide.

Didya E'er T'ink

     This may be my shortest blog entry as it contains only one salient but, I think, profound thought & it takes the form of a question.  It has come to my attention through such internet viral videos as Zeitgeist & the whining of the pathetically parrot-billed squawking puppets of atheist apologetics that Christianity was nothing more than a repackaging of some very “well-known” (their words, not mine) pagan myths such as the stories of Mithra & Osiris.  Now, putting aside the hopelessly shallow, myopic & self-serving “scholarship” offered to support this fable, let us consider one & only one profoundly revealing point..  Paul, and the subsequent churches he seeded throughout the PAGAN world from Rome, to Corinth to Greece & beyond, speaking to & converting thousands, perhaps millions of PAGANS from their PAGAN Roots which for some ran deep into the generations of their families, let us consider the following question:  If these devout PAGANS were merely hearing a variation on THEIR OWN “Well known” stories, providing they had IQ’s exceeding that of the average parsnip, rather than be converted to Christianity, might they not say, “Hey! We’ve already got THAT “well known” story in our repertoire!  Jesus? Jesus?! We don’t need no stinkin’ Jesus!  We’ve got Mithra/ Osiris/ (insert favorite pagan god brought back from the dead here).  WHY CHANGE?”  In short, if I may be allowed a follow-up question, why so many converts among PAGANS who supposedly already had this OLD-HAT story “well known” for supposedly thousands of years?  Sounds strikingly double fishy to me.  What about you?  Hmmmm…?  Think about it.  I’ll get back to you!

Challenges?  Questions?  Gripes?  Groans?  Let me know what you think! [questions@eternalanswersministry.org]

DeuteroPaul

Text: I Tim 5:1-2

1 REBUKE not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

     Some theologians & scholars (post-Bower, Ehrman , Brown et. al.) argue that Paul can not possibly be the author of I & II Timothy or Titus since all these "Pastoral Epistles" mention "elders."  They attribute these works to a later period & label the author as "DeuteroPaul" ie "Second Paul."

     The argument goes that the New Testament churches were Spirit-driven anarchistic entities that did not use elders.  Later, post-Clement of Rome & onward, a more monarchical, authoritarian structure developed.  Therefore, these three letters must be from that later period, not from Paul.  The problem with this argument is that it begs the question ie it assumes its answer in its premise.  It is invalid to use the New Testament as evidence of a theory then use that same theory to invalidate part of the New Testament!  Doing so makes the argument invalidate its own proof!

     Other weak argument has been offered in the form of vocabulary analysis observing that "Paul" uses different words than he does in his other letters.  This is very weak because, as Paul is addressing very different issues in Romans, Corinthians, etc. than he is in these three letters.  By way of example, if you were writing a letter to the editor about prostitution downtown, you would use very different vocabulary from when you write your little brother or sister about getting their first job (unless of course, it is as a prostitute!).  This is very parallel to Paul's situation: the other epistles are for a general audience; these are personal.  The others address problems to be corrected in society or in the church; these are to exhort individuals.  The list of differences continues & greatly weakens this argument, too.

     All in all, the arguments for "DeuteroPaul" are very, very weak & can probably be ignored as generated by an a priori agenda that does not include honestly evaluating the integrity of the New Testament.  Up against 2000 years of textual pedigree, style examination, contemporary correspondence & many other tests by which we can analyze these letters, the "Second Paul" arguments are less than second rate.

Church Bureaucracy & the Individual Believer

TEXT: Matt 18:20

“20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name,
 there am I in the midst of them.“

     Protestantism relies very heavily (some might say too heavily) upon this promise.  Reading the writings of the Church Fathers from the generation immediately following the time of the apostles, it seems at first glance that many, even revered, names in the early church too often to forget this promise.  This in not the case.  Their interpretation was that as Christ sent the Holy Ghost to comfort believers (John 14:16), so did He ordain bishops for the church to stand in His stead.  Thus, the presence of the bishop was seen as the fulfillment of this promise.  Protestants who seek to return to the practices of the "early church" must recognize that this movement toward a formal ecclesiastical structure modeled on monarchy was a strong & relatively early development within the church.  It cannot be easily dismissed that many early church leaders, some personal students of the 12 directly, approved of & strongly championed the institution of a formal church structure utilizing little, if any, democratic input from the laity.

     For instance, the aged & revered martyr, Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, saw the person of the bishop as this promised presence of Christ Himself, reasoning that one must have as much respect for the messenger as one has for the One that sent him.  Therefore, he saw it as unlawful for anyone to baptize or "make love" (in the Greek it's not as kinky as it seems in English!) ie hold a "love feast"¹ without the bishop present else, as Ignatius sees it, Christ is not present.²

     Firstly, it should be observed that being "early" is not an automatic correlation to being "right."  At first, Christians under the direction of the apostles practiced a form of communism that Karl Marx would have readily recognized, where all property, food & assets were held in common & work was volunteered by the able (Acts 2:44-47).  Predictably, everybody ate heartily but no one wanted to work to grow more food (2 Thess 3:10 & 12)!  Eventually, Paul would dispense with this communist schema declaring, "if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thess 3:11) & that each should "eat their own bread" (2 Thess 3:12).  Suddenly, there was an eager workforce enough to grow plenty of food for all.  There is hardly a Christian today who would advocate communism & yet, such was the practice of the Biblical early church.  This, then, is the classic example of "early" not being "right."

     Secondly, it must be recognized that how much formal structure should be attached to the Church has been a plaguing issue since the departure of the apostles.  It is a subject fraught with the allure of power, the trap of excess riches & ultimately a responsibility to God which, in the snare of worldly temptation, can be too easily dismissed & forgotten.  In the final analysis, Luther observed, it is the individual "sheep" that is responsible for recognizing, discerning & responding to the voice of the true "Shepherd" (John Ch 10; see blog post on 10:1-5, "Emergence of the Individual").  How the bureaucracy of any given church organization argues for its preference would seem to be a more worldly matter than an individual believer need internalize for such arguments are all but irrelevant.  For the individual, Ignatius notwithstanding, there is this promise from the Lord of all creation, that even if all one can do is find fellowship with but one other believer, the King of the Universe is with them in spirit, but as a body ie the Body of Christ ie The Church.



1 probably a reference to Holy Communion aka the Lord's Supper or Lord's Table

2 Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 8; St. Ignatius of Antioch, (c.AD110); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm accessed 8/9/10

The Christian Development of "Self" in Western Tradition

Text: John Chapter 10

     The development of the "self" as we understand it in western society is principally the Christian notion of "self."  It does not extend back into the pagan philosophers preceding the Christian era nor is it the outgrowth of the European Enlightenment.  Rather it was appropriated by Enlightenment thinkers trading on the collateral handed to them by Christian humanism.  Nor is the notion of self to be found in any other religious or philosophical tradition outside of where it has been imported from the west.  We shall endeavor in this article to survey the development of the western self both historically and philosophically, seeing such roots firmly entrenched in the Christian tradition.  We will conclude with a brief examination of whether the self as we know it can survive being untethered from those Christian roots.

     Our first order of business must be to define what we mean by "the western self" and how it is to be distinguished from the self found in other cultures and derived from other philosophies.  The western self as we know it today is a deeply personal concept derived from the inner workings of an individual human being.  It has value, musings, development and stature over, above, and independent of the society and culture around it.  This is not to say that it is not influenced or shaped by the culture of which it is a part.  Rather it transcends or at least has the ability to transcend any cultural or societal pressures exerted upon it.

     Indeed, properly understood in western tradition, the self is seen as the very engine and generator of culture and society.  Thus the self forms the kernel of western society artistically, politically, in fact in all ways endemic and necessary to the development of civilization.  Civilization is seen as the expression of self collectively.

     Thus in this definition, we can see how the western concept of self differs greatly from that of ancient society and cultures outside of the Christian tradition.  In all cultures outside a western influence, both ancient or modern, the self is always seen in a relational attitude not as an independent entity.  The self as a module of society or the self as a module of culture or of the family or of the tribe.  The self is never seen nor developed as an independent entity, one capable of expression in decent society.  The self always exists in the service of another entity be it the tribe, or the religion, or the state.  This, then, helps the westerner to understand what informs the concept of the individual seen as honored by human sacrifice.  We see as barbaric what the Aztecs did to their citizens --cutting their hearts out sometimes by the thousands and throwing them often still beating down the steps of their sacred Temples.  Yet, one must see it from the viewpoint of an individual indoctrinated into this other concept of self --the self as existing for the purposes of the religion, existing to please the gods, existing for the sole purpose of feeding the society.  Personal fulfillment is seen exclusively within this framework.  Thus, what greater honor than to have one's heart given to the gods and, that heart seen as worthy sacrifice, bringing peace or bounty or victory in war two one's people?

     There was a game played by south American Indians in pre-Colombian days.  It was something of a cross between soccer and basketball except instead of a soccer ball, the head of a slain enemy was used.  Stone hoops were built high into the stadium walls and, as best as we can tell, the "ball" was kicked around with points scored by getting it into the hoops.  Here, however, is the salient point for our purposes: the winning team had their heads chopped off as a sacrifice to the gods.

     That bears repeating for the western reader: the winners got their heads chopped off as a sacrifice.  We would wonder, "Who the heck would want to win this game?  Why enter into such competition?  And why are on the earth would you attempt to win!?"  And yet they did!  With enthusiasm!  No one had to force them into the competition.  And each side eagerly and fiercely competed to win on no less a level than is seen in any of today's most professional team sport.  Why?  Because the self was in complete subjugation and derived its sole purpose for existence from the collective.  Society gave the individual worth.  There was no other reason for existence independent of one's relationships.  Thus, those socialist proponents who wish to see the self as deriving value from its service to the greater whole are actually advocating a return to an ancient and primitive concept of self.  Far from being "progressive," they are regressive to the concept of "self"; something with which we will deal later.

     There are those who would like to see the western self as extending from the Greek philosophers raised in the first democracies.  This is a failure to read the work of those philosophers and history together.  It is true that Greek democracy utilized the individual vote as its basis for making the decisions of the whole.  However the vote was not extended by any means to all members of society.  Fully half of that society was excluded by failure to extend a vote to women.  Neither were slaves nor free immigrants given the vote.  When actually totaled, an extremely small minority were given suffrage.  The concept of self in these societies was still seen as in service to the greater whole.  To this end, the majority of individuals could be excluded from determining their fate or status in society.  These things were determined by a majority vote of a non-Republican, non-representative minority.

     One need only read Plato's concept of the ideal society as expressed in his quintessential work The Republic.  In this detailed recitation of how the ideal society should function, Plato demonstrates and rationalizes how it is the state's responsibility to determine the vocation of individuals from birth.  Children born of warriors who in their youth demonstrate an aptitude for being a warrior are chosen by the state to be soldiers.  Those born of academics who in their youth demonstrate an aptitude for academics are assigned to be teachers, and so on.  An individual who rebels against the state's decision on their choice of career is banished; if the rebellion is deemed criminal, the offender is executed.  Thus all disagreements with the state on this and many other points are deemed in and of themselves to be subversive to the interest of the state, an interest which in all cases trumps the needs and desires of the individual who is but a module with which to build the state.

     Marriage, too, was seen as an instrument of, for and therefore to be exercised by the state.  As the state required strong soldiers, strong women were to be married to strong men.  As the state required teachers for its youth, smart women were to be married to smart men.  In fact, in an age before genetics, operating on its own pre-Darwinian notion of social evolution, Plato does not seem all that far from Hitler.  He has more in common with Nazi concepts of racial purity than with those of the Western self.  Indeed, as in Nazi Germany, marriage was an institution granted as a privilege by the state.  One could not be married without license from the state after the proper officials had determined the proposed union's benefit to the state.  Marriage for love or individual preference was seen as a vile expression subversive to the interests of the state.  This concept of marriage is almost universal in the ancient world.  Arranged marriages are still the norm in many cultures that have resisted influence from the west.  In western society, it was this crisis between individual duty to the state and the "zeal of the organs" in the service of the individual that formed the basis of the tragedy of Tristan and Isolde, probably the first expression of this conflict in world literature.

     This brings us to another point, namely from whence do these dynamic shifts in thinking within western society come?  Rarely do they spring from philosophers or academicians.  Rather, they flow from the minds and pens, the hands, eyes and brushes of artists, poets, and writers of both fiction and popularized nonfiction.  Neither Leonardo nor Hume were academics nor were Hemingway or Picasso philosophers.  Yet each had profound impact on the popular conception of the self in western society in their respective times.  The late philosopher Joseph Campbell, expert in mythology and comparative religion, correctly identified the artist, poet, storyteller as the root of all social and philosophical change within a culture.  While academics and philosophers study and expound upon change, it always seems to be the cultural black sheep that is the dynamic engine of change and progress.  This accounts for the explosion of change and progress seen in western society as opposed to others.  Thus, those who would see western progress as the result of economic disparity with the west reaping the natural resources of others worldwide have got it all wrong.  It is not economic disparity but spiritual disparity that has marked the upward trend of western society.  Our spiritual base has promoted the value of the self.

     Having dissected off from whence the self did not come, in my next entry I will present the seed from which it did spring and provide discourse on the cradle in which it was nurtured.

Emergence of the Individual

TEXT: John 10: 1-5

" VERILY, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the
sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth
his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the
sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know
not the voice of strangers. "

     Martin Luther turned this into a powerful argument for Protestantism.  His grasping of this passage in part was that the sheep must judge whether or not the voice they follow is that of their Good Shepherd.  Luther's reasoning was that this being the case, every man must have the right to read the Bible for themselves, decide & pass judgment upon the edicts of pope & church, the voice of the Shepherd being the higher authority.  If such edicts be from that higher authority, then they should follow; if they be the voice of strangers, then flee.  "For a hat of pearls & a staff of silver does not make a shepherd or a bishop, but his office does depend on his care of the sheep," ie the rights of government are derived from the authority of the governed.  He saw this authority of the individual to "knock all edicts of all the papists & all the councils to the ground" as divinely bestowed, never to be rescinded.  He saw it also in Christ's warning in Mt 7:15 to beware wolves in sheep's clothing ie we, the people, have the right to judge our leaders, spiritual or otherwise.  If we are obliged to follow whatever authority would pretend to lead us, be they shepherd or wolf, then we have not the authority to judge & Christ's warning would be in vain for we would have no option to act upon our judgment.

     This is a hard argument to break.  It formed one of the cornerstones for recognition of each individual's right to pass such judgments as "endowed by their Creator."  Though Martin Luther explicitly stated that removal of this "sword" from the papacy by the people must not be by force, by its full flowering in the 18th century, the concept of the individual under God would overturn the interests of states with revolutions in the America's & Europe.  Human society would be forever changed by a whole strain of thought extending from the acts initiated by one man's interpretation of one Bible verse.

     So must it ever be, for without this kind of fundamental, over riding foundation of higher authority, there can be no human rights.

Lessons Forgotten

TEXT: Amos 2:6

"6 ¶ Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes;"

     Greed is a killer.  Even though Israel was a wealthy & prosperous nation, there were still those that wanted more; more to the point that they would engage in the trade of human beings, prohibited by God, practiced by the Canaanites that surrounded them.  Obviously all memories of their experience of slavery in Egypt were now lost in the minds of the people, but never so in the mind of God.  Again, it would be hypocritical of God to condemn those around Israel trading in the slaves but not to bring down justice on Israel for the same actions.

     Ultimately, this must go back to the lessons of Egypt that seem to have been neglected.  In Egypt, on the night of the Passover, there was nothing special about being a Jew that would save you.  There was nothing special about being Egyptian that would condemn you.  All hinged on the blood of the lamb.  If you had it over the entrance to your home, you were saved.  This simple lesson which was commanded that they remember, commanded that they pass it along to their children commanded that it be as frontlets to their eyes, were forgotten in Israel.  Once one forgets how to ask for grace, one falls from grace.

Freedom For All

TEXT: Gal 3:28

"28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

     Alexis de Tocqueville, considered to be the foremost authority on early 19th century American liberty & political philosophy, listed this text as the bedrock basis of American liberty in chapter 1 of his monumental work Democracy in America.  In his analysis in that book, he detailed how well educated every American was, primarily from each reading the Bible in their native tongue (primarily English).  He deduced that it was every Americans' knowledge of the implications of this verse as the Word of God that brought about the revolution against Britain.

     In fact, de Tocqueville asserts that Paul's expression here is the first time that anyone had ever declared all men, women, slave, master, Jew, or gentile were equals under God.  This then is the root for Jefferson’s ground-breaking chain in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the United States, that “We hold these truths to be self evident:  that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;  that among these are life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.”  How much like Paul’s statement does the opening half of Jefferson’s formulation sound.

     Tocqueville goes on to examine the root of the claim & finds that it rings true that without Biblical Christianity there is no egalitarian freedom for all.  He sees this as the driving force behind all the other leaps toward democracy (the printing press, the gun, the microscope, science, the engines that drive democracy), without which, progress would not be possible.

     Wrote de Tocqueville:  "Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth." *

     Regardless of what revisionists wish to say today, no matter what pratter they peddle, it is imperative that one read the documents of the period to see that from the Bible & from our people's ability & freedom to read it springs the lifeblood of our freedom.

*Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337

What's the Porpoise?

TEXT: Ex. 26:14

"14 And thou shalt make a covering for the tent of rams’ skins dyed red, and a covering above of badgers’ skins."

     The Hebrew word used here can also refer to "porpoise" skins.  Some scholars insist that "badger" is an incorrect translation.  However, though porpoises are found in the Red Sea & in the Nile, they are pretty scarce in the desert, which means the Hebrews would have had to have anticipated their need & stocked up before leaving Egypt.  While this is technically possible (it may be they had a hoard from the spoils of Egypt; maybe they successfully raided a well stocked porpoise store like "Red Sea World"), it seems highly unlikely to say the least.

Training

TEXT: Prov 22:6

"6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

     Arguably there is nothing more important to the health & survival of the church as an institution than the proper training of Christian children.  More important then evangelism.  More important than missionary work. Our children are our closest & best resource for the future church.  All the more tragic that increasingly, more & more young adults are leaving the church in droves -- upwards of 70%!  This hemorrhage has led to the first noticeable drops in church attendance in over a century; the first but unless things change radically, unfortunately not the last.

     Check the backgrounds of virtually every prominent atheist today & you will find two things:  1) Freudian difficulties with authority figures (ftnote) & 2) religious teaching in their youth.  That's right -- religious teaching in their youth.  Rabid atheist Dan Barker was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home & was a preacher with a music ministry before casting God aside. George Smith was a religious youngster in a non-religious home until as a sophomore in high school he began to stray away from Christianity.  Even Richard Dawkins was the beneficiary of a church run private school in England.  The modern atheist, new ager or cultist usually has some sort of significant church association in their youth.  How can this be?

     Ken Hamm & Britt Beemer have performed a well documented study of just this issue.  Their conclusions are found in their book called Already Gone.  In their book, they detail how kids are not being lost in their first years of college where they become victims of evil atheist professors as previously thought.  No.  The statistics demonstrate that these children are already gone long before they reach college.  Their statistics are compiled from a survey of 1,000 young adults who, as youngsters, attended specifically conservative, evangelical Sunday schools & youth groups faithfully.  These were not the "holidays only" kids.  These were the hard core of children that might be found in any church's youth group or Sunday school today.

     The statistics are staggering.  More than 60% had left the church by their mid-twenties.  Some 40% of those that had left had no interest in ever going back to church.  In fact, by the statistical showing, kids that didn't go to Sunday school regularly were more likely to remain Christians than those that did!  The main reasons the respondents gave for leaving-- 1) the irrelevancy of the church to their lives & 2) the hypocrisy of the church membership.  However, what is most revealing about Ham & Beemer's study is that they dug beneath the surface & found some tragic flaws that made the church seem irrelevant to these people.

     Despite sitting in a Sunday school classroom virtually every Sunday of their youth, less than 30-40% of the respondents could agree with the following statements:  1) The stories related in the Bible depict true events;  2) The Bible has no errors;  3) God created the universe;  4) Sex outside of marriage is against God's law;  5) Marriage is meant to be between one man & one woman & most staggeringly  6) Faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to God.

     The book is well worthwhile to find in a library or to purchase.  The study is incredibly revealing.  The bottom line is that we are not teaching our children how to defend the core doctrines of Christianity.  We tell them week after week after week what to believe but we never seem to get around to telling them why.

     Our failure to teach our kids how to defend their/our beliefs is leading to the rapid demise of the traditional church.  Combined with the high profile & low profile hypocrisy seen on TV & in the home, our kids are simply walking away from the public body of Christ.

     The bright spot in all this?  Remember that 40% that had no interest in returning to church?  Well, there's the 60% that might consider it.  Most of them report that they still believe in God. Most still consider themselves Christians ie members of the Church, the Body of Christ, but obviously have little faith in what it means to be a Christian ie the central doctrines of following Christ.  Virtually all report that they are still searching, still on a spiritual quest.  The refocusing of church away from entertainment to genuine education, from evangelizing the converted to arming the Christian soldier may yet, with the blessing of the Holy Spirit, return the church as an institution from the brink of what promises to be a very, very deep abyss.

If Prayers Were Wishes

TEXT: Matt 18:19

“19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.”

     This verse along with others is often used resulting in two ends: 1) deception & 2) dismissal.

     Addressing the first, many, particularly charismatic preachers, use this verse to deceive believers into thinking that whatever they pray for, no matter what, as long as at least one other person prays for it with them, they will get it.  This is a wholly unscriptural approach to prayer, both in practice & expectation.  Firstly, one must note that all such promises (including Mk 11:23; Jn 14:13-14; 15:7; 16:24) are made explicitly to the apostles.  If one looks at the passage one will quickly see that Jesus is not addressing the multitude, but the small party of the 12 in all these cases.  It is a promise made exclusively to them, proof of which will be offered soon.  Secondly, all prayer is to be in accord with the Father's will (Luke 11:2).  Even Jesus could not pray His way out of the Father's will.  He prayed in the garden that the cup of the cross would pass from Him, but it did not.  The scriptural approach must be "thy will be done" (Luke 22:42).  Thus, God does answer all prayer.  We simply must be prepared for that answer to be, "No."

     If the interpretation of the charismatic's were true, no Christian would ever have died.  Certainly those that I have prayed with have had two or more praying for healing as have millions more through history.  If this passage were applicable to us, then these people including many members of my family & myself, would be alive & well.  The evidence of our eyes must prevail.  Given the two interpretations, the evidence of our eyes & history demonstrates the truth of only one ie this promise was exclusive to the apostles.

     Which is the refutation to the second use of this passage ie dismissal.  Many anti-Christian speakers & philosophers dismiss Christianity pointing to this as being a "lie" that Jesus spoke for no one has ever gotten everything for which they have prayed.  Again, the faith remains perfectly consistent & intact only if one sees this & similar promises as applying to the 12 exclusively.

     Nevertheless, we should not despair.  The purpose of this promise was to establish Christianity & make it triumphant in history; a purpose that was accomplished through the work of the apostles.  Christianity survived, thrived & has dominated western thought until modern times.  The Christian should feel joy in this fulfillment.  Just because we see this as not applying to us, we should realize we are all on the same grace as Jesus & the apostles ie the will of the Father.  Indeed, this is applicable to us if we see our prayer life from that perspective.

     Prayer is not about wish fulfillment.  Prayer is not about a laundry list of "I want"'s.  Bringing all our desires, all our wants into accordance with His will should be the fulfillment of the believers soul.  It is only in this way that a martyr can go to his/her fate; that a faithful servant can find his reward.

The Real Thing

TEXT: Heb 8: 4-5

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

     What the author is telling his Jewish audience is that Moses merely saw into heaven to see the heavenly ark in God's Temple which he was to attempt to reproduce;  Christ is actually in that Temple serving as high priest right now.  One of the implications of this is that when John is called to "Come up here" (Rev 4:1) & he walks around these objects (Rev 11), he is claiming to actually be there amongst these objects not merely experiencing a vision of them as Moves did (Ex 25:9).

Habitual Prayer

TEXT: Dan 6:10

“10 ¶ Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.”

     Daniel was a man of prayer.  We see all through this book that it was a habit for him to pray.  He prayed toward Jerusalem at “the time of the evening oblation” ie toward a city that no longer existed, destroyed over half a century before by the Babylonians, at the time of a ritual that had not been kept in 70 years!  It must have seemed to him at times that all that was left of his home & way of life was in his prayers.  This kind of longing is felt by every Jew that weeps & prays at the Wailing Wall.  Prior to 1948, it was a feeling shared by every Jew that yearned for a homeland of their own.  How much of the reality of the situation actually sunk into Daniel's psyche we don't know.  What we do know is that through habitual prayer, he kept his identity alive.  How many of us, of our young, of those around us every day seem lost, without an identity to hold on to.  How much might prayer help them rediscover & retain who they really are.  This is more than the quaint sentiment, "The family that prays together, stays together."  Prayer must hold a personal dimension to be effective.  Proper prayer life means connecting one's deepest sense of identity, of who we are, with God's.  Prayer is not a wish list; it is not a memorized repeated incantation.

     Prayer is touching God & feeling Him touch back. Prayer is part of a relationship.  Thus, yes, it does take on ritualistic aspects.  There are married couples that, though their day may routinely see them separated for most of the time, they will, with ritualistic passion, have a cup of coffee together, every morning & talk.  The point of such an exercise is not the enjoyment of coffee, though they may with some frequency seek out different, more exotic blends, brew methods, etc.  The point is not actually the talk, though each will save a story or comment expressly for the morning get together.  The get together, the relationship, is the point. The element of good coffee and/or special comments heighten the experience.  But, even if the coffee is a bit off; even if the room is quiet, the experience of being together, the relationship, still makes the experience, the ritual, worth the effort for in this way, in this ritual, they form an identity as a married whole, not two people who happen to be married.  Such a ritual will develop only with dedication to making it a habit.  This is what prayer is.  It's a habitual engaging in the relationship.

     In a modern culture of one night stands, no fault divorce & abortion on demand, maybe we have lost the knack of forming relationships, but that is what Daniel had.  It is a fulfilling experience (or at least it should be) for its own sake.  This is what God wants; not repeated, mindless incantations; not just the odd moment now & then, always when we're in need.  He wants a relationship.  He wants to hear when your sad; he wants to hear when you're happy, ecstatic; even when you have nothing to say, maybe He does!  Make prayer a habit & God guarantees you'll have a relationship.  Be as faithful in your prayer life as Daniel & you will experience all the joy that relationship can bring in this life!

Personal Experience & Postmodernism

TEXT: Matt 1:20

"20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

     Here Joseph has what many in the postmodern world would consider the senna qua non of spiritual experience i.e. personal contact with the divine.  It must be considered, of course, a rare event today in the Church Age for God to provide such a personal experience.  There are reasons for this which are explained in the Bible. Nevertheless, many feel that their spiritual lives are empty unless they can have personal contact with the divine plane.  This has been suggested as a possible reason for the veritable explosive growth in the charismatic church since this, primarily, is what they ostensibly offer.  However, it should be noted that we're not told to seek or overvalue such contact (2 Cor 12:6) & in fact, we're warned against attempting such (Lev 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut 18:9-12; Isa 8:19-20; 1 Cor 10:14-22).  Even so, you would be surprised how far you can get in witnessing to a postmodernist thinker if you allow yourself to use what they see as personal experience in order to bring to their consideration the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

     We wish to make it abundantly clear that there is but one way to God & that is through His Son Jesus Christ & there is only one way to get access to Jesus Christ & that is through His gospel as revealed in His word.  So, we can only access God through Christ & we can only access Christ through the gospel, but the means & modes to access the gospel are virtually limitless!  Sometimes imagination is required.

     Consider the following situation:  you sit next to a stranger on the train or an airplane & have the opportunity for an extended period of conversation before reaching your destination.  She notes you carry your Bible & asks if you are a believer & you respond by providing her with your testimony.  She responds to that by saying, "Wow, you know, I had a dream just like that just the other night!"  Further, she relates that she called her mother, who is a churchgoing woman, & her mother asked, "What have you done wrong that Satan is doing this to you?" She tells you how immediately she was turned off by that approach

     Now, given the content of the dream, we may or may not agree with the mother as to whether there may be a demon at work.  However, we must note that the postmodern thinker will see the dream as personal experience of the spiritual plane & they may be right.  However, assessing it as demon inspired (even if it is so) is not the route to take in order to open access for this individual to the gospel.  The question instead to be asked is (and this is a very carefully crafted question)  "What do you think God was trying to tell you by allowing you to have that dream?"  This wording is critical to the approach & here's why:

     Firstly, attributing the dream to demons is going to close the person off & shut down the conversation.  No one wants to be told they are cavorting with demons.  You will not be able to relate the gospel if you are not talking &, after all, that is the desired point to be reached for only by accessing the gospel is there access to Christ by which the seeker can genuinely access God, even if they do not accept or acknowledge this fact.  But, if you shut down the conversation prematurely, you preclude the possibility of getting to the step of sharing the gospel.

     Sometimes, the indirect approach ends up being the most direct for the purposes of the gospel.

The question is carefully phrased:

"What..." -- Obviously you are asking for a response;

"...do you..." -- Remember, we're dealing with personal experience that is the postmodernist's major god, along with his/her feelings, as to the measure of spiritual growth.  You need to tap into that.  So, you want to be asking about what it means to them;

"...think..." -- This is the one thing the postmodernists seem to avoid as much as possible. It must be our goal to get them to engage their minds; to think, not just to feel, about their situation.  Feelings can be very misleading; too many people today follow their feelings in the postmodernist fashion whereas, if they actually thought more, they might grow more spiritually as well as intellectually.  As an example, it is a comfortable, usually unchallenged, postmodern sentiment for one to say,"  Well, you can never really be sure about anything," to which-if only one would think about it -the obvious reply is, "Are you sure about that?"  Many of the quaint, pithy little sayings that are laid out in the postmodern world, fail to pass any sort of scrutiny that sometimes even a kindergartner could provide, but because we are a society that no longer thinks about these things, which thinks about our positions, we get trapped into the comfortable, feel-good euphemisms & philosophies of the age.

"...God meant..." -- This ties the individual to the divine, which is where they want to be in the first place.  Tying them & their experience to the devil or Satan makes for a short conversation.  Eventually though this tie may need to be made, it is better initially to help them see their tie to God first & foremost.  Even if that brush with divinity must eventually convict them of their experience, they are at least initially more comfortable with pursuing the conversation.  You are also indicating that their experience was an intention on the part of God.  This is important for conveying to them that God does indeed care about them personally.  A postmodernist is apt to appreciate this or, alternatively, that God is an impersonal thing.  In case of the latter, using this question, you'll be able to tease such feelings out & address them in due course;

"...by allowing..." -- to say "by giving" wrongly conveys our conviction that all that happens in our experience is allowed by God, but not necessarily sent or given by God.  As demonstrated by the Book of Job, not all is directly caused by God, but all is allowed by God.  Given the fact that such dreams may be brought about by demons or demon inspiration, we do not want to be in the position of insinuating that God was the cause of their dream.  As notably repeated in the gospels several times (Mark 1: 24-25) Jesus never wanted or accepted the testimony of devils on His behalf, even though they knew who He really was.  We should not be in the position of conveying, even in an indirect way, that He is associated with such activities.  By using the word "allow," we're able to remain flexible in later judging of the dreams content should you be called upon to do so.

"...you to have that dream?" -- this validates the individual's personal experience.  We should have no doubt that anyone's given experience, be it a dream or near death experience (NDE) or other such phenomenon, has spiritual implications.  It certainly has significance to the individual & while we may not want to validate or endorse the content of that experience, we can feel free to validate the fact of the experience as being genuine & of significance to the individual.

     Though this example has been provided & broken down, it is important to recognize that it is just that -- an example.  There are innumerable approaches to postmodernist seekers; flexibility must be maintained in terms of approach. This is usually more important than anything else.  The postmodern seeker will want to know that you are listening to them; seeing their specific circumstance; hearing their specific story. Postmodernism & postmodernist thinking can not be distinguished by age group, by mode of dress, or by any other physical characteristic.  A postmodernist is one who has accepted uncritically the time dime store philosophy that has pervaded society beginning in the early to mid -80's, at least in the popular culture; some philosophers think that it traces its roots as far back as the opening of the Bastille in the time of the French revolution, when Europe entered the Enlightenment.  Popular postmodern thinking seems to have come into vogue about the time of the end of the cold war.  We had all been told by Star Trek & 2001 a space odyssey that if only we could overcome our differences with the Soviets either through accommodation or by overcoming the Soviets themselves (though most seemed to think accommodation would be the eventual policy we would have to take) that we would soon find ourselves wearing bright silver clothing, living in the brightly lit white world of sleep spaceships zipping from galaxy to galaxy without care in peace & harmony.  Unfortunately, we seem to be living in the same forlorn world as before only now it's terrorists with planes instead of commies with nukes that hold us hostage. People have become disillusioned with the modernists dream and have seen them as having fallen short on their promises.  Likewise, just as they were wrong about having to accommodate the Soviets someday, they seem to have been wrong about just about everything.  Some have gone as far as to claim that bringing down the Soviet empire was the wrong thing to do!  They insist that if we have accommodated them as the modernists had suggested, we would be living in the world of clean white space ships.  This, on the face of it, is, of course, silly since continuing the Soviet empire simply meant the extension of the suffering of the millions of people that lived under its yoke.  They're certainly no worse off today than they were & one might say they're a whole lot better off in many ways than they were before.

     Some have said that postmodernism isn't as much a philosophy as it is a mood.  People have become disillusioned, disappointed & are simply disgusted at finding Christ's observation as true i.e. "Know ye not that the poor will always be with you?"  So many, though they may seem bright & cheerful on the outside, they're living that life of quiet desperation, so tired of having to think for themselves that they have surrendered, allowing others to think for them, finding comfort in poorly thought out, feel-good cliches.  Postmodernism may be viewed as a great depression of the spirit.  To this, Christ is the answer, the only answer.  We must be flexible enough to introduce Him to the members of this wide, disparate group, being firm in our message, yet gentle in spirit.  Note the variety, however, in the ways in which Jesus in presented by Jesus & his followers: eg to Nicodemus, Jesus said, "You must be born again; to the woman of the well, He said nothing of being born again but He told her He was the water of life; when Phillip saw the Ethiopian in his chariot perplexed by the words of Isaiah, he didn't speak of the water of life nor did he speak of being born again, rather the Ethiopian was perplexed and so Philip offered to explain.  Example after example, time & time again, Christ & his apostles are providing us with a pattern of flexibility.  Each delivered the message of the Gospel, but in a way that met each spiritual seeker where he or she was at on their spiritual journey.  They delivered it in the close, personal circumstance of their own lives & on a level that each was able to understand.

     Some have said that Christianity must change or die. Christianity does not need to "change" but it does need to remember & rediscover the flexibility that made it spread across the world so successfully in the first place.  Christianity was never intended to be a cookie cutter religion; this is not a do progressive concept.  This is good, old fashioned, Biblical Christianity available to anyone who is willing to rediscover it.

     We must remember, our primary goal is to open up access to the gospel for these individuals.  The postmodern thinker (a term which is actually an oxymoron since they worship feeling & eschew thinking!) is lost in a morass of conflicting feelings seeking experience, the majority of which will turn out to be fraudulent & hollow.  It is the Christian's duty to demonstrate that there is a better way; to show that spirituality is not merely a matter of "feeling one's way."  God calls us to love Him with all our hearts, with all our souls, all our strength & with all our mind (Luke 10:27).  Yes, we must feel; Yes, our souls, our being, must be engaged; but, we must also think.  Of the all creatures in creation, God gave us the ability to reason.  He gave us the faculty of mind.  We must open the postmodernist up to the idea that had God not wished us to use this faculty, why would He give it to us in the first place!?  Postmodern relativists tell us there is no such thing as "truth" & yet they wish us to believe that their assertion is true!  They tell us that words have no meaning & yet they write tomes hundreds of pages long using thousands of words to convince us of this truth in a world where they say there is no truth!  Postmodernism is incoherent; at the very least inconsistent.  It is our job to lay this false philosophy bare but, of prime importance, to use whatever means we can to open access to the Gospel & allow the Holy Spirit to do His work.

Human Do's

Mark Ch.7

"7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."


     The Pharisees had come up with what they thought was a work-around God's law regarding caring for parents.  A person was able to say that they were dedicating their inheritance and property to the service of the Temple.  This sounds all holy and pious, of course.  Having done so, technically the Temple owned all their wealth.  They, personally, however, were allowed to live off the proceeds from that property as long as they lived.  This practice was called Corban.  However, since they technically owned nothing, they were not required to provide for aging parents or sick siblings or any family for that matter.  Jesus flat out condemns this practice.  His charge is that their traditional practice made God's law to no effect.  Yet, again, the Pharisees had technically fulfilled the law, but really missed the whole point.

     Lest we think this does not apply to us today, we should consider how often church members dedicate so much time and wealth to the church that they think they can nullify their family obligations.  There are those that spend every spare minute over at the church failing to take their day of rest, failing to spend time with their spouses, fail to spend time with their children and still, as here, fail to care for aging parents.  There are some that tithe even at the expense of putting themselves into financial jeopardy.  The worst of this matter is that there are pastors and leaders that encourage this type of behavior, insisting that it is a "sacrifice for God," when the reality is that it is a sacrifice to themselves where church growth even to a mega-church means more power and money for that pastor.

     What is lacking here is the truth of the basis of the church. It is not we that spread the church, but the Holy Spirit.  It is not our work that builds the church.  Christ builds his church.  To operate in such a manner, even for a church-- a "holy" purpose-- is a sin.  It is the sin of pride bourne out by the arrogance to think that without "me," "I" am so important, that without "my" work, "my" dedication, "my" church will not grow.  It is not "my" church.  It's Christ's church.  If you take a day off a week as ordered, His church will still grow.  If you place your resources, your wealth, your time to your family, your spouse, your children-- they are yours-- Christ's church will still grow.

     One of the most prominent idols in Western culture is "work," and not just for the work-aholic.  Too often in Western culture, men and increasingly women are defined by their work.  It affords them their social status & forms the basis of their self-image and self-worth.  This is why we hear frequently of the man or woman who is "disabled," no longer "able" to "be" what they were in their jobs previously, degenerating into despair and sometimes suicide.  They have defined themselves in terms of their career and when unable to fulfill the requirements of the job, they cease to see any value in their life.  It is not just the coveting of power, status or wealth.  It is the mistake of defining ourselves in terms of what we "do" rather than what we "are."  "Are" is a form of "to be."  "Do" is an action.  We are "human beings" not "human do's."

     This is not to say we should not do work to serve others, even the church.  It is not to say that in extraordinary circumstances and opportunities that sometimes huge sacrifices are not required.  It is to say that day-to-day operations, whether in business or church work can not be at the sacrifice of family responsibilities.  It is the mark of a cult that says you must offer all your produce, all your wealth, your family, your time to the cult and any church or ministry that operates similarly is operating on the same basis as a cult.  No church should require or knowingly accept a member's time and money on such a basis.  Those that do must go back and thoroughly read this exchange and upbraiding from our Lord.