September 2, 2022

End of Summer 2022 Round-Up!!

By Clarke Morledge

This summer was amazingly hectic for me with my job at the College of William and Mary. One phrase summarizes my summer: Supply chain delays. But now that students are back on campus, things are starting to settle down.

What follows is my attempt to recap some things that have made me think a lot, so far this year…. Bart Ehrman, “women in ministry,” where do you get your news, David McCullough, Roe vs. Wade, Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, what is the best argument for the Resurrection, the “Late-Date” theory for the Exodus, Henry Emerson Fosdick 100 years later, “progressive Christianity,” divine hiddenness, and analytic philosophy.

A bit disjointed for sure, but all very important. I have a bunch of thoughts, but instead of individual blog posts about each topic, I will try to keep things fairly short, and include the summaries below. Read on!! ….

Blogging Recap… Featuring Bart Ehrman

I have written several blogs this year that I put quite a bit of thought into, after reading several books on my bike ride commutes to work. The longest series is on the “historical criticism” of the Bible, some of its history dating back to the 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza, how “historical criticism” has both positively and negatively impacted the church, and offering a sample of Bible passages, with a model of doing “historical criticism” in a nuanced way, that appreciates the value of allowing historical method to inform our interpretation of the Bible, without slipping into unnecessary skepticism of the Bible’s divine inspiration.

My fundamental claim, in a nutshell, is that the most common methodology employed by historical critics like Bart Ehrman, as well as “Progressive Christians” who adopt the same methodology, is that they believe that you can only do proper historical research on the Bible by treating it like any other piece of human literature, which in their minds, implies that you must bracket off claims regarding the inspired nature of the Scriptural text as being the very Word of God, at least temporarily. If you fail to bracket that off, you ironically risk distorting the interpretation of the text. Historical critics like Bart Ehrman says the Bible is inherently contradictory, and so he dismisses attempts to try to harmonize Scriptural texts, even in the most nuanced way, as actually obscuring what the Bible is trying to tell us.

I contend that this approach is a false dichotomy. Scripture can be studied as human literature within its historical context while simultaneously affirming the Bible as being the inspired Word of God. A scholar like a Bart Ehrman would disagree. Read the posts for yourself to see if I have made a compelling case contrary to Ehrman.

I am increasingly concerned that the negative impact of “historical criticism” that in the 20th century wrecked havoc in mainline Protestantism is now creeping into certain areas of less denominationally oriented evangelicalism, in a way that most evangelicals are completely unaware of. I will just leave it at that.

The most substantial book review was for Bart Ehrman’s Heaven and Hell. I had not read through a Bart Ehrman book before, with such detail. I can see why Ehrman has so many followers. I am just surprised that there have not been any Bart Ehrman fans who have jumped down on me and made critical comments on the blog yet. I strongly disagree with Bart on many points, but I have to concede that he articulates probably the most cogent critical view that I have read attacking the reliability of the New Testament, which partly explains why he is such a popular author. Plus, I would describe him as an honest non-believer, who does not try to pretend that he is a Christian. His interest in Christianity is primarily historical, trying to make sense of Jesus of Nazareth, the single most influential person in the world who has ever lived. If you want to understand why so many educated people reject the Bible as being authoritative, you better read Bart Ehrman. The chances are high that some highly educated “former” Christian you know, or someone who is going through a faith “deconstruction,” has read some Bart Ehrman.

.

An Update on the Complementarian/Egalitarian Divide in Evangelicalism

I also read a couple of books on the “women in ministry” controversy again. I really hate that title, but it is more useful and familiar than the nerdy theological category of complementarianism versus egalitarianism. I wrote extensive critical reviews of both an egalitarian and complementarian authors’ books, but I put a bunch of YouTube video links from Mike Winger’s excellent series into the complementarian review blog post, linked down at the very end.  So far, as of the posting of this blog post, Winger is up to nine (9) deep-dive sessions on the topic!

A large chasm exists between a “broad” complementarian, like a Kevin DeYoung, and an egalitarian, like a Lucy Peppiatt, whereas a “soft” complementarian, like a Mike Winger, stands at a more responsible place in the middle. To put it another way, one side tends to go to the extreme of wanting to “bring back the patriarchy” whereas the other side wants to squash “toxic masculinity.” I believe there is a different way forward. Some egalitarian Christians that I have interacted with think Winger has not made a compelling case for his viewpoint. But invariably few of them are willing to patiently view any of his two hour videos. That does not seem fair to me. I wish I could find the egalitarian view convincing, but the circumstantial evidence brought forward by the egalitarian side seems to come up disappointingly short. I wish this was not the case.

Nevertheless, I still hold high regard for evangelical Christians who are egalitarian in their convictions. My main concern is not in the specific conclusions that are drawn, but rather, I am concerned about the hermeneutical methods that some use to draw their conclusions.  A faulty hermeneutic in one area of reading the Bible can lead to other distortions of Scripture in other areas.

.

So, Where Do You Get Your News?

We do not live in the 1970s anymore. Gone are the days of three major television news outlets, CBS, ABC, and NBC nightly news programs, and the hegemony of newspaper publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post. For most of the 1990s, I narrowed down the options even more: The only time I bothered with listening to the news was on my evening commutes with NPR’s All Things Considered playing on the radio. Today, we get our news from various sources, which all give us conflicting and contradictory views of the world, which pretty much makes civil discourse in society today near to impossible.

As the risk of being controversial, I am now a member of the “I stopped listening to NPR when… ” club.

I try to steer clear of exclusively of heavily biased news sources. Occasionally, I will read longer pieces by liberal outlets like the New York Times, but I try to balance it out with stories from the much more conservative Wall Street Journal.  My wife likes listening to The World and Everything In it, the daily news podcast put out by WORLD News Group, which styles itself like a conservative evangelical alternative to NPR’s All Things Considered. WORLD has gotten better over the years, but recent staff upheavals at WORLD make me a little leery as to its future.

I pretty much stick with Ground.News, a secular outfit that ranks the bias of various news organizations when reporting stories, which I find quite helpful.  But I have decided to try the PourOver email newsletter and podcast, as it offers to give a Christian perspective on the news while trying its best to steer clear of heavy bias, without flooding your brain, as it only comes out three times a week. So far the PourOver is a very refreshing approach to the news.

.

The Late David McCullough

While the bulk of what is posted on the Veracity blog is an Christian apologetics, my other love is for church history ( and history more broadly). Not too long ago the popular American historian David McCullough died. For me he models what a good historian does. He was the author of various best sellers, including 1776 and John Adams.

Christian blogger Joel J. Miller has a nice remembrance of McCullough on his blog.

At the risk of being a little controversial, blogger Samuel D. James has some insightful thoughts regarding what Christians can learn from McCullough. James points out that some recent Christian books criticizing evangelicalism historically have fallen into a bad habit. In the most memorable quote by James, one particular author “wanted me to see the subjects of her history the way she sees them, not as how they saw themselves. How they interpreted their lives and beliefs was of little consequence. How the generations after them interpreted them was everything. This is the kind of history that gets people angry and eager to deconstruct whatever they sense is tainted by moral failure…. What renews my soul about reading David McCullough’s work is that it doesn’t do this.”  Now that is provocative, but I am inclined to think that James is right, based on some other writings I have read along the same lines.

.

The Overturning of Roe vs. Wade

Like a lot of people, I was really surprised when the U.S Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, earlier this year. On the other hand, I am not convinced that the court’s verdict will have a lasting impact on public opinion about abortion, though I could easily be wrong. By putting the issue back in front of the states, the legislative debates will surely continue and get really complicated on a state by state basis. Perhaps the only solution will be something like an amendment to the federal constitution to ultimately settle the matter, and I do not see that as happening anytime soon. The main reason for thinking this is that even if extensive anti-abortion laws get passed, it might be almost impossible to enforce them. Without public support, passing unpopular laws will probably achieve little.

Marvin Olasky, an outspoken pro-life journalist, agrees citing what we know from history: “From the 1840s through the 1940s, public opinion concerning abortion was more negative than it is now, but even during that era, enforcement of abortion bans was rare. Millions of abortions occurred during that century, but only a tiny percentage of doctors did prison time. It was hard to get police to arrest, juries to convict, or judges to support jury decisions and turn down appeals.” As the subtitle of his article in Christianity Today declares, “Looking ahead, Christians should focus less on enforcement than on changing cultural attitudes.”

In the meantime, I am grateful for friends who work in or otherwise support crisis pregnancy centers that offer assistance to those in need. In my area of Williamsburg, Virginia, the closest center is CareNet Peninsula. They do great work there. It is through such efforts that perhaps there will be a day when abortion becomes an unthinkable option for people faced with such difficult decisions.

The “right to life” cause, in the political sphere, is primarily an effort led by Christians, as Bible readers seek to make their moral convictions known within the public arena. There are notable exceptions to this, as the late and famed New Atheist Christopher Hitchens opposed abortion. But by and large, I doubt if we will see a remarkable surge in support of the “right to life” until we have a massive wave of Christian spiritual revival in the West. That can only come about by prayer and evangelization, which means in part engaging in the type of apologetics being promoted here on the Veracity blog. Interestingly, history shows us that as more and more people came to Christ in the Roman Empire, in the first 500 years of the church, that this shifted public opinion away from promoting abortion. As more people embraced the Gospel, the less support there was for abortion. Perhaps this can be a lesson for us in the 21st century.

I just recently ran across a short, Tik-Tok type video, put out by one of my favorite YouTube apologists, Michael Jones, at Inspiring Philosophy, who addresses the objection that the Bible actually sanctions induced abortions, based on Numbers 5:27. I have been hearing the Numbers 5:27 pro-abortion argument a lot lately, and really did not know how to respond to it, until I saw Jones’ video. Jones argues that the NIV translation is unlikely, and explains what might be a much better translation. Worth checking out:

.

The Return of Jordan Peterson

While the world was swirling in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the outspoken Canadian psychologist, Jordan Peterson, had a close brush with death of another kind. As a result of a successful nation hoping medical tour, Peterson finally made it out of this crisis and is back on the public stage. Many have described Jordan Peterson’s teachings as a “gateway drug” to Christianity, and I believe this is correct.

Alas, I need to get up on my soapbox for a minute: Oddly, there are a number of Christians I know who do not like Jordan Peterson, and interestingly they (almost) all seem to be egalitarians. Some of whom I respect think Peterson is a secular-type of Mark Driscoll, which I kind of get, but at the same time, I really think this misses the point. Just because Mark Driscoll turned out to fail a lot of people miserably does not mean that the need he was trying to address was false. At the same time, a lot of critics who are not so impressed with Peterson also admit that the need for men to take responsibility, as a way of finding purpose in life, is still essential. Is that not what Peterson’s message boils down to? I am left scratching my head.

The following video by Peterson is perhaps the best short video supporting a psychological apologetic for complementarianism, urging Christians to stop downgrading men with constant talk about “toxic masculinity” and instead challenging young men to step forward and take responsibility, as a matter of Christian virtue. As Peterson argues, by supporting young men this will have a positive impact on young women as well. Plus, I believe that taking seriously Peterson’s argument will go a long ways towards trimming back the number of mass shootings, which are almost universally committed by young, disaffected and lonely males, longing for a sense of visionary purpose in life…. and that ranges from the Uvalde, Texas elementary school shooter, who had no father figure in his life, to the May 2022 racist shooter in Buffalo, N.Y. where as a child, he felt he did not have “that much importance” to his family, and that “my parents know little about me,” despite outward appearances that he had a nice, balanced family life.

I know that as Peterson, as an agnostic, does not have the best command of certain particulars of Bible translation, and that he should “stay in his lane,” so to speak. This video has sparked numerous, thoughtful reflections by Christians, pointing out the things that Peterson got right in the video, while acknowledging his shortcomings. With that in mind, I commend the effort the Peterson is putting forward, and I am befuddled as to why so many believing Christians find his message so off-putting. Perhaps it is because we as Christians are at times too prideful? Sometimes it helps to receive the rebuke from someone outside of the church, like Jordan Peterson, as a prophetic challenge to Christians to wake up out of our slumber.

Nevertheless, we should not define doctrine based on what Jordan Peterson says, but rather we should look to the Bible as our final authority. Jennie Pollock, a blogger in the U.K., has a nice short essay summarizing what she says, “Why I love my complementarian church.”

As a bonus, I found a really provocative approach to the issue of having “women as elders” by Dr. Gerry Breshears. In the following video interview by Preston Sprinkle, Breshears argues as a “soft” complementarian that only qualified men are to serve as local church elders, but interestingly, this has NOTHING to do with hierarchy. In fact, Breshears contends that neither Paul nor Timothy would have qualified to become church elders, even though Paul was an apostle and Timothy was the undisputed leader of the church in Ephesus. Agree or not, Dr. Breshears’ presentation will turn your head upside down on this (as it did mine!):

.

Alex Jones, Sandy Hook, and Conspiracy-Theory Driven “Christianity”

There is just some absolutely crazy stuff going on at the fringes of the evangelical Christian world. The story of Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist who was recently sued by parents of a child killed by the Sandy Hook mass shooter, says that he is a “Christian.“

Author Elizabeth Williamson has written a whole book about this, An American Tragedy and the Battle for Truth, something I want to put on my reading list. Here is part of the promotional flyer on the cover for the book: “On December 14, 2012, a gunman killed twenty first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Ten years later, Sandy Hook has become a foundational story of how false conspiracy narratives and malicious misinformation have gained traction in society….One of the nation’s most devastating mass shootings, Sandy Hook was used to create destructive and painful myths. Driven by ideology or profit, or for no sound reason at all, some people insisted it never occurred, or was staged by the federal government as a pretext for seizing Americans’ firearms. They tormented the victims’ relatives online, accosted them on the street and at memorial events, accusing them of faking their loved ones’ murders. Some family members have been stalked and forced into hiding. A gun was fired into the home of one parent.”

As Williamson argues, the professing “Christian” Alex Jones was propagating this conspiracy theory, repeatedly using his InfoWars platform to spread these lies, influencing his followers to threaten some of those Sandy Hook parents. Over time, Jones eventually started to back off on such claims, but it took a number of years before he finally emphatically admitting that the killings were real, during this summer’s trial. Why it took Jones so long to admit his errors is baffling. Was it all just for show? Why he continues to propagate further lies and just plain odd behavior is even more troubling.

The testimony of this mother of one of the kids murdered at Sandy Hook, confronting the lies that Alex Jones continues to spread is heart-wrenching:

I do not know enough about the story, other than this, but the connection between such far-out conspiracy theories and such proponents claiming to be Christian is incredibly bizarre. The damage done by these conspiratorial theorizing defies the mind.

How is it that so many other professing “evangelical Christians” appear to be taken in by this stuff? Well, it appears that there is some research now that might help to explain what is going on. A growing number of professed “evangelical Christians” have been leaving the church. Some estimates indicate that such “unchurched” evangelical Christians now make up the largest religious group in the American South, an absolutely stunning statistic.

You read that right: the largest religious group in the American South are unchurched people claiming to be evangelical Christians.

Effectively, we have a steadily growing number of people who are leaving churches, while still claiming to be Christian, who are no longer being discipled by churches but who are instead being discipled by right-wing media outlets, that claim to promote Christian values. Historian Daniel K. Williams summarizes it like this: “Data suggests that, when their attendance drops, these nominal Christians become hyper-individualistic, devoted to law and order, cynical about systems, and distrustful of others.”

I can believe Williams because I know of a several  professing Christians who have pretty much given up on going to church. They are not Sandy Hook conspiracy promoters, but they follow the same pattern that Williams summarizes.

As a reaction against this, I also know of several professed “Progressive Christians” who have a negative view of conservative evangelical faith, particularly that which often carries the label of “Christian nationalism.” But it might help such friends of mine to consider that perhaps what they are reacting against is not actual Christianity being practiced in our churches, but rather, they are reacting against a kind of fake Christianity practiced by professing “Christians” who would rather stay home and watch conservative media outlets on television instead of going to a vibrant Christian fellowship on Sunday mornings, and otherwise actively becoming part of some community, where they might get discipled in the faith.

Just something to think about.

.

Dispute over the Minimal versus Maximal Facts Argument for the Resurrection

For some reason that I fail to grasp, there is an ongoing debate as to which is better, the minimal facts or the maximal facts argument for the Resurrection. In short, my answer is, use whatever argument that will help your interlocutor take a step closer to Jesus.

Christian apologist and YouTuber Mike Winger is a bit simplistic here, but he has a decent short summary of each approach:

The minimal facts argument, articulated best by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, suggests that we limit the evidence used in our argument to those facts that the widest spectrum of biblical scholars and historians, ranging from conservative to liberal, will most reasonably accept. For example, many scholars and historians today believe that the Apostle Paul only wrote 7 of the 13 letters in the New Testament attributed in him. Also, many scholars suggest that a good deal of the material we have in the Gospels is historically unreliable, much of it being the product of the early church placing ideas and words on the lips of Jesus. For people who are to some degree aware of what such scholars and historians say, the minimal facts approach will probably meet the least amount of resistance. Nevertheless, the goal is to try to persuade people that Christians can be thoughtful and still believe in the Resurrection at the same time, so that inquirers might consider taking further steps in having a deeper understanding of what the implications of the Resurrection are, so that they might embrace the whole of the Christian message.

Alternatively, the maximal facts approach suggests that we use the entire arsenal of evidence from the New Testament to make our case for the Resurrection. My thought is that we should use whatever approach makes sense, based on the assumptions made by the audience with whom we are engaging. If someone follows the broad scholarly opinion, I would lead with the minimal facts argument. If someone is willing to accept the whole of the New Testament as historically reliable, or is at least fairly open to it, then I would use the maximal facts approach instead.

In other words, Christians should invest the necessary time to be able communicate both arguments, both the minimal facts and the maximal facts approach in their evangelistic conversation. Since in my experience, most Christians I know are not familiar with the minimal facts approach at all, and that they tend to fumble their way through some variation of the maximal facts approach, it would be the most wisest thing to learn both approaches, with their pluses and minuses.

The key is this: Know your audience. Adjust your argument accordingly so that you keep the discussion on track, in hopes that your friend will take a closer step to knowing Jesus. Pretty straightforward, to me, at least.

.

Why I am a Late-Date Proponent of the Exodus

I have written a several blog posts over the years, making a case for the Scriptural account of the Exodus, while acknowledging that there is a good Scriptural evidence that the traditional view of the number of Israelites being about 2 to 4 million involved is actually way over inflated. My most visited blog post on Veracity deals with this issue.

I have come to conclude that the so-called “late date” theory of when the Exodus occurred is probably the best explanation of both the Scriptural archaeological data, as YouTuber apologist Michael Jones, and his Egyptologist consultant, Dr. David A. Falk, suggest. Here are some of the latest and best YouTube videos that dig into the details. I am still open to changing my mind on all of this, but to date, this position seems to be the best argument to make to support the historicity of the Exodus:

Lest anyone think I am being unfair here, you might want to listen to the following interview that Sean McDowell did with archaeologist Dr. Titus Kennedy, who favors an early date (15th c. BCE) versus Jones/Falk’s late date (13th c. BCE) proposal. Jones was previously an early date advocate, like Kennedy, but was convinced on the late date (as I am) by Dr. Falk. If you are still persuaded by the early date proposal, let me just say that the late date proposal, in my view, is easier to defend with non-believers, regarding the historicity of the Exodus. At some point, I hope to do a whole blog series regarding the historicity issue of the Exodus, but that’ll be some time far off into the future!!

I could be wrong about the “Late-Date” (13th century). The “Early-Date” (15th century) could be correct. Whatever I am, I am not impressed by chariot wheels stories passed around by Ron Wyatt. No Christian archaeologist is either.

As a bonus, here is another cool video from Inspiring Philosophy about the stopping of the sun moving in Joshua 10:

.

Shall the Fundamentalists Win? – Harry Emerson Fosdick 100 Years Later

On May 21, 1922, Henry Emerson Fosdick, a Baptist serving in a New York City Presbyterian Church, preached a most (in)famous sermon entitled, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” Fosdick’s sermon was a tipping point in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the early 20th century, that led to the split between liberal mainline Protestants and conservative evangelical fundamentalists in America, during the 1920s. One hundred years later, church historian Darryl Hart discusses the impact of this sermon on the church today.

.

The Debate over Defining “Progressive Christianity”

Alisa Childers’ popular book 2020 Another Gospel?: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity continues to stir controversy among evangelical believers. At the heart of the issue is the question: So what exactly is “progressive Christianity?” I gave my answer about a year ago, but Childers’ book continues to invigorate intense conversation. Try listening to this dialogue between Randal Rauser and Douglas Groothius:

The problem with “progressive Christianity” really is about definition of terms, but it also points to the difficulty in being able to know where to draw the line between essentials and non-essentials of Christian faith. In the 20th century, the line between liberal mainline Protestantism and conservative evangelicalism was pretty clear. Here in the 21st century, this is not the case any more, as the term “evangelical” gets played around with a lot. In my view, it is better to err on the side against progressive Christianity.

But it gets complicated. Part of the growth of progressive Christianity is a reaction against another growing trend of self-proclaimed “conservative evangelical” Christians who no longer attend church (as I noted above). According to historian Daniel K. Williams, the category of lapsed and non-church-attending “evangelicals: are now the largest religious body in the South, the home of the “Bible Belt.” In other words, more and more “progressive Christians” attend churches where they react against so-called “conservative evangelicals,” or “Christian nationalists,” who rarely enter the door of a church. What a mess.

In defense of Alisa Childers, I must say that in the various videos that I have seen, Childers is actually quite honest and revealing that “progressive Christianity” is indeed a very loose and difficult concept to define, as various “progressive Christians” will often contradict one another. For some reason, Randal Rauser does not see this. Perhaps this is because Alisa’s book comes across as less nuanced, and I will admit that I have not read her book, so Randal might be right. Still, I think she has a good approach to this, even when I do not completely agree with every particular position she takes on certain issues. I would say that her journey away from egalitarianism to complementarianism is a perspective that does not get discussed that much.

To her credit, Alisa Childers has a quite revealing interview with Bobby Conway, the One-Minute Apologist, who actually went through his own deconstruction process a few years after he started his One-Minute Apologist YouTube channel. As he describes in the video, the destructive behavior that resulted from his deconstruction process cost him his job as a church pastor, but thankfully he has been in recovery since then.

.

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness

If there was one area where I think that both atheists and even progressive Christians raise a good question, that I personally struggle with, it has to do with the problem of divine hiddenness. To put it briefly: “Why doesn’t God seem to reveal himself to people who are open and seeking him?” This is something I have to do some more thinking about, so I am not making any claims here. Many Christians tell me that the reason why God sometimes seems silent in a person’s life is because that person has some sort of sin impeding their ability or receptibility to actually hear from or see God at work. I am not so sure about that at this point, but I am willing to learn more. Justin Brierley at “Premier Unbelievable?” invited atheist Alex O’Connor (aka Cosmic Skeptic) and Christian apologist Lukas Ruegger to discuss the issue on the Unbelievable? YouTube channel and podcast. This (and the following) video I probably need to listen to a few times before I finally have some remedial grasp:

Philosopher Liz Jackson was also interviewed a couple of years ago on this very topic:

…. and then there is this…..

.

And Finally….. A Christian Approach to Philosophy

I want to introduce you all to a fairly new friend of mine. Dr. Philip Swenson teaches philosophy at the College of William and Mary. I met Philip through the ministry of the Cambridge House, a Christian study center serving the campus community at William and Mary, here in Williamsburg. Dr. Swenson, as you will see below, has interests in the area of free will and responsibility, where he talks about stuff like Monism and compatibilism, and other fancy ideas that I can barely pronounce. Frankly, philosophy at this level is not really my area, but I still enjoy learning things from Philip. You may agree or disagree with him, but the main thing is that Philip loves Jesus!

Recently, Philip told me that he has a few interviews up on a Christian apologetics YouTube channel. So, if you think that Christians are dumb anti-intellectuals, the following videos will cure you of that misguided notion (HA-HA!!). Philip has an interesting background, having grown up in a charismatic church but currently attends a Missouri Synod Lutheran church. What a combination. He was recently interviewed a couple of times on the Analytic Christian YouTube channel (the last video is response by another Christian philosopher, Justin Mooney at Denison University, in defense of Molinism). I will probably have to listen to these a few times myself to get everything, but for those who appreciate analytic philosophy from a Christian perspective, here ya go!!

.

…. For the Rest of 2022….

I have started reading a couple of other books which I hope to complete when my wife and I go on vacation later in the Fall. For example, I am near the end of reading a book on “Divine Violence” in the Bible, which has been very helpful to think through during this age of the ongoing war in the Ukraine.

Also, I FINALLY got around to reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, which I have been putting off for about 40 years, and that is no joke. Why did I wait so long? Mere Christianity is really an excellent book, one of the best apologetic books I have ever read. Look for a book review coming out fairly soon. Stay tuned!!

.

…. Oh, and Just For Fun….

Found the following video, from a bluegrass band, Southern Raised, performing (oddly enough) the song “Thunderstruck” as an instrumental. Their YouTube channel describes them as a Christian band, but I must say that their version of this well-known song by the Australian heavy-metal rockers, AC-DC, is much better than the original. Lot’s of fun… just wait ’till mid-way towards the end!

3 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Apologetics, Topics

August 19, 2022

On David Bentley Hart’s Tradition and Apocalypse: An Overview of the Dispute

By Clarke Morledge

When two theological heavyweights clash with one another, the ensuing dialogue can be fireworks. But one can learn a lot about the state of the church from such disputes.

The immensely erudite and (apparently recently) idiosyncratic Eastern Orthodox David Bentley Hart published an extended essay, Tradition and Apocalypse: An Essay on the Future of Christian Belief (Listen to this summary in Hart’s own words). Hart has been one of the greatest theological voices undermining the pretentiousness of the New Atheist movement. In exposing the fault lines of thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, Hart’s Atheist Delusions has been regarded as one of the finest polemical works against early 21st century atheism.

Alas, Hart’s star has since fallen after his That All Shall Be Saved, a bold and dogmatically absolutist defense of a Christian universalism, which argues that while there is still a future hell and divine judgment, that experience of hell is ultimately purgative and redeeming, such that none are ultimately lost in the very end.

Like what former megachurch pastor and now California surfer and podcaster Rob Bell strongly hinted at, and what the author of the evangelical blockbuster novel, The Shack, William Paul Young finally came out and admitted, at least to a certain degree, the brilliant and exceedingly well-read David Bentley Hart has whole-heartedly endorsed a theological position that has historically been condemned by the vast majority of Christians. Hart does not care. Anyone who disagrees with him about universalism is effectively morally challenged, in his view, and he is not afraid to unload condescension on his critics.

That was just a few years ago. Now that this previous storm has passed, he has yet again triggered even more controversy.

Continue reading

5 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Apologetics

August 5, 2022

Do You Know About “Heavenly Mother”?

By Clarke Morledge

On a late spring day earlier this year, I was enjoying a walk across the college campus where I work to grab a sandwich from Chick-fil-A, when two young men approached me and asked, “Do you know what the Bible says about our ‘Heavenly Mother’?”

I must admit, I found this to be an interesting ice breaker, in order to start a conversation. Curious, I stuffed my hot sandwich away, and asked for more information. My spicy chicken would have to wait.

Out came their Bibles, heavily highlighted, with penciled in cross references. “Our Heavenly Mother is taught in the Bible from beginning to end.” I was intrigued. I mean, how often do you get hit up with an on-the-spot Bible study? “Tell me more,” I responded.

For the next twenty minutes, I was given a whirlwind tour through the Bible, from beginning to end. First, I was shown Genesis 1:26–27, which talks on page one about God creating men and women in “our” image. The “our” is God “the Father” and….

… you guessed it,… our “Heavenly Mother.”

Just in case there was any doubt, they took me right over to the end of the Bible, at Revelation 21:9-10 and 22:17.

Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,…..

…. The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

The message here is that the “bride” is interpreted to mean our “Heavenly Mother,” otherwise known as “God the Mother.” The “Bride, the wife of the Lamb” is shown to us to be the “holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven.”  In other words, “Jerusalem” is a symbol representing “God the Mother.” Of course, these fine looking young men told me that they were not giving me an “interpretation” of these verses. They were simply telling me what “the Bible itself was saying.”

“O…K-ay…..”

At that point, I knew that my hot sandwich was going to be cold before I could get a chance to eat it….

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith (Galatians 3:26 NIV). Most Christians believe that we are adopted as children into God’s family through having faith in Jesus. However, some on the margins of Christianity believe that just as biological children have a dad and a mom, spiritual children have both God, the Father, as well as, God, the Mother.

 

A Friendly On-the-Spot Bible Study Conversation…

“But isn’t the bride in these passages, the church, as the bride of Christ?” I had voiced an objection, for which they immediately had an answer.

Well, not according to what the Bible itself says, responded my conversation partners. They showed me Revelation 21:2.

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And then they hopped on over to Galatians 4:26:

But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Mmmm…. the prooftexts they had were ready made to answer me. Jerusalem symbolizes the “Heavenly Mother,” and not the church. But still sensing that I was hesitant, they urged me to consider the parable of the wedding banquet. A few page turns later, we came to Matthew 22:1-10:

And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son” (v.1-2)…. ‘Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’  And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests (v.9-10).

They called on me to notice that the bride is not linked to the church. Rather, the church are the “guests” that have been invited to the wedding banquet. Clearly, the bride herself has to be someone else, and not the church.

You guessed it…. the “bride” is none other than our “Heavenly Mother.”

I have talked with several Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons before, but this was all new to me. Nevertheless, I had a hunch as to where this was all going. I took a gamble, and I asked, “Does this have anything to do with the Second Coming of Jesus?”

“Why, yes! You know something about the Bible. Glad to hear that you already suspected that!,” came back the reply from one of my interlocutors. The two young men were trading off in responding to me, though one of them did most of the talking.

By this time, we all decided to sit down, on a nearby bench, and that is when I began to hear about “the dates.”

Of course, how can you talk about the Second Coming of Jesus and not talk about “the dates”????

My friendly interlocutors laid it all out for me:

  • Jesus returned to earth in 1948. You just did not know about it because Jesus came back with another name.
  • It was only after Jesus’ return when the “Heavenly Mother” was finally revealed to the world…. in 1984.
  • The “Heavenly Mother” had been born in 1943, and so she had to wait until after Jesus’ return, when the “wife of the lamb” would be eventually revealed. This is what happened in 1984.

Now, my head was spinning. But I had another question. “So, if Jesus came back in 1948, is Jesus still here?”

“Well, no. Not exactly. He ascended back to heaven in 1985.”

I said, “Huh?”

One of my interlocutors awkwardly replied, ” I really do not like saying that Jesus died, so I just say that He ascended back to heaven…. in 1985.”

Wow. All of those dates. A secret return of Jesus, with Jesus having another name. Heavenly Mother. And Jesus then re-ascending back to heaven?? Mmmph…… So, what was this exchange all about, anyway?

William Miller (1782-1849). Leader of the first Adventist movement, that eventually led to the Great Disappointment of 1844. Forerunner to many of today’s adventist splinter-movements.

 

A Brief History of Adventist-Type Movements in Christianity

Well, if you have not read the three part Veracity blog series on the Seventh-Day Adventist movement (#1, #2, #3), or do not know anything about the 19th century adventist movement, you should probably go ahead and read that. But in a nutshell, in the early 19th century, many Christians had adopted an historicist hermeneutic for Bible prophecy. This historicist hermeneutic has been one of the ways that Christian have used to interpret the Bible, by specifically locating different events described in certain books, mainly the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation, with exact moments in world history, all culminating with the expected Second Coming of Jesus.

The most well-known movement was associated with a Baptist minister, William Miller, who believed that the Book of Daniel teaches that Jesus would return in the year 1844. Thousands of Americans were persuaded by Miller’s teachings, known as the “Millerites,” selling their homes and all of their possessions, in anticipation of meeting Jesus at the Second Coming. When Jesus did not show up, it was known as the “Great Disappointment.”

Nevertheless,  some of Miller’s followers did not give up, but simply concluded that they had interpreted the Bible wrongly, and mis-dated Christ’s return. The most well-known of these followers became the Seventh-Day Adventists, which in our present day, are pretty tame compared to some of the other groups that splintered off with other, more odd teachings, the Jehovah’s Witnesses being the most peculiar splinter group.

In the mid-20th century, Seventh-Day Adventist missionaries started churches in South Korea, eventually reaching a particular Buddhist family. One young man in this family, Ahn Sahng-Hong, became baptized as a Seventh-Day Adventist in the year ….

…. wait for it….

…. 1948.

However, Ahn Sahng-Hong got married, had three children, and was eventually booted out of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in the early 1960s, because he was starting to promote some rather oddball teachings, that made his Seventh-Day Adventist teachers cringe. Ahn Sahng-Hong’s movement grew until he became associated with his “spiritual wife,” Zahng Gil-jah (that is a whole other story!!). Zahng Gil-jah had been born in….

…. wait for it….

….1943.

In 1984, Ahn Sahng-Hong had a revelation about Zahng Gil-jah. Then Ahn Sahng-Hong died in 1985.

Do some of these dates sound familiar?

Ahn-Sahng-Hong, founder of what would become the World Mission Society Church of God…. and the return of Jesus incognito??

 

Who is the “True” World Mission Society Church of God?

Well, this is when the story really gets really complicated, but it sounds a whole lot like what happened with the legacy of Joseph Smith, and the Mormons, when Joseph Smith died. In the Mormon narrative, the death of Joseph Smith in the 1840’s created a leadership crisis. Smith’s wife and son led a small splinter group that settled in Independence, Missouri, whereas the bigger splinter group, that everyone knows about, led by Brigham Young, made their way to Utah and Salt Lake City.

When Ahn Sahng-Hong died, unexpectedly in 1985, it created a leadership crisis. Ahn Sahng-Hong’s legal wife and at least one of his sons led a small splinter group, The New Covenant Passover Church of God. The larger splinter group eventually became what is now known as the World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG), led by Zahng Gil-jah, and a vibrant male leader, Joo Cheol Kim. The two men who were my interlocutors on my cross-campus walk have been members of a local World Mission Society Church of God congregation.

Let us put all of the pieces together: The WMSCOG teaches that Zahng Gil-jah, born in 1943 and still living, is in fact the “Heavenly Mother,” revealed to the world in 1984. On top of that, Ahn Sahng-Hong was the Second Coming of Jesus, having officially returned at Ahn Sahng-Hong’s baptism in 1948, the same year as the founding of the nation-state of Israel. This explains why Jesus came back with another name, Ahn Sahng-Hong. Nevertheless, Ahn Sahng-Hong, the returned Jesus, eventually “ascended back to heaven” in 1985. With Jesus back off in heaven now, the fundamental focus and tenet of salvation for the WMSCOG is accepting Zahng Gil-jah as the “Mother of God.”

Got it?

Well, there is interestingly even more to the story.

What makes it even more complicated is that back when Ahn Sahng-Hong was still alive, he never considered himself to be the Second Coming of Jesus, nor did he accept the revelation of Zahng Gil-jah as the “Mother of God,” or “Heavenly Mother.” Instead, Ahn Sahng-Hong dismissed the whole “Heavenly Mother” teaching to be complete nonsense, something that went way beyond his 1984 revelation, and he also taught that the Second Coming of Jesus is still yet a future event. The smaller splinter group, the New Covenant Passover Church of God, still holds to these alternative teachings.

The WMSCOG dismisses these counter-claims made by the New Covenant Passover Church of God as false and malicious teachings, intent on persecuting the WMSCOG. This all explains why the WMSCOG are going around everywhere telling everyone about our “Heavenly Mother,” …. before it is too late.

The WMSCOG have been growing rapidly over the past ten years. In 2013, they reported some 2,500 congregations across the world, whereas most recently, in about 2018, they have reported to have over 7,500 congregations. In 2008, the WMSCOG reportedly had about 1 million registered members, whereas today, that number is at about 3.3 million registered members in 175 countries.

Unlike more familiar groups, such as the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG) like to target their evangelistic work on college campuses, which explains why these nice young men approached me on my college campus. In an age where Biblical illiteracy, particularly among young people, is so common, college environments are a ripe mission field for the WMSCOG.

Even though historically orthodox Christians do not believe that God the Father is “male,” there are many who think that this is what Christians actually believe, so the WMSCOG concept of “God the Mother” offers an attractive balance to those who think that the Christian standard teaching on God the Father alone is misogynist, and too male-centric. It should be no surprise that in an age when “toxic masculinity” is rejected as evil that any effort to bring out a more feminine side to God offers a better way to balance out what is perceived to be a bias towards a masculine concept of God. The WMSCOG are also well known for their volunteer service and relief work in local communities.

Zangh Gil-Jah. The Mother of God (according to the WMSCOG). Who knew???!!!!

 

Taking Bible Verses Out of Context

It is not just the history behind the WMSCOG, and its growing influence on college campuses, that makes the “Heavenly Mother” message seem so odd. The practice of taking Bible verses out of context can be very confusing to Christians, particularly those who do not understand basic principles of doing Bible study. It is always a good idea to read the verses surrounding the passage in question, as well as reading the passage carefully and slowly.

For example, the WMSCOG use of Galatians 4:26 to identify the Jerusalem with the “Heavenly Mother” completely ignores the context of the verse itself. In the larger passage of Galatians 4:21-31, the Apostle Paul is using an allegory, about the story of Abraham and Hagar versus the story of Abraham and Sarah, as an analogy to describe the difference between Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah, and those Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah. Those Jews who reject Jesus are like the descendants of Hagar, who have Hagar as their mother. In contrast, those Jews who accept Jesus as their Messiah are like the descendants of Sarah, who have Sarah as their mother.

There is not a single passage in the Bible where Sarah is described as a “heavenly mother,” or otherwise somehow identified with God, or any other concept of divinity. Therefore, Galatians 4:26 is not talking about a heavenly Jerusalem as a symbol for “God the Mother.” Rather, it is associating a heavenly Jerusalem with Sarah, who is the spiritual mother of all those who believe in Jesus, that is the church.

How about another example?

The part about the “bride” at the parable of the wedding banquet, in Matthew 22:1-14,  being the “Heavenly Mother,” since the guests in the parable are the church, is a bit trickier to deal with, but not insoluble. As New Testament scholar Phillip J. Long has pointed out, there is actually no mention anywhere of the “bride” at the wedding banquet. Therefore, her identity is unimportant to the storyline of the parable.

The point of the parable is about the king celebrating his son at this banquet, and not any kind of introduction to the bride. There might be a better way of putting it, but this “wedding banquet” is more like a “bachelor’s party,” where the bride is not present. But instead of just the bridegroom’s friends and other special guests being invited, everyone in the king’s realm have been invited to celebrate the son.

To be honest, I never picked up on that when my friendly interlocutors were explaining the “true meaning” of the Bible to me. But when I went back afterwards and read the parable, slowly and more carefully, I noticed that the bride is nowhere mentioned in the story.

Mmmph.

Now the score is historic orthodox Christianity: 2,  WMSCOG: 0.

The WMSCOG almost snuck that one right past me…. but not quite.

 

 

 

 

How to Read the WMSCOG Evangelistic Script

If Christians are really getting good Bible teaching in their local church, they will not be caught off-guard as much when faced with the rhetorical tactics employed by members of the WMSCOG. You do not need to be an expert in the WMSCOG, to try to defend your own understanding of the Bible. All you need to do is to invest in good Bible study skills yourself. It really pays to read the surrounding verses around a proof-texted Bible passage, along with reading the passage in question carefully and slowly.

I was genuinely surprised that my interlocutors closed off the conversation at that point giving me all of those dates, about Christ’s return, etc. But little did I know, I had played right in perfectly with their script. YouTube apologist Mike Winger has done several very informative videos describing the methods that the WMSCOG use to bring people into their group. Winger is a former Calvary Chapel youth pastor who is now dedicated to producing YouTube videos to help believers, and he has personally dealt with a number of people who have been influenced by the WMSCOG, in Southern California. I link to some of his videos below. Mike’s teaching is pretty in-depth, giving you more than you probably would ever want to know, but it is a very thorough critique of a growing, popular movement.

According to the script, my friendly interlocutors (and indeed, they were quite delightful to talk with) got my email address and asked if I would be interested in sitting down for another Bible study at a later point in time. In other words, the WMSCOG is not interested in “sealing the deal” at the first encounter. Instead, they want folks to dive into a multi-hour Bible study at a later point in time, in order to lay out the key beliefs that they want to try to promote.

Well, like I expected…. my sandwich was cold, after this conversation…. I decided to save it for the next day, and nibble on something else for dinner…..

I do not know if my interlocutors will really follow up with me or not, as I was able to anticipate a number of points they were trying to make in their presentation. I had followed them down the rabbit hole, hook, line and sinker, in playing the role they wanted me to play in following their script. Perhaps I caught on too much with what they were trying to do. But if they do follow up with me, I hope that I might offer some challenging questions, that might encourage them to think outside of the WMSCOG box.

 

 

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in Apologetics

July 15, 2022

Heaven and Hell: by Bart Ehrman, An Extended Review

By Clarke Morledge

What happens after we die? Is there a “heaven?” Is there a “hell?” If so, what does either of these look like?

The historical development of these ideas is the subject of Bart Ehrman’s Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife. Bart Ehrman is perhaps the world’s best known critic of evangelical Christian faith, having grown up in the evangelical world until he deconverted out of it in graduate school. His New York Times best selling Misquoting Jesus has made him one of most widely read biblical scholars in our day at the popular level, sought after by the media almost every time a major story arises within Christianity.

With such a title, Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife really peaked my interest. As you will read in this review, I really got into it and made dozens of notes. For over the past few years during the COVID pandemic, I have known of several friends who died of the disease, some of whom were at a relatively young age. I, myself, had a close brush with death about four years ago, after an automobile slammed into my bicycle on a busy road, throwing me back into the driver’s windshield. Thankfully, the only major injury I had was a concussion, that knocked me out cold for about an hour. The paramedics told me that I could have easily died, if the driver had hit me at a higher rate of speed. So, the topic of the afterlife is pretty pertinent to me, a lot more urgent than when I was a teenager, when I thought I was invulnerable to death.


Continue reading

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Apologetics

July 1, 2022

2022 English Bible Translations Update!!

By Clarke Morledge

Time for another English Bible translations update!!

I did one of these back in 2020, but some fairly big news stories warrants another installment for this year. First, some might have heard that BibleGateway.com has removed the Passion Translation from its website. I found the following meme on Brent Niedergall’s biblical studies blog that made me chuckle, based on the Star Wars theme:

 

The Passion Translation Controversy

What was all of the fuss about? Well, the Passion Translation, advertises itself as “a modern, easy-to-read Bible translation that unlocks the passion of God’s heart and expresses his fiery love—merging emotion and life-changing truth.”

Well, a number of Bible scholars and pastors think otherwise. The Passion Translation has been popular among a number of charismatic and Pentecostal Christians, written by a missionary who has faithfully served for the Gospel in Latin America for many years, Brian Simmons, who claims to utilize the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, and … wait for it … Aramaic, to produce the English text. While we can commend the good natured intent, the problem with the “Aramaic” part is that relatively little of our ancient original sources for the Bible are actually found in Aramaic. It makes one wonder what the publisher means by “Aramaic.”

As a paraphrase, the Passion Translation has a lot of interesting ways of freshening up the text. But as British pastor/teacher Andrew Wilson puts it, the problem is that the Passion Translation is marketed as a translation, when it really should be called a paraphrase. The promotional materials claim: “Recent biblical scholarship has begun tracing many of Jesus’ teachings back to an original Aramaic source. Some even argue the original Greek manuscripts were translations of even more original Aramaic sources.”  Wilson contacted Australian theologian, Michael Bird, who was cited as an authoritative source for this claim, and Wilson’s way of telling it is quite colorful:

‘I actually followed this up with Mike Bird, and his response was short and to the point; I won’t quote it, but it was effectively Australian for “I don’t think this person is correct.”’

YouTube apologist and pastor Mike Winger did a whole slew of videos, interacting with scholars who found all sorts of issues with the Passion translation (Craig Blomberg, Douglas Moo, Alex Hewitson and Brad Bitner, Tremper Longman, Darrell Bock,  Mike Winger’s one hour summary). If you have any charismatic friends who absolutely love the Passion Translation, you might want to send them a few of these Mike Winger YouTube videos.

The New Revised Version… Updated Edition (NRSVue)

Probably the bigger news this year concerns the recent update to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) for 2021/2022, marketed as NRSVue, or NRSV Updated Edition. The NRSV is the endorsed Bible of the National Council of Churches, and the NRSV is pretty much the standard in mainline circles and in academia.

The older NRSV comes from a completely reworked version of the 20th century mainline standard translation, the Revised Standard Version (RSV), which was put together starting in the late 1940s with the New Testament, followed by the finished Old Testament being published in 1952 (some did not like the RSV then). After World War II, the National Council of Churches was known as the American wing of the World Council of Churches, resulting from a renewed emphasis in the ecumenical movement and world evangelization, after military servicemen were scattered all across the world, fighting in World War II. Since then, the National Council of Churches (NCC) appears to have drifted to the left theologically, as conservative evangelical churches kept their distance from the NCC. Along with that was skepticism among many evangelicals towards the NCC standard bearer Bible, the RSV….. despite the fact that one of my favorite professors in seminary loved the late 1980s edition of the RSV.

By the late 1980s, it was felt that the RSV was getting a bit “long in the tooth,” so the NCC bagged it. Interestingly, the conservative evangelical book publisher, Crossway, picked up the copyright of that old RSV, made some changes more suitable for conservative readers, and released a new Bible, the English Standard Version (ESV). While the venerable King James Version (KJV) and the New International Version (NIV) still remain the most popular Bible translation for conservative evangelical Christians, support for the ESV appears to be gaining more and more as the years go by.

The NCC decided to go with a different approach and came out with the NRSV in 1989, which became controversial for its use of “gender-neutral language.” In partnership with the Society of Biblical Literature, the NRSV Updated Edition (NRSVue) was finished in late 2021. A massive 10,000 substantial edits were made to the original NRSV, with 20,000 minor revisions, many of them described in this paper put out by the publisher. The NRSVue is destined to become the mainline standard Bible translation, superseding the previous NRSV. Here is a short sample of some of the changes:

  • changes “slave woman” to “enslaved woman” (Galatians)
  • changes “wise men” to “magi” (Gospel of Matthew)
  • changes “demoniacs, epileptics and paralytics” to “people possessed by demons or having epilepsy or afflicted with paralysis” (Gospel of Matthew)
  • adding capitalization to Jewish High Holy Days
  • changes “servant-girl” to “female servant” (Mark 14:69)

Do not let the reference to “mainline” scare you immediately, as the NRSVue is really one of the most competent translations available (… although there is a catch, as I will note in a moment). In my Bible reading, I like to compare popular evangelical Bible translations, like the ones I love, such as the English Standard Version (ESV), the New International Version (NIV), and the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) with the NRSV, … and now the NRSVue. In many ways the NRSV/NRSVue actually offers a more word-for-word sense of what the text is saying, in some cases. I frequently use the Harper Collins Study Bible, which uses the NRSV, to see if the NRSV will keep some of the other translations honest.

Nevertheless, the catch with the NRSVue is there is still an interpretive bias that peeks through every now and then, which tends to be progressive, appealing to its more liberal National Council of Churches constituents. More and more progressive elements have made their way into the new NRSVue. For example, The Institute on Religion and Democracy posted a pretty scathing review of the new NRSVue.

The most controversial example comes from the Updated Edition’s revision of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

The highlighted phrase “men who engage in illicit sex” is more ambiguous, as compared to the same phrase found in something like the Christian Standard Bible (CSB): “males who have sex with males.” The CSB rules out all sexual relationships between males, whereas the NRSVue leaves a door open. Is it therefore possible for men to have non-illicit sex with one another, and that still be okay in the Apostle Paul’s mind? On the other hand, other passages in the new NRSVue that deal with the same topic are more traditional, like Romans 1:27:

… and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Go figure.

As YouTube apologist and Bible reviewer Tim Frisch points out, the NRSVue has plusses and minuses with it.

On the flip side, in another important area, the NRSVue is using recent insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls, more so than other modern translations, to give us a more and more accurate Old Testament. So that is a good feature.

It is also important to note that a number of the biblical scholars working on the NRSVue project are simply well-regarded scholars, who may or may not be persons of Christian faith, though most are professing Christians.

The Legacy Standard Bible…. Updated?

One final note to add to this 2022 Bible translations update: The so-called Legacy Standard Bible, that came out over the last couple of years, got a revision recently. For those unfamiliar with the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), you mind be interested to know that this translation was done by seminary professors at the Master Seminary, the seminary associated with Southern California pastor John MacArthur. Tim Frisch highlights some of the changes.

For you American readers of Veracity out there, I hope you have great Fourth of July weekend!!

 

UPDATE: July 7, 2022

Mark Ward put out a video on the NRSVue controversial readings just a few days after I published this post. This is excellent and sober analysis:

1 Comment   |  tags: | posted in Tools