Author Archives: Clarke Morledge

About Clarke Morledge

Unknown's avatar
Clarke Morledge -- Computer Network Engineer, College of William and Mary... I hiked the Mount of the Holy Cross, one of the famous Colorado Fourteeners, with some friends in July, 2012. My buddy, Mike Scott, snapped this photo of me on the summit.

Stations of the Cross … in Jerusalem

Walking the fourteen Stations of the Cross is a traditional pilgrimage taken by many Christians for centuries, remembering the route that Jesus took towards the Crucifixion, on Good Friday. Those who participate in this devotional practice normally never have the opportunity to go to Jerusalem itself to do it, along the “Via Dolorosa.”

Though the route has been marked out in Jerusalem, in various ways, since the medieval period, we really do not for sure the exact path Jesus took. Nevertheless, walking the Stations of the Cross can still be a very meaningful, memorable experience.

The last few stations are in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site of Jesus’ Crucifixion, which makes this year, 2020, all the more weird, as the Church closed recently, due to the threat of COVID-19.  In other words, do not expect many people going down the Via Dolorosa today, on this year’s Good Friday (at least for Western Christians).

I do not know anything about Vic Stefanu, other than that he is a popular travel vlogger on YouTube.  But a few years ago, he walked the Via Dolorosa, in Jerusalem. This has helped me in my Good Friday meditation, to virtually walk the Via Dolorosa:


Was the Coronavirus Bio-Engineered in a Chinese Lab?

As it turns out, it is not just anti-vaccine Christians who buy into conspiracy theories.

UPDATE June 4, 2024: Please read all the way through to the end of this post for an important update.  I finally had an opportunity to revise what I wrote here four years ago, in the early stages of the pandemic, but I wanted to keep the original content preserved as much as possible, aside from some grammatical errors I spotted within a few weeks after originally posting this. PLEASE READ ON….

Conspiracy theories have long fascinated people, particularly when there are a large set of unknowns involved. Sadly, many Christians tend to get taken in by such conspiracy theories, and even some popular preachers use their pulpits to promote interest in such talk.

The 2020 coronavirus pandemic, caused by a tiny virus, COVID-19, provides fertile ground for growing conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theory I hear the most these days is the idea that the virus was bioengineered in a Chinese lab, located at Wuhan, where the outbreak started, in late 2019.

As with all conspiracy theories, there is always a grain of truth. Yes, there is a biomedical lab in Wuhan. Yes, the Chinese authorities did not immediately address the crisis, when it first started, thus allowing COVID-19 infections to spread rapidly. But was the virus somehow leaked out of a biomedical lab, either accidentally, or even worse, intentionally?

Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, and an outspoken follower of Jesus Christ, wrote a blog recently, outlining research that demonstrates that COVID-19 was not an intentional product of bioengineering. Rather, COVID-19 arose naturally. Here is a snippet from Collins’ blog, describing some of the results from the research:

“Existing computer models predicted that the new coronavirus would not bind to ACE2 as well as the SARS virus. However, to their surprise, the researchers found that the spike protein of the new coronavirus actually bound far better than computer predictions, likely because of natural selection on ACE2 that enabled the virus to take advantage of a previously unidentified alternate binding site. Researchers said this provides strong evidence that that new virus was not the product of purposeful manipulation in a lab. In fact, any bioengineer trying to design a coronavirus that threatened human health probably would never have chosen this particular conformation for a spike protein……
…..this study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19. And that’s a good thing because it helps us keep focused on what really matters: observing good hygiene, practicing social distancing, and supporting the efforts of all the dedicated health-care professionals and researchers who are working so hard to address this major public health challenge.” 

Read the whole blog article for more details.

… and while you are at it, encourage your fellow Christians to show a little more skepticism when it comes to propagating conspiracy theories. In the meantime, wash your hands, continue your “social distancing,” and pray that a safe, reliable vaccine becomes available soon.

UPDATE June 4, 2024:

This is an important update from four years ago. We know a lot more about the origins of the COVID pandemic than we did in the early stages back in April, 2020. Back then, the reigning hypothesis of the COVID origins was that it had a natural origin, not coming from a lab in Wuhan. What has emerged since then is very disconcerting:

  • Unlike the original SARS virus back in the early 2000s, where a positive link to a natural source for SARS was found in relatively short time, we have yet to find a positive link for a natural source for the COVID-19 pandemic. Four years is long enough to go without some clearly identifiable source for COVID.
  • More scientists have come forward believing that the weight of the evidence has shifted to suggest that COVID had its origins in the Wuhan Lab.  If this lab leak hypothesis is correct, then it is most probably a result of an accident, not some on-purpose leak by the Chinese government intent on trying to kill their own people, which was the most common conspiracy theory being promoted back in early April, 2020.
  • Efforts by other scientists to call into question the natural-origins hypothesis in the early days of the pandemic apparently were rather forceful.  This should not have happened. Freedom of scientific inquiry demands that scientific analysis be done without fear of repercussions from others.
  • Since April, 2020, we have learned that the Wuhan lab received funding for research from the U.S government, but that the safeguards to keep that research from morphing into gain-of-function research were not well established.

When I originally wrote this blog post back in April, 2020, I was not aware of the above pieces of information.  Part of this was simply that we were too early in the growth of the pandemic to know much more than what we already knew.  Time needed to pass, with more eyes on the situation, in order to make an adequate judgment.

Unfortunately, we may never be able to determine if the lab leak hypothesis (by accident, NOT intentional) is correct. In order to determine this, we would need cooperation among all parties involved, including the United States and Chinese governments, and trust seems to be very low right now.

My main concern in writing this earlier version of this blog post was to cast doubt on the conspiracy theory about an INTENTIONAL lab leak, which still seems preposterous to me. It makes no sense for the Chinese government to try to purposely kill thousands and thousands of their own people, when they have a population crisis emerging, due to their one-child birth policies of the recent decades, which has severely limited their future growth as a nation.  This is the reason why I linked to the James White video within the body of the post, which suggests an INTENTIONAL lab leak.

But I should have been more direct in bringing this out, as in looking back over what I wrote it might have given the impression that I was somehow ideologically opposed to an ACCIDENTAL lab leak.  I simply was not sure about the accidental lab leak hypothesis, and I believed that what Francis Collins said at the time was a reasonable judgment at that stage of the pandemic, a judgment that could easily change over time. Looking back, it is reasonable to think that Dr. Collins might have been premature in his assessment.

What I will say is that I trusted our leading scientific authorities at the time, when I should have been more cautious myself.  Sometimes, conspiracy theories can indeed be true.  How all of this conspiracy thinking plays out with COVID-19 still remains to be seen.

 


The Last Supper in Lockdown

This is the most profound, humorous, and theologically disturbing thing you will see during this year’s Holy Week:


Her Majesty on the Coronavirus

If you wonder why she is regarded as the “Defender of the Faith and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England,” these 4-minutes will show why.  Here is the British Queen, Elizabeth II, giving a rare public address to her subjects, encouraging them during a difficult time. May we all be encouraged:


Does the Bible Teach That Women Should Never Wear Braided Hair or Jewelry?

Hairstyling among Rome’s cultural elite, during the mid-1st century.

Many readers of the Bible are puzzled, or even embarrassed, by a statement made by the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy, that suggests that women should never wear braided hair, or jewelry. But is this flat prohibition against the wearing of braided hair or jewelry something that the Bible actually proscribes? Let us take a closer look, reading Scripture in context.

In 1 Timothy 2:8-10 we read:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.” (ESV).

A similar passage comes from the words of Peter, at 1 Peter 3:3-4. At first glance, the negative, specific references to “braided hair” and “gold or pearls” would appear that the Apostles Paul and Peter sound like legalists at best, or even, misogynists at worst!

When we read puzzling passages like this, it is important to look at what the whole of Scripture teaches on the matter, and not focus on one or two isolated verses. Since both Paul and Peter were Jewish, and looked to their Hebrew Scriptures, as their written authority, it might help to look at what the Old Testament has to say about the wearing of jewelry, etc.

There are occasions when the Old Testament takes a negative view towards the wearing of jewelry, but such instances are within the context of accenting a woman’s sexual attractiveness for the purposes of manipulation, as when the wicked queen Jezebel “painted her eyes and adorned her head,” when Jehu came to confront her of her sin (2 Kings 9:30).

However, the Old Testament does not dismiss the wearing of jewelry outright:

Like a gold ring or an ornament of gold
    is a wise reprover to a listening ear.
 (Proverbs 25:12 ESV).

Here in Proverbs, jewelry has a positive value, being directly compared to the situation when someone gives wise counsel or correction to someone else, and that someone else receives such counsel or correction willingly.

When the Song of Solomon extolls the beauty of a woman, such beauty is positively related to the value of jewelry:

How beautiful are your feet in sandals,
    O noble daughter!
Your rounded thighs are like jewels,
    the work of a master hand.
 (Song of Solomon 7:1 ESV).

As Jews, both Paul and Peter would have taken similar views towards the wearing of jewelry. They would have accepted the modest display of jewelry as perfectly acceptable, but would find the extravagant display of jewelry to be inappropriate and inconsistent with the godly behavior of a Christian woman.

Focusing on the 1 Timothy passage, carefully notice how the Apostle Paul specifically finds a modest level of jewelry wearing to be wholly appropriate: “women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel.” Rather, Paul is contending against the flaunting of a woman’s beauty, by the excessive use of make up and jewelry, as this would distract others from seeing the real, inward beauty of a Christian woman, her “godliness.”

It is important not to confuse the principle of modesty, with respect to jewelry wearing, with the specific cultural application in Paul’s first century, Roman empire context. For example, some might be troubled by Paul’s restriction regarding the wearing of “braided hair.” So, does Paul really have some type of weird hangup regarding “braided hair?”

Again, a careful reading of the text shows that it is the combination of “braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,” not “braided hair” by itself. The inclusion of “costly attire” should be evidence that there is a big difference between a modest set of ear rings, versus showing up at church with a $25,000 necklace, combined with some over-the-top hairstyling.

New Testament scholar Steven Baugh notes that by the mid-first-century, “women’s hairstyles had developed into elaborate curls, braids, high wigs, pins, and hair ornaments that were quickly copied by the well-to-do throughout the empire.” The historical evidence shows that wealthy women were following the same fashionable trends of the Roman cultural elite, as a means of flaunting their wealth. Paul would have been consistently applying the Scriptural principle of modest dress, by condemning such flaunting of wealth, in Timothy’s church in Ephesus. The flaunting of wealth inevitably shames those believers, who do not possess great wealth, the type of messaging that the Apostle Paul strongly sought to discourage. Baugh concludes: “Today, it is the equivalent of warning Christians away from imitating styles set by promiscuous pop singers or actresses. How one dresses can convey rebellious or ungodly messages whether intended or not.1

Remember this, too: The focus should be on how we ourselves understand what makes someone beautiful. This is not an excuse to cast a condescending eye on others.

Far from being a psychologically prudish hangup, on the part of the Apostle Paul, Paul’s instructions to Timothy, advocating the modesty of women’s external appearance, is a specific application of a timeless Scripture principle. Should Christians today be embarrassed by what Scripture says here? Absolutely not. While a 21st century Christian might apply the principle differently, according to the fashions of our day, the principle remains the same. The Bible consistently seeks to accentuate the inward beauty of a believer, while warning against the display of external extravagance, designed to shame others or to be inappropriately sexually provocative.2

Notes:

1. Steven Baugh, “A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century,” p. 54-55, in Women and the Church, 3rd Edition

2. For more detail, please consult chapter 36, of David A. Croteau, Urban Legends of the New Testament: 40 Common Misconceptions, on “Women Should Not Wear Jewelry,” p. 210-214..