On Monday, January 19, 2015, selected movie theatres across the country will be showing a special documentary film, Patterns of Evidence. The story is about a filmmaker, Timothy Mahoney, who had a crisis of faith when he learned from the consensus of critically minded scholars that the Exodus, the famous story of Moses leading the people out of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea,… NEVER HAPPENED.
Well, at least, that is the conclusion that is drawn from many archaeologists of the ancient Bible periods. True, the study of archaeology has yet to provide demonstrative evidence confirming the Biblical account of the Exodus. Therefore, many come to the conclusion that the Exodus was simply a “made up” part of the Bible. In other words, the story in the Bible is just as fictional as Ridley Scott’s version of it in Exodus: Gods and Kings, introduced with extensive background discussion to the archaeological issues involved here earlier on Veracity. But is there another way to approach this issue and arrive at a different conclusion?
In Mahoney’s documentary film, he looks at the possibility that the search for the Exodus has focused on the wrong time and place. Having not seen the film myself, I can not myself offer a review, but you may want to look at the following reviews from Answers in Genesis and the Gospel Coalition.
To find a film showing for this one night in your area according to zip code, look here. (In Williamsburg, Virginia, it is at 7pm at the High Street Movie Tavern). A 6:30 pm discussion led by Fox News commentator Gretchen Carlson and featuring author Anne Graham Lotz, Eric Metaxas, Father Jonathan Morris, and Dennis Prager precedes the film. If you attend the film, I would like hear your thoughts about it, as I am not sure myself that Mahoney’s case is without difficulties. Take a skeptical friend. It is sure to be controversial and generate plenty of conversation. Does the filmmaker make a convincing case?
UPDATE: January 20
Check out the Veracity review of the film by viewing the comments section below, given by Veracity’s own John Paine. Thanks, John!
When speaking of people and their beliefs I wear my belief on my sleeve;
I believe that people believe what they believe they believe.
When people reject a truth or an untruth it is not because it is a truth or an untruth that they reject it,
No, if it isn’t in accord with their beliefs in the first place they simply say, “Nothing doing,” and refuse to inspect it.
Likewise when they embrace a truth or an untruth it is not for either its truth or its mendacity,
But simply because they have believed it all along and therefore regard the embrace as a tribute to their own fair-mindedness and sagacity.
These are enlightened days in which you can get hot water and cold water out of the same spigot,
And everybody has something about which they are proud to be broad-minded but they also have other things about which you would be wasting your breath if you tried to convince them that they were a bigot,
And I have no desire to get ugly,
But I cannot help mentioning that the door of the bigoted mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly.
Naturally I am not pointing a finger at me,
But I must admit that I find any speaker far more convincing when I agree with him then when I disagree.
The article has generated A LOT of responses, so many that I think it would be best to list out some of the more prominent ones. The original Newsweek article is extremely long, but it is worth taking some time to go through it as it adequately illustrates many of the most common objections and confusions regarding Christianity and the Bible that you will encounter today among secularly-minded thinkers, or those thinkers who wish to reshape Christian faith to look more “modern.” But you should also read a few of the responses as an aid to help you develop an informed response to Eichenwald’s many complaints. It is great way to get an education on some critical issues in doing Christian apologetics in a skeptical world. Some of what Eichenwald says presents challenging difficulties for the Christian, while much of what he says, if not the bulk of it, can be answered in a manner that effectively communicates an honorable confidence in God’s Word:
Michael Kruger (Reformed Seminary in Charlotte, N.C.) has two articles (#1 and #2 ), but what is most valuable is that Mr. Eichenwald offers some rejoinders to Kruger’s critique in the comments section.
Ben Witherington (Asbury Seminary, Kentucky) offers a response from an evangelical Wesleyan perspective.
For a response from the more conservative wing of mainstream Protestantism, this detailed response from Robert Gagnon (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) fills in some of the gaps left by others in their critiques.
Kurt Eichenwald has repeatedly said that some of the responses to his Christmas essay from Christians were loaded with “vitriol” and “name calling.” Perhaps Eichenwald has this series of video responses in mind ( you have to scroll past much of the unedited chatter in places, but you can look here: #1 and #2)by Reformed apologist James A. White (Alpha-Omega Ministries), but I will let the viewer be the judge of that.
In addition to the well-known agnostic Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), Mr. Eichenwald leans heavily on the critical views of Jason David BeDuhn, professor of Comparative Study of Religions, at Northern Arizona University. BeDuhn, in this essay, responds to a critique of the Newsweek article by Southern Baptist Seminary head, Al Mohler.
In my view, the best and most thorough response is from Darrell Bock (Dallas Seminary). If you only have time to read one of these, pick either the Dan Wallace one linked above or this one by Bock.
The latest response from Newsweek itself is that they agreed to publish the following rejoinder by messianic scholar Michael Brown. In Newsweek’s introduction to Dr. Brown’s essay, they still stand by Eichenwald’s original story, in an effort to promote discussion. Furthermore, they announced that Dr. Brown has invited Mr. Eichenwald to be on his Line of Fire radio program the week of January 19.
Duke University is probably best known for its legendary college basketball team, but perhaps now it will be remembered in a different way. Though founded by Methodists and Quakers in Durham, North Carolina, Duke recently announced that the Muslim student group would be allowed to chant their weekly call-to-prayer from the Duke Chapel bell tower on Fridays. Even though the Chapel also rings its church bells for Christian services on Sundays, the controversy over the chanting of the adhan led the University to rethink its decision to allow the Islamic call-to-prayer in such a demonstrably public manner.
The folks at Duke probably should have contacted some folks at the College of William and Mary before making their initial decision. Alas, the intendedly noble desire to promote religious pluralism and stand against discrimination yet again runs afoul of honoring the historically Christian heritage of these now secularized institutions of higher learning.
I recently finished reading Philip Jenkins’ The Lost History of Christianity, and the incident at Duke made me think of Jenkins’ recounting of historically Christian lands in Africa and Asia having church bells ringing for hundreds of years before the Islamic invasions that began in the late 7th century. Over the centuries, the dhimmi status of the Christian population eventually led to the de-Christianization of these areas. The bells that announced the Christian call to worship were becoming less and less while the Islamic adhan soon dominated the soundscape, as formerly Christian communities were converting to Islam.
Is the situation different now? Duke University surely has a relatively small yet active evangelical Christian presence, but officially the school is only nominally connected to its Methodist and Quaker roots. Do that many Duke students, faculty and staff pay attention to the bells that ring on a Sunday morning? What difference would the Islamic call-to-prayer make on a Friday?
UPDATE: Friday, January 16
This was supposed to be the first day that the Islamic call-to-prayer would be made from bell tower of the historic Duke Chapel, but the university announced that the call-to-prayer will be moved to a different part of campus because of the controversy. Sadly, part of the university’s decision was due to a credible threat of violence. These type of threats should be greatly troubling to the followers of Jesus.
As an aside, the update news article linked above notes that most students at Duke were supportive of the university’s original policy proposal. Is the student support for the call-to-prayer from the Chapel bell tower primarily an indicator of a commitment to religious plurality in public life, or is it partly due to an ignorance of Christian history? I wonder.
As you might imagine, truth is a very important topic on a blog named Veracity. Veracity is a one-word description of the Bible. The Bible is true. Most people really have no idea how true. Unfortunately, some believe that it is true because they feel it is true. Others hope that it is true without ever really knowing how true it really is. Agnostics doubt that it is true. Skeptics believe it is untrue.
So how important is it that your faith be based on truth? It sounds like a silly question, but it has profound personal implications. When you engage others about your faith, do you say things like, “This happened to me,” or ” I feel that…”? Unfortunately, these type of statements can point to a subjective faith. But Christianity is much truer than that.
Veracity is also a one-word description for Jesus Christ, taken from his own words:
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6
So, ultimately, truth is a person. Got it. Plain and simple. But is it an objective truth?
I’m currently preparing to teach a class on personal discipleship, which we define here at Veracity as “the process in which a believer or seeker takes personal responsibility for investigating the claims and content of the Bible.” It is personal and inherently objective. And it should be.
The class will be full of mature Christians. Many of these folks have spent a lifetime studying the Bible, and can offer encouragement to anyone who wants to ask questions. They have encouraged me. I’m hoping to give back by delving a little more deeply and father off the sacred page than most are accustomed to exploring. It will require an open mind that thirsts for the truth. No dogma, no “This is the way I’ve always thought it to be,” and no fear of what we might discover. If successful, some may find a more intimate appreciation of the Bible and the veracity of their faith. But it requires an honest assessment of our biases (we all have them), and an open and objective mind.
A retired cop?! Yup. J. Warner Wallace was a keynote speaker at the 2014 National Conference on Christian Apologetics. When my friends and I were looking at the conference syllabus, we had heard of his ministry but it sounded pretty much like a shtick to us—“A cold-case homicide detective looks at the Resurrection.” But we were blown away at his sessions. He is likely one of the most gifted rhetoricians you will ever hear. There’s nothing wrong with good rhetoric—St. Augustine of Hippo was a professor of rhetoric and one of the most influential thinkers in the early Christian church. Martin Luther King, Jr. successfully persuaded the majority of Americans that racism is wrong and that it was time for the country to move in a more just direction. We need good rhetoric.
By way of background, Jim Wallace had a storied career as a homicide investigator in Torrance, California. Right before he spoke at the Charlotte conference, his last case was chronicled on the TV news program NBC Dateline. (Four of his cases have been featured on Dateline—he never lost a single case in his career as a cold-case homicide detective.) It was the oldest homicide cold case ever brought to trial in the United States, and the defendant’s lawyer was none other than Robert Shapiro, the famous Hollywood attorney from the O.J. Simpson case. It was Shapiro’s last court case. You can watch the NBC Dateline video to see what happened.
I will show some of his remarkably persuasive and compelling videos during the upcoming personal discipleship course but want to put this one out to Veracity readers. The truth matters—if we’re not after the truth, what’s the point in studying the Bible?
