As we end off the summer of 2023, I wanted to first write something more personal. It was a great summer. The highlight for me was a trip to Colorado, where my longtime friend, Mike Scott, and I hiked South Arapaho Peak, a near 13,400 foot mountain about an hour west of Boulder, right on top of the Continental Divide. God’s Creation is pretty awesome. Standing at near 13,400 feet and looking across the Rockies is amazing!
I had not done a hike like this in seven years, yet we had a total blast! As I am getting older, I am not sure if I have any more “14’ners” left in me, but I sure hope I still do! Behind us is North Arapaho Peak:
…………..
Cambridge House at the College of William and Mary
This Labor Day weekend inaugurates the THIRD year for the Cambridge House at the College of William and Mary, a ministry that I am fully excited about, which continues to grow. As a staff member at the College, it is great to have a place where followers of Jesus, from a wide cross-section of Christian traditions, can come together as students, faculty, staff, and friends in the community, to share in stimulating conversation about the beauty of historical orthodox Christian faith.
Cambridge House has brought on a full-time intern to help staff the study center this year, and has a “Fellows” program, where about a dozen students participate in growing deeper both spiritually and intellectually in their journey with Christ. This is our director, Jon Thompson’s, second year and I could not be more thrilled to see how God is moving on the campus. Small beginnings, for sure, but very encouraging for me to be a part of this on a secular college campus.
The Cambridge House, at the Crossroads, at 930 Jamestown Road, in Williamsburg, Virginia. With close proximity to the campus of the College of William and Mary, the Cambridge House is one of the newest Christian study centers.
…………………
Some Fun History…..
I also have something fun in mind that has to do with history. After all, my interests here on the Veracity blog are mainly Christian apologetics, and Christian history. But this little bit of history is broader in scope, as it has to do with Colonial Williamsburg.
Years ago, I worked as an usher for showing The Story of a Patriot, the famous Colonial Williamsburg 1957 Paramount film production recalling the events of Williamsburg’s roll in the American Revolution of 1776. Here is the film, starring a young Jack Lord, of the old TV series, Hawaii Five-O. Then after that is a “Quest Capsule” video comparing the filming locations of the movie in 2023, a “Then & Now” trip through history:
….
The Death of Pat Robertson
One of the events this summer that has had an impact on the Christian world was the death of television evangelist, Pat Robertson.
Pat Roberston was definitely a controversial figure in evangelical Christianity, and the culture at large. In the New York Times story remembering his life, I got a strong whiff of negative comments about him. Here is just a sample:
“I will not mourn his passing. He was a mean-spirited man whose objective was the fouling of democracy. He is one of many high-profile preachers who give Christianity a bad name.”
“Pat Robertson was truly one of the most destructive and divisive religious leaders this country has ever known and there have been many. When one passes another crops up with the same message of personal intolerance packaged for sale as the word of God. Like most pestilence, there is no getting rid of them.”
“Robertson was on the leading edge of the Christian alt-right political machine which has wreaked so much damage on the nation over the last thirty years.”
Yikes! Pat Robertson’s reputation did not fair very well in the national media. Robertson’s campaign for President amplified the vitriol levied against him. These attitudes towards him should give Christians pause whenever we try to mix the Gospel with an overtly political message. As Christians, we are called to pray for our political leaders, act as good citizens, and participate in the political process for the common good of our neighbors. But if our involvement in political matters overshadows our efforts to share the Gospel with a lost and hurting world, we might end up alienating the very people around us who so desperately need to hear a word of hope and comfort that the Good News of Jesus Christ came to bring.
As an aside…. I have known of misguided fans of Pat Robertson who would do well to heed this warning: There is a lot of talk about “Christian Nationalism” these days, placing the importance of certain political alignments ahead of Jesus’ call to evangelize and make disciples of all of the nations.
As YouTuber Inspiring Philosophy argues, many of the most active adherents to so-called “Christian Nationalism” are people who profess a form of Christian belief, but who are ironically little involved in the life of healthy Christian communities. Such advocates of “Christian Nationalism” are pursuing something other than a genuine devotion to Christ, a growing knowledge of Scripture, and a sense of accountability within a local church…. assuming that such people even participate in a local Christian church at all!
You might be thinking that I am targeting certain people on the political “right,” and to a certain extent, that would be true. But there is just about as much mischief, if not more-so, on the political “left.” For everyone I know who is enamored by Q-Anon-type conspiracies on the right, there are plenty of supposedly Christian people who repeat worn-out tropes of the “woke” movement, and supposed champions of “social justice,” which is just as bad, and just as self-righteous, in my view.
I am looking forward to the 2024 political season just as much as I am looking forward to having a tooth-ache….
Now, back to Pat Robertson….. I do recall a news story back in 1985 when Hurricane Gloria was approaching Virginia Beach, and Pat Robertson publicly prayed that God would steer that hurricane away from Virginia. When that hurricane did veer off from Virginia, to slam into New England instead, many Americans were annoyed by that kind of prayer. Furthermore, Pat Robertson’s association with extreme elements of the Charismatic Movement, some radical political figures in other parts of the world, and certain other shady television evangelists did him no favors among more mainstream evangelical Christians.
However, there was another side to Pat Robertson that has been overlooked by all of that negative publicity. Robertson grew up in Lexington, Virginia and went to college at Washington and Lee University, where I obtained my undergraduate degree decades later. As the son of a well-known Democratic United States congressman and senator, Absalom Willis Robertson, and coming from a family of Baptist preachers, young Pat was known to be a renegade and a “black sheep” within his family.
There is a well-worn anecdote about Pat Robertson in college. Who knows how much truth there is to the story, but it sure fits. One night, his fraternity at Washington and Lee University was getting ready to have a big party, and bring in a lot of girls from the surrounding women’s colleges. Suddenly, a fire broke out in the fraternity house. Several of Robertson’s fellow frat brothers escaped the burning building, including Roger Mudd, who later on became a well-respected television journalist, and John Warner, who later became a multi-term Virginia senator and husband to the famed movie star, Elizabeth Taylor.
But after the fire was put out by the local fire squad, and thankfully sparing much of the building, Pat Robertson was nowhere to be found!! Had he perished inside the frat house during the fire?
Frantic fraternity brothers looked for him high and low. There was no sign of him. A sense of despair rippled through the despondent party goers.
Then just a few minutes later, a fancy convertible with its top down drove up in front of the house. Pat Robertson hopped out of the car safe and sound. He had gone off to get another beer keg for the party and missed the fire altogether!!
That story chimes in well with what we know of Robertson after college. Though he had joined the Marines, he avoided combat in the Korean War, rumored to have been because of the influence of his senator father. He married his wife in 1954, but years later, when Robertson ran for President, it was discovered that the birth certificate for his first son was dated just 10 weeks after the wedding.
It was after those early years of being a young father and married that Pat Robertson’s life changed dramatically, when depression settled in and he considered suicide. He met a Christian evangelist and soon gave his life to Christ.
By 1960, Pat Robertson sensed a calling to start a Christian television station, which became the Christian Broadcasting Network, in Virginia Beach, Virginia. I remember watching Channel 27 on the television every now and then, mostly out of curiosity, as Robertson made an effort in the 1960s and 1970s to make something out of television evangelism. Most famously known as the host of the “700 Club,” Pat Robertson became not only a talented religious broadcaster, he developed into becoming a very capable businessman.
Despite a lot of the negative controversies surrounding Pat Robertson, I actually grew to appreciate a lot of the good things he had done over the years. I even took several classes at Regent University in order to obtain my seminary degree, so I can say I am a direct recipient of the notable vision that Pat Robertson had within the Christian church.
Other Notable Deaths
There have been other notable deaths from the summer of 2023. Daniel Fuller, son of radio evangelist Charles E. Fuller, died at the age of 97. Daniel Fuller taught biblical interpretation at Fuller Theological Seminary, for forty years: 1953-1993. This was where I did graduate work, but unfortunately I never had a class with him. Daniel Fuller was the most influential intellectual figure in the life of evangelical preacher John Piper.
I recently picked up a Kindle copy on sale of Thiselton’s Puzzling Passages in Paul, Forty Conundrums Calmly Considered. I thought about writing a separate blog review, but I have to confess that while the book is illuminating, it is also terribly infuriating. Thiselton goes to great lengths explaining the controversies surrounding various passages from the Apostle Paul, but he tends to be gun-shy about making conclusive judgments of his own. Unless you are a hopeless Bible geek, you would be better off with a good study Bible.
Then there was the death of popular singer/songwriter Sinéad O’Connor….. you know, the musician who ripped up a photo of pope on live television on Saturday Night Live, in 1992. Sinéad O’Connor was protesting sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church, but she did not articulate why she was protesting Pope John Paul II in her Saturday Night Live appearance. Therefore, many viewers simply took her unexpected action to be an anti-Catholic, if not, anti-Christian expression of speech. It is hard to believe that some 30 years later, Sinéad O’Connor’s expression of speech would pale in comparison to what people often view almost everyday on social media.
This story just fell under the wire of much of the international news media this year, but I am hoping that there might be greater attention drawn to it in the coming years.
I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural.
I believe in Jesus Christ, their child, who wore a fabulous tunic and had two dads and saw everyone as a sibling-child of God.
I believe in the rainbow Spirit, who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity.
I believe in the church of everyday saints as numerous, creative, and resilient as patches on the AIDS quilt, whose feet are grounded in mud and whose eyes gaze at the stars in wonder.
I believe in the call to each of us that love is love is love, so beloved, let us love.
I believe, glorious God. Help my unbelief. Amen.
There have been numerous critiques of the “Sparkle Creed,” coming from evangelical Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic alike. I have no desire to “pile on” with additional criticism, as it should be plainly evident that this progressive Christian creed departs radically from any historically orthodox Christian creed, across the widest diversity of Christendom.
A secular creed, from sign displayed on a suburban front yard in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, October 3, 2020. …. But now we have the Sparkle Creed.
However, the “Sparkle Creed” does present a challenge for historically orthodox-minded Christians: We need to do a better job of articulating an imaginative, beautiful vision of God’s intention and purposes for human gender and sexuality, which is both winsome and Scripturally grounded. We need to extend compassion towards others, particularly young people, who wrestle with complex questions regarding gender and sexual identity. It is a lot easier to poke fun at something like the “Sparkle Creed,” and ridiculing those who support it, than it is think through how our churches can more effectively reach out to those with genuine questions and confusions, building relational bridges instead of blowing up those bridges and needlessly alienating those who desperately need to hear Good News.
If you are looking for a very practical way to implement a kind of positive ministry focus in your church, I would suggest checking out The Center for Faith, Sexuality, & Gender. They sponsor webinars, online courses, and events, grounded in supporting a traditional sexual ethic, that helps people work through questions about gender and sexual identity, as well as parents and other friends looking for resources to help them better love their LGBTQ family members and friends. With endorsements by various Christians leaders, like Francis Chan, Matt Chandler, and Karen Swallow Prior, The Center for Faith, Sexuality, & Gender can offer a lifeline for folks who find themselves wrapped up in confusion and doubt regarding such sensitive, personal issues.
Veracity in the Fall of 2023
I read several books over the summer that I am excited to review here on Veracity, that I hope will be helpful to readers. I am almost finished reading another Bart Ehrman book, and I am planning on offering an extended critique over a series of blog posts over the fall. Bart Ehrman is one of the most prolific writers and influential New Testament scholars, who rejected Christianity several decades ago, but who continues to draw in a lot of media attention…… In the meantime, there is one more blog post in the 1 Corinthians head covering series left, to come out in September. Look for it in a few weeks.
How would you like that to read on your tombstone? Most Bible translations of this verse, Matthew 25:21, read “good and faithful servant,” or something less provocative. The Legacy Standard Bible is one of the few translations today that reads “good and faithful slave.”
“Slave??? Jesus said that?”
Skeptics will confront me to say that the New Testament condones slavery. How do I respond? Well, on this particular point, with respect to Matthew 25:21, the skeptics have a valid point to make. But this needs a bit more unpacking to explain, as the complaint from skeptics is misleading.
Frederick Douglass, born February, 1818, into slavery. Photo colorization by Marina Amarai. Many associate “slavery” as found in the Bible with what Frederick Douglass experienced in early 19th century America. The story of “slavery” in the Bible, like other issues with respect to social justice (and other aspects of the problem of evil), is more complicated than what many Christians and skeptics typically think.
“Red-Letter” Christianity??
There is a movement among many Christians called “Red-Letter Christianity.” As explained from a previous Veracity blog post, the idea arose from the fact that just over a hundred years ago, some Bible publishers began to print the words spoken by Jesus in red, to distinguish the sayings of Jesus from the rest of the New Testament text. The venerable King James Version (KJV) of the Bible contains no quotation marks, so it is difficult to discern when someone is speaking and when an author is simply giving narration. Yet despite its problems, having the words of Jesus highlighted in red has been helpful to many over the past decades.
Efforts like “Red-Letter Christianity” can be well-intended, seeking to soften the edge of a lot of supposedly Christian rhetoric these days deemed to be harmful to others. A lot of times, the way we express the truths found in the Bible matters just as much, sometimes even more, than the actual truths themselves. The Bible can be easily weaponized to hurt people, so it is understandable to a certain degree that “Red-Letter” Christianity pushes back against such misuse of Scripture.
Some who describe themselves as “Progressive Christians” would also call themselves “Red-Letter” Christians. For example, when push comes to shove, many such “Red-Letter” Christians will say that they will take the words of Jesus over the letters of Paul, or other writings in the New Testament, any day. However, such efforts that try to elevate the words of Jesus like this have their own downsides to them.
Noah curses his son Ham, a 19th-century painting by Ivan Stepanovitch Ksenofontov. The so-called “Curse of Ham” in Genesis 9:25 was the foundational prooftext used to defend the institution of slavery in the ante-bellum American South. Contrary to popular opinion, Jesus never comes out to explicitly condemn slavery. This blog post seeks to explain why, and to offer a better approach to how the New Testament deals with slavery.
Some Potentially Embarrassing “Red Letters” of Jesus
A focus on the “Red Letter” speeches of Jesus has good intentions behind it, but a careful examination of these red letters should give us some pause. Consider the “Red Letters” of Jesus found In Revelation 2:22-23, where the writer John is retelling a vision he has of Jesus speaking out against a female false teacher in one of Revelation’s seven churches, Thyatira, who is propagating a number of bad ideas in that Christian community:
Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Yikes. Even with the archaic language of the KJV, this sounds pretty harsh. I can hear the objection of the skeptic now: “Well, your Jesus wants to murder children. I know that, because the words of Jesus are printed in red.”
Those red letters suddenly begin to look like red flags.
It is important to concede something here. There are a number of disturbing things Jesus says in this passage, but I highlighted the number one thing that bothers me: “And I will kill her children with death.” The ESV translation renders this phrase, “I will strike her children dead.” For this Christian who is pro-life, particularly with respect to abortion, this red-letter snippet from Jesus can be jarring. Does Jesus really want to kill a woman’s children, even if this woman is a heretic?
However, a proper understanding of the literary context of any book of the Bible is essential to interpreting the Bible responsibly. Some Christians will staunchly defend the idea that they take the Bible “literally,” without a careful examination of what “literally” even means. Instead, it is better to consider what is the literary genre of a book like Revelation. The Book of Revelation falls within the peculiar genre of apocalypticism, a group of writings that grew out of Judaism that are heavily laced with hyperbole and metaphor. The Book of Daniel in the Old Testament is another example of apocalyptic literature, where parts of Daniel have a very similar feel to what is read in Revelation.
It can be well argued that Jesus is not hyper-literally favoring abortion or infanticide here, but rather is condemning the bad fruit of the false teaching associated with this “Jezebel” from Thyratia. In other words, this reference to “Jezebel’s” children metaphorically symbolizes the corruptive result of this woman’s incorrect doctrine, which distorts the truth, a distortion which Jesus intends to do away with.
Yes, the “Red Letter” Jesus does speak about love, goodness, and kindness towards others. But that same “Red Letter” Jesus also speaks words of judgment against a hard-hearted and disobedient people.
In the Gospels, Jesus calls all of the little children to come unto him and loved them (Mark 10:13-16). But in Revelation 2:22-23, Jesus threatens to “kill the children” of a woman described as a false teacher in the church. A more responsible reading of the so-called “Red Letters” of Jesus is needed that values the original literary context of the New Testament. (From a mural painted at the Williamsburg Community Chapel).
Smoothing Over Some the “Red Letters” of Jesus?
In comparison to the Book of Revelation, the Gospels are quite a different form of biblical literature.Yet even in the Gospels, Jesus used hyperbole and metaphor rather frequently. Just think about Jesus’ instruction to “hate” your own family (Luke 14:26). However, there is a tendency to try to smooth over some of those “Red Letters” of Jesus which make us feel even more uncomfortable.
Philip Jenkins, an historian at Baylor University whose work I have reviewed a few times on this blog, has written a very insightful article about Matthew 25:21. As Jenkins informs us, the problem is that we often read parts of the Bible through our own cultural lens, and when it comes to “slavery,” the experience of racial-based, chattel slavery in American history immediately comes to mind. But the “slavery” during the New Testament period was different. The Romans never paid any attention to skin color when it came to slavery. If your cultural group was defeated by the Roman army, then your group became perfect candidates for Roman enslavement in an effort to make reparations for war debts, regardless of the pigment of one’s skin. But nevertheless, slavery is slavery.
To be a slave in Jesus’ day was to be considered a piece of property in the eyes of the master. Furthermore, in the world of the first century Roman Empire, slavery was a big deal, and the Roman province of Israel was no exception. Historians estimate that roughly one out for three persons living in the Roman Empire in the time of Jesus was a slave.
People looking to “Red Letter” Christianity to find a message from Jesus condemning slavery will be hard pressed. The Legacy Standard Bible, a translation produced by the seminary founded by John MacArthur, a pastor in Southern California, uses the English word “slave” for the Greek “doulos.” Some translations will use the word “bondservant” or “servant,” to try to convey the same idea.
And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many beatings, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a beating, will receive but a few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required, and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
That comes straight from a modern equivalent of your “Red Letter” Bible, folks. However, statements like these can be balanced by other sayings made by Jesus: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32). But this is speaking more of slavery in metaphorical terms, as in spiritual slavery, and not so much about physical, chattel slavery. So, what are we to think about this?1
A Better Way to Think About the New Testament’s Approach to Slavery
The reality is that the only New Testament message which challenges chattel slavery can be found in the writings of the Apostle Paul, but you will not find Paul’s letters written in red in any Bible I know about. Granted, Paul is not as explicit in condemning slavery as we would like, as he never directly challenges slavery as a system. Paul’s teaching in Ephesians thankfully went against the grain of typical Greco-Roman treatment of slaves (Ephesians 6:5-9), by calling masters to not “mistreat their slaves.” Nevertheless, slaves are still called to obey their masters, in Paul’s letters. Paul simply assumes the slavery system to be the societal norm. However, it is important to recognize neither Paul nor anyone else in the Bible refers to slavery as part of God’s created order. We get the “slavery from creation” idea from Aristotle, and not from the Bible.
Still, we see indirect evidence that Paul did not imagine slavery to be part of God’s ultimate plans and purposes. In 1 Corinthians 7:21, Paul encourages Christians who are slaves to pursue their freedom from slavery, if they have the opportunity. In Philemon 1:8-16, Paul considers the runaway slave, Onesimus, to be like a son and a brother, and encourages Philemon, the slave owner of Onesimus, to do the same. To call a slave a “son” or “brother” would have been revolutionary in the Greco-Roman culture, which saw slaves as merely being pieces of property.
One other example can be added to the list, though it is controversial among some scholars. In 1 Timothy 1:9-10, the KJV reads Paul as condemning “men-stealing.” Here is how the English Standard Version renders the passage:2
…the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…..
The ESV reads “enslavers” instead of the KJV’s “men-stealers,” but the ESV includes a helpful note describing “enslavers” as “those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery.” Other translations render this Greek word as “kidnappers,” which pretty well describes a lot that has gone along in the history of slavery for how slaves had been obtained in the first place, such as from the African slave trade during the American colonial era. It would be too much to call the Apostle Paul a full-on “abolitionist,” but you have to be blind to these verses to claim that Paul was a sold-out apologist for slavery.
All this being said, Paul is our best resource in the New Testament for pinpointing the evils of slavery. You just do not find such a resource in the so-called “Red Letter” words of Jesus. Those “Red Letters” do not go far enough.
That is right. We have to look to Paul, that man who is often described as supposedly “gay-hating,” “woman-hating,” etc., in order to build a Christian theology that works to address the evils of something as bad and as unjust as slavery. Jesus as presented in the so-called “Red Letters” of the Gospels and Book of Revelation does not help us much at all. Thankfully, Jesus did designate Paul to be the apostle to the Gentiles, and Jesus’ advocate for a more just and equitable world (See Galatians 1:11-12). It was this Gospel message that Paul preached throughout the Roman empire that ended up changing the world, and handing down the ethics of the New Testament over multiple generations to our present day some 20 centuries later, despite efforts in recent decades to overturn certain elements of New Testament ethics.
So-called “Red Letter” Bibles that seek to highlight the spoken words of Jesus in red were probably a good idea a century ago. But today, such Bibles can often cause more problems than what they try to solve.
The “Red Letters” of Jesus vs. the More Emancipating Letters of Paul, Regarding Women… and Gentiles
Here is another point: An exclusive focus on the words of Jesus are not always as helpful when it comes to concerns about women, as compared to Paul. While Jesus’ primary financial supporters were wealthy women like Mary Magdalene, Johanna, and Susanna (Luke 8:2-3), his inside top-ministry team of twelve were all men. Some argue that Jesus was simply “accommodating to a patriarchal culture” in limiting the roles of women in leadership. I have often made this type of argument in the past myself!
However, this is difficult to square with the revolutionary attacks Jesus made against Jewish cultural standards. Why would Jesus be so timid in encouraging women to be his top leaders, when he went smack dab up against the standard Jewish practice of strict Sabbath observance and in challenging the very Temple establishment itself? This idea that Jesus did not want to “upset the apple cart” of first century Judaism regarding the role of women, or that Jesus was some kind of “closet feminist,” may sound appealing to some, but it lacks solid evidence. Whatever Jesus’ motivation was, feminism was not on his highest agenda list.
Some may fault Paul for not having women serve as elders/overseers in his churches (a much disputed teaching today: read this in-depth Veracity blog series), while others support more historically-grounded, traditional readings of Paul on this issue as being still applicable today. However, despite the controversy regarding women serving as elders/overseers in local churches, Paul regularly worked alongside fellow women missionaries, as described in Romans 16. Euodia and Syntyche were regarded, not just as friends or supporters, but actual co-workers for the sake of the Gospel with Paul (Philippians 4:2-3). Paul recognized a woman named Nympha, who led a gathering of Christians in her home (Colossians 4:15).
Surely, Jesus had female friends in the Gospels. Yes, Jesus valued the women around him highly. Mary Magdalene has for centuries been regarded as “the apostle to the Apostles,” for being the first to proclaim the Good News of Jesus’ Resurrection. Jesus’ mother Mary is probably one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, and most celebrated woman in all of world history. But none of these women have been described as Jesus’ “co-workers” like what we find with Paul.
A number of “Red Letter” Christians get incensed with Bible translations that say that Paul insists that an elder must be the “husband of one wife,” suggesting that only men are qualified for that job description (Titus 1:5-6 ESV). But the objection is overblown. For even though historical tradition going back to the early church controversially reserved the office of “elder/overseer” of a local church to qualified men in 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7, and certainly not all men are qualified, that same historical tradition affirmed both men and women as “deacons” (1 Timothy 3:8-13; Romans 16:1-2). Paul even instituted a special order of ministry among women, the “widows” of 1 Timothy 5:1-16. Paul evidently affirmed that both men and women are to serve as spiritual “fathers” and “mothers” in the church, respectively.
One more data point: There is nothing in the “Red Letters” of Jesus to suggest that it was possible to be a true follower of Jesus and not be circumscribed. As presented in the Gospels, Jesus was Jewish and expected those who follow him to adhere to the tenets of Judaism, including circumcision. With just a few exceptions, most of Jesus’ ministry was with his fellow Jews, and not Gentiles.
Jesus himself stated that he “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24 ESV). No mention of Gentiles here.
You read that right, folks. In “Red Letter” Bibles, Jesus’ focus was on his ministry towards the Jews, and not the Gentiles. Living in an age where many in America value “diversity” and “inclusion,” Jesus’ message in the Gospels can be a bit uncomfortable to accept.
Paul in prison, by Rembrandt (credit: Wikipedia). Jesus personally selected Paul to pioneer outreach to the Gentiles with the Good News of the Gospel, expanding out from Jesus’ ministry to primarily his fellow Jews.
Towards the Full Story of the Gospel
The story changes dramatically once we get to Paul. For years it had bothered me that Paul seemed to make a big deal about his apostolic calling to go preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Case in point: Read 2 Corinthians 10:8…. “For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed.” Paul seems to boast a lot about his apostolic calling in 2 Corinthians 10. Was Paul just being arrogant?
But I have since learned that this was not about Paul trying to make a name for himself. Rather, this was about honoring the fact that Jesus had personally selected Paul to be his representative to the Gentiles, and remove the circumcision requirement for becoming members of Christ’s family. Others who claimed to be associated with the Jesus movement rejected Paul’s message, and insisted that Gentiles must undertake circumcision in order to follow Christ. For if it was not for Paul, the expansion of Christianity would not have made it very far into the Gentile world, as the “Red Letter” message of Jesus in the Gospels had not yet paved a way for the Gentiles to enter into the covenant people of God without circumcision.
We have Paul to thank for that, in his obedience to share the Gospel the way he did with the Gentiles, as revealed to him by Jesus!
So, when I meet up with Christians who tell me that they like Jesus, but do not care much about Paul, I want to remind them of this reality: Without Paul, we simply would not have Christianity as we know it.
I am all for the idea that we should put our focus first and foremost on Jesus as believers. Of course we should. Jesus alone is our King, our Lord, and Savior. Jesus is the founder of Christianity. But if we are honest with what we read about in the New Testament, we owe a great debt to the revolutionary message given to us through Jesus’ “slave,” the Apostle Paul (see Romans 1:1). For without the story of Paul we would not have the full story of the Gospel. Jesus personally selected Paul to fulfill this vital task. Let us not short-change the Gospel by just reading the “Red Letters” of the Bible.3
Ponder this idea for a moment. Perhaps this was God’s plan all along. God probably already knew that having the Son of God walking around in human flesh in first century Israel, preaching and teaching, might be a tough sell for a people accustomed to the slavery system, despising Gentiles, etc. But after the Resurrection, things would become clearer as to what the Gospel message was all about. So it would have been fitting for Jesus to then commission Paul to spread the fullness of the Gospel message that God had intended to communicate all along.
Here is the bottom-line of this whole exercise: Too many Christians want the Bible to say things the Bible really is not saying. Skeptics of Christianity often know this, so when Christians proceed to pretend things to be true about what the Bible is saying, but the evidence points in a different direction, it only reinforces the skepticism of the skeptic(I keep having to learn this lesson the hard way myself!!). Instead, making more modest claims about what the Bible says goes a lot farther in making a defense of the Gospel than making extraordinary, overstated claims that are very difficult to support from the evidence. When we simply allow the Bible to speak for itself, we discover things that may have never been seen before. Then these discoveries can become great opportunities to have an honest conversation with a skeptic, and wonderful things can happen.
“Red Letter Christianity” gives us truth about the Gospel. But it only gives us a partial truth. In the worst cases, it can even distort the truth. To focus only or even primarily on the “Red Letters” of Jesus undermines the full story of the Gospel. To get the full story of the New Testament faith we need the rest of the New Testament, including the story of the Apostle Paul.
1. Even if an appeal is made to Jesus’ statement in Luke 4:18 about him being sent “to proclaim liberty to the captives,” this is only of marginal help as the original context of where Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 61:1-2, is speaking of war captives, but not necessarily slaves. ↩
2. Philip Jenkins does not think that the NIV’s rendering of the “men-stealing” terminology in 1 Timothy 1:10 as “slave traders” is correct. Dr. Jenkins cites a Greco-Roman source demonstrating how some forms of slave trading in the Roman empire were legal and others were not. I am not persuaded that Dr. Jenkins has it completely right that Paul is only condemning certain kinds of illegal slave trading in the Greco-Roman world, as though Paul is only listing vices that were illegal in Greco-Roman law, if I understand Dr. Jenkins correctly. To the contrary, the practice of homosexuality was legal in Greco-Roman society, and it is hard to figure out why Jenkins would include deviation from sound Christian doctrine as being against Greco-Roman law. Contrary to Dr. Jenkins, Paul is making reference to Old Testament Law when describing the list of vices to be avoided, not necessarily Greco-Roman law. Granted, you could argue that there was a legal form of acquiring slaves even in Old Testament Law in terms of making war reparations, which would not fit in the category of “slave trading,” itemized in 1 Timothy 1. But in the New Testament we have no prescriptive teaching that addresses slavery in the context of making war reparations. However, the New Testament does talk quite a bit about forgiving others, as in the Lord’s Prayer (“forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors“) . While slavery still exists today, as in the exploitation of children and the sex trade, many of the traditional motives for slavery today have been rendered moot in light of the advances in technology, particularly with farming, and in modern complex economic systems, which mitigate against the need for traditional means of obtaining war reparations. I also need to pushback on how Dr. Jenkins thinks through 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, as I would argue that there is a convincing argument for a better way to read this text..↩
My friend and pastor, Hunter Ruch, sat down the other day to record a couple more sessions of the Chapel Institute podcast, where we consider the question: Is There Such a Thing as “Heresy” Anymore?
Our previous conversations were about the dangers of “progressive Christianity,” so each of these two new episodes, roughly 40 minutes a piece, serve as a perfect followup topic. Have you ever had a conversation with a friend, co-worker, neighbor, or even family-member about the Bible, and your partner responds with, “Well, that is just YOUR interpretation” of the Bible?
I know that I have. A lot.
But where does this idea come from? Why are so many people drawn to the concept of “I have my truth and you have your truth,” which is just another way of saying “Well, that is just your interpretation” of the Bible?
Working at an institution of higher education, I can observe how ideas that have been founded in our universities will eventually make their way into the popular culture, touching the lives of busy dads, soccer moms, and kids growing up glued to their iPhones in our world today.
One of these ideas stems back to the work of Walter Bauer, a well-known German biblical scholar in the first half of the 20th century. Bauer wrote a very influential book, translated into English in 1971, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. The thesis of Bauer’s book, that theological conflict and irreconcilable diversity go back to the very earliest days of the Christian movement, has captured much of the world of academia ever since, regarding the history of early Christianity. The most well-known advocate of the Bauer thesis today is perhaps the world’s most popular Bible skeptic and New York Times best selling author, Bart Ehrman, professor of New Testament at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. While Walter Bauer’s thesis has some strong points to it, much of what scholars like Bart Ehrman make of it today has a negative impact for people of historically orthodox Christian faith.
If you are just listening to the conversation, you might want to briefly consult the two diagrams I refer to in both episodes, posted below the linked videos. We talk about everything from a brief survey of early church history to Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code. Lots of fun and hopefully helpful, too. Hunter and I had a blast! Enjoy the conversation!!
My friend and one of my pastors, Hunter Ruch, sat me down after lunch not too long ago to record two sessions for the Williamsburg Community Chapel Institute. The Chapel Institute is a ministry of the Williamsburg Community Chapel, in my hometown, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Just a few comments about what you will see and hear. First, Hunter introduced me as the senior networking “director” of IT at the College, which is not accurate. I am more properly a “senior network engineer,” part of a team of IT staff, though my main responsibility is in the area of architecture and design. Secondly, I got a little lost halfway through the second segment, explaining some of the problems associated with “Christian universalism,” but hopefully I got back on track!! Please let me know what you think in the comment section below.
Iconic view of Prague Castle, in the Czech Republic, on a beautiful October day. The highlight for me in 2022!!
Towards the end of the year, I try to post a blog entry looking back over the past year in blogging, mainly to comment on some of the favorite books that I have read, looking back over some important issues in our world with respect to the Christian faith, and perhaps taking a glance into the future for the blog.
2022 turned out to be a special year because of a trip that my wife and I took to Europe, celebrating our 20th wedding anniversary. It was the absolute highlight of the year for me. Three weeks. Six countries: Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and Italy. The trip really tapped into my love of church history, and I particularly enjoying meeting up with some good friends who live in Sicily. I will have a few extra posts to come out in 2023 that will chronicle a bit more of our trip.
Some Favorite Podcasts… (To Catch Up On)
OKay, this might all sound a bit rambling, as it is a hodge-podge of things I have been thinking through towards the end of 2022, but I will go with it anyway…. (otherwise, please feel free to skip this post and go about the rest of your day: Happy New Year!)….
First, let us talk about a podcast update: In 2022 I decided to take on some European history audiobooks to get me primed for our trip this past fall, on my work commute. I am still listening through some of them to finish them up! But it meant that I had to postpone listening to some of my favorite podcasts, to be picked up (hopefully) in 2023. I will just list five here:
Theology in the Raw. Evangelical theologian Preston Sprinkle has done some great interviews with people who are having an impact on what thoughtful Christians wrestle with in the 2020’s.
Sean McDowell YouTube. The son of pioneer evangelical apologist, Josh McDowell, has great interviews with scholars concerning issues of Christian apologetics. Excellent stuff on YouTube.
Naked Bible Podcast. Dr. Michael Heiser is top notch at doing in-depth Scripture study. Not exactly verse-by-verse exposition, but pretty close to it. Heiser is struggling with cancer right now, but he still manages to pump out great content every week. He is currently in 1 Samuel.
Bad Books of the Bible. Eastern Orthodox scholars Joel Miller and Jamie Bennett took a hiatus for much of 2022 in this podcast on the Old Testament Apocrypha, after looking at 1 Maccabees. But towards the end of 2022, they jumped into the “Wisdom of Solomon.” My fellow Protestants miss this, because we do not have these books in our Protestant Bibles, but even the leaders of the magisterial Reformation, like John Calvin and Martin Luther, suggested that Christians read these books, not so much for establishing Christian doctrine, but rather to be edified by Jewish writings written between the Old Testament and New Testament periods. Offbeat for Protestants, yes, but very helpful for understanding the background of the New Testament.
There are a couple of new podcasts out, that do verse-by-verse exposition, that have been recommended to me, but I honestly have not had time to check out myself…. but hopefully in 2023…. if someone knows about these, I would love to hear a review!:
The Listener’s Commentary: Idaho pastor John Whittaker is going through the whole New Testament verse by verse.
“The Bible is a religious text that is revered by many people, particularly Christians, as a sacred and divinely inspired work. Some people believe that the Bible is the word of God and that it contains teachings and wisdom that can guide and inform their daily lives. Others may view the Bible as an important historical and cultural document, but do not necessarily believe that it is divinely inspired. Ultimately, whether or not one believes that the Bible is the word of God is a matter of personal belief and interpretation. It is important to approach the Bible, or any other religious text, with an open mind and to consider it thoughtfully and critically, rather than simply accepting it as true without questioning or examining it.”
There is a lot insight to ChatGPT’s answer, that anticipates some of the concerns for the church I will address later in this blog post….. How about another question:
“Is Christianity true?”
Here is the first part of ChatGPT’s response:
“It is not possible for me to determine the truth or falsehood of any particular religious belief, as truth is a subjective concept that can vary from person to person……”
Mmmm. Is that really the best answer? “Truth is a subjective concept that can vary from person to person?” Sure, there is a subjective element, but does ChatGPT not believe in objective truth at all? What do you think, dear Veracity reader?
OK. Here is another question, but let us try something else that is not theologically-oriented:
“Who is the best soccer/football player in the world? Is it Lionel Messi?”
ChatGPT’s answer:
“It is difficult to definitively say who the best soccer player in the world is, as this is a subjective question and opinions on the matter can vary widely. Many people consider various players to be the best at different times and for different reasons. Lionel Messi is certainly one of the most highly regarded and successful soccer players of all time, and he has consistently been mentioned as one of the best players in the world. He has won numerous awards and accolades, including six Ballon d’Or awards, which are given to the best player in the world as voted on by international journalists. However, other players, such as Cristiano Ronaldo and Pelé, have also been widely regarded as some of the best soccer players of all time, and it is ultimately up to each individual to decide who they believe is the best based on their own criteria and perspectives.”
Ah. This answer goes a long way to explain why ChatGPT’s partial answer to the previous question was so non-committal.
Let us go for one more question. A simply “yes” or “no” might do for some, but my guess is that ChatGPT’s answer will be nuanced….. perhaps a bit too-nuanced. What do you think about this? Here we go:
“Did Jesus of Nazareth physically rise from the dead?”
ChatGPT’s answer:
“The belief in the resurrection of Jesus, or the belief that Jesus physically rose from the dead after his death, is a central tenet of the Christian faith. According to the biblical accounts, Jesus was crucified by the Romans and died on the cross, but he rose from the dead on the third day after his death and appeared to his followers. The belief in Jesus’ resurrection is thought to be a key aspect of the Christian faith, as it is seen as a sign of Jesus’ divinity and a fulfillment of biblical prophecies.
However, the truth of Jesus’ resurrection is a matter of faith and belief, and it is not something that can be proven or disproven through empirical evidence. Different people may hold different beliefs about the resurrection, and it is up to each individual to decide what they believe to be true based on their own experiences, knowledge, and perspective.”
ChatGPT is respectful of Christian belief, but I can still tell that the minds that created ChatGPT hold Christian truth claims at arm’s length. The moral to this lesson is this: If the only source for getting answers to the big questions of life is from the Internet, then the answers you might be looking for from ChatGPT might come up rather short.
Well, I hope that was fun!! ….. Now onto more serious matters….
Me with my longtime friend, Thomas Coyner: 1963-2022
A Brief Remembrance…
Though I experienced a lot of joy in 2022, I also had times of sadness. Just now on the last week of the year, my last remaining uncle died, which I am still reeling from right now, so I will not write about it more… therefore, I will move onto the next difficult moment…..
The toughest part of 2022 was perhaps losing a dear teenage friend of mine, Thomas Coyner. We met in high school, and we really bonded together as friends on a two-week wilderness Christian camping trip. Though I had grown up in a pretty liberal mainline Protestant church, I knew very little about the Bible, and less about having a personal relationship with Jesus. Thomas really helped me out, coming from a family background where so many of his family members were strong, well-grounded followers of Jesus.
Thomas drifted away from me after I went off to college, getting mixed up with the wrong friends, where drugs wrecked havoc in his life. It took a drug-related arrest and felony prison sentence to final bring him back around, and restore our friendship. Sadly, a genetic muscular disease started to degrade his life over several decades, even while he took upon himself the task of caring for his aging parents, who had their own serious health difficulties. Eventually, Thomas was unable to effectively care for himself beyond rudimentary tasks. The disease impacted his ability to speak, but it did not diminish his cheerful attitude. He never complained about his ailing condition.
I was able to spend an afternoon with him, and his immediate family, a few days before his death, where we got the photograph above together. I will miss my high school friend, Thomas Coyner.
Some End of Year Reflections…
Earlier this year, Queen Elizabeth II died, one of the world’s most devout Christian leaders, with a very evangelical faith clearly evident in all of her Christmas messages.. Interestingly, her son, Charles III gave his first Christmas message towards the end of 2022.
If you listen carefully, Charles gives a message similar to his mother’s, but with a slight twist. As noted by The Washington Post, Charles thinks of himself more as a “defender of faith” versus “defender of the faith.” Can you tell the difference?
“The Chosen” Mormon Controversy
I need to add some balance to what I am going to say next….I am not a big television watcher at all, but I know that many of my Christian friends have enjoyed the hit multi-season series, “The Chosen.” an in-depth dramatic presentation of the life of Christ, that has been viewed by millions.
The series is the brain child of Dallas Jenkins, son of the popular novelist Jerry Jenkins, who co-authored with the late Tim Lahaye the previously popular film series, Left Behind. Dallas Jenkins is a film-maker himself, and The Chosen has become the most successful crowd-funded film project of all time.
I have to admit that I have only seen one or two episodes myself. Not knowing much more than that, I have to say that I am glad that something like The Chosen is available, as an alternative to much of what is being pumped out rather frequently by traditional television media, the revamped Disney corporation, and Netflix. If The Chosen does nothing more than to encourage people to dig into the study of the Bible, then I think that it is worth it, despite any criticisms.
Frankly, a lot of the criticisms and calls for a boycott seem way over the top for me. Yes, VidAngel, the distributor for the show, and who helped to build Android and iPhone apps for watching The Chosen, was started by some Mormons. And yes, various scenes in the films, depicting the city of Jerusalem, were filmed on property owned by the LDS (Latter Day Saints). And furthermore, yes, Dallas Jenkins has become friends with a number of Mormons who have expressed great interest in making The Chosen a success.
But just because Mormons have been involved in the distribution and set creation for the project does not necessarily mean that “The Chosen” is actively promoting Mormon doctrine about God. You have to actually look at the script for the film series and examine what is being said to figure that out.
For that matter, my car was probably built in Japan, with at least some part of that car having been installed by someone who was an active adherent to the Shinto religion, which is completely different from the Christian faith. Should I stop driving my car now??
Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason alone to condemn something.
If you think I am just being rather unconcerned about the importance of true doctrine, just take a few minutes to listen to this following interview that Christian apologist Melissa Dougherty had with Dallas Jenkins. Melissa is a former New Ager, who became a Christian a few years ago, and she has a very helpful YouTube channel, that would be of benefit for someone wrestling with beliefs associated with the New Age Movement. Melissa asks Dallas some tough questions, which is good! This all being said, The Chosen is clearly introducing material into the screenplay, as the Gospels themselves are highly selective, and do not neatly translate well to film without some adaptation. In other words, viewing the The Chosen is no substitute for actually reading and studying the Bible for yourself. If you think my fairly positive and tentative support for “The Chosen,” given what knowledge I do have, is not adequately based, then I would like to know.
Retired pastor and author Brian McLaren identifies with being a “progressive Christian,” but just barely. McLaren was once one of the most influential leaders in American Evangelicalism nearly 20 years ago. Times have changed.
Brian McLaren: The Theological Driftings of a Former “Emergent” Evangelical Leader Turned “Progressive Christian” Turned ????
With that out of the way, and yet before I launch into my primary focus of my “year in review,” I would like to share a sobering story to frame what I will say next….. For a number of years, I have had a book on my shelf by Brian D. McLaren, a now-retired “non-denominational” pastor, entitled A Generous Orthodoxy. This is a book I had been meaning to read, for two main reasons: (1) the book came highly recommended to me, and (2) I loved the title. The title conjures up the idea that Christians need to get past all of the denominational bickering of the past and move on towards a “generous orthodoxy” that simply focuses on the ethics of Jesus.
Who could argue with that? Well, … read on…. I really resonated with that type of message (or a least I thought I did), but I just never got around to reading the book, despite the urging of other friends who suggested that I read it. As I write this, the book still sits in my bookshelf, occasionally drawing me in to dip in and read it…. but I am not sure if I really want to anymore.
Back in 2004, when McLaren wrote A Generous Orthodoxy, he was considered a leader of the so-called emergent church movement…. something that you rarely ever hear about these days. Other prominent emergent church leaders have included Rob Bell (author of Velvet Elvis and the very controversial Love Wins), Donald Miller (author of Blue Like Jazz), William Paul Young (author of The Shack and Lies We Believe About God), and the lateRachel Held Evans.
One evening about ten years ago, some eight years after A Generous Orthodoxy was initially released, I was sitting in a church meeting, to receive some training to become a better small group leader in my church. I was given some paper handouts, including an article written by Brian McLaren. The article itself was actually pretty good. But that was not what bothered me. What bothered me was that within a few months prior to that evening meeting, the word on the street was that Brian McLaren had shifted on his view of marriage between one man and one woman, to say that it was perfectly fine for evangelical church pastors like him to bless same-sex marriages. In fact, McLaren had actually officiated at the same-sex wedding for his own son.
That made me go “tilt,” but I need to carefully explain this, as a lot of these kinds of conversations generate more heat than light…..
Should A Christian Attend a “Gay Wedding”? Did Brian McLaren Cross a Line Here?
To this day, I can appreciate the difficult situation McLaren had in trying to know how to best love and support his own son. Even among historically orthodox Christians, like myself, who do not believe that the Bible affirms same-sex marriage, there is no uniform consensus on how to respond to such a situation. After all, if someone receives an invitation to attend a same-sex wedding, whether it be a family member or not, there is no explicit text in Scripture that addresses this.
The Gospel Coalition posts an article saying that attendance at a same-sex wedding inherently communicates that the attendee is endorsing the union, and thus advises the Christian to respectfully decline such invitations, even for a family member. Instead, a Christian should suggest an alternative, such as inviting the friend (or family member) and the significant other over for dinner, as a meaningful gesture of friendship, or something along those lines. But attending a same-sex wedding should be off-limits for the committed believer in Jesus.
Sometimes Christians in our churches, and those who are investigating Christianity, have questions, looking for a place where such questions can be discussed, but they do not always sense the freedom for having such an open dialogue. Quite often, conversations are shut down before they even get a chance to start, such that those who are looking to have those conversations begin to look elsewhere.
Then there is the recent controversy regarding Amy Grant……I have not kept up with the whole story, but the recent news that Christian contemporary music mega-star Amy Grant will be hosting her niece’s lesbian wedding on Grant’s farm tells us that even the most applauded Christian celebrities are not far from being faced with such a difficult dilemma.
Here is my approach, and I would think that Brian McLaren would support this: When those deeply close to you make decisions you do not agree with, I would want to carefully navigate how to keep a friendship or family relationship growing, and maintain a listening posture, without feeling like I was betraying my own deeply held convictions or dishonoring the Lord, trusting that God would impart wisdom to me and allow the Holy Spirit to do the work to reach someone’s heart, for the sake of the Gospel.
I have never been to a same-sex wedding, nor have I been invited, but I have been to other kinds of weddings for non-believing friends of mine, who do not view marriage the same way as I see it taught in the Bible. I went to those weddings not as an endorsement of the couple’s view of marriage, but because I wanted to maintain the friendship. In some cases, my going to the wedding served as an entry-point for a deeper, spiritual conversation after the wedding, for which I was grateful, that I probably might not have had otherwise. On the other hand, I can think of other kinds of supposedly “traditional” weddings where I simply could not attend, as I knew that my presence there would have been an implied endorsement.
Yet while I want to be as “generous” as I can be with Brian McLaren, nevertheless I find some serious, serious problems here. I agree with McLaren that Christians need to more proactively, intentionally walk with LGBTQ folks through their journeys. However, actually performing a same-sex wedding, and trying to do so within a Christian context, goes far, far beyond the category of Scriptural faithfulness.
In other words, to answer the question posed in the subheading above, yes, I do believe that Brian McLaren crossed a line here…. and it is rather blatant.
Like others like him, Brian McLaren sought to justify his position by finding all sorts of examples where Christian leaders, or even ordinary Christians, have fostered some type of abuse, inflicting harm on those should have instead received support from God’s people. Sadly, this is not that hard to do. But just because some Christians have used the Bible as a weapon does not give us permission to undermine or redefine 2,000 years of consistent, received church teaching, thus stretching the boundaries of a “generous orthodoxy” to its uttermost limit, and even beyond.
I am pretty sure that our church leaders who prepared the teaching handouts for that training class did not know that much about Brian McLaren’s backstory. They just liked the article that McLaren wrote as offering excellent wisdom for a church small group leader. But it did make me wonder, “What was the process for vetting material to be used for training small group leaders in our church? Who is really responsible for that?”
McLaren’s new position on same-sex marriage was not consistent with the traditional perspective on marriage described in the membership covenant of our church. My question was simply this: Even though McLaren’s views on marriage were not part of the training materials that I received that evening in our church, I wondered if it really was the wisest thing to be distributing such written material authored by McLaren in our church meeting. Were we inadvertently platforming McLaren’s teachings, even though his stated position on marriage went contrary to the views of marriage held by our church’s members? Could we not have used similar teaching material written by a different author, who was more orthodox in their thinking?
Since then, Brian McLaren dropped off of my radar. No more Brian McLaren article handouts were being handed out at small group leader training sessions. Perhaps leaders in my church picked up on the story about Brian McLaren and wisely chose not to distribute his teaching materials any more, in an effort to avoid some type of endorsement conflicting with our church covenant. That was years ago, so I can only guess.
To sum up, it seems to me that McLaren has journeyed far from the comparatively modest explorations of his works of twenty plus years ago. At this point, he seems to have adopted a process metaphysic coupled with a metaphorical view of theology that ranks the value of doctrines as forms of life that spur pro-individual, social, and environmental behaviors….. in keeping with [McLaren’s] pragmatic orientation, he is not particularly troubled if others achieve those same ends wholly outside a Christian form of life. Indeed, one might say that on McLaren’s view Christianity is an incidental husk, one that is useful insofar and only as it aids us in loving one another…..
…. So is McLaren a Christian? No doubt, his many fans will give a hearty yes while his many conservative evangelical critics will respond with an equally hearty no! …. I submit that McLaren … [has adopted] a sweeping skepticism about the truth status of Christian doctrine but who nonetheless advocates remaining in the Christian form of life so as to increase love of neighbor and the mystery that stands behind it all.
Frankly, I do not see a whole lot of difference between McLaren’s attempt to redefine Christianity and outright disbelief in the Christian faith. For if McLaren had simply stated that he was no longer a Christian, then it would sadden me, but it would have come across to me as being way more honest.
Instead, Brian McLaren’s thinking these days comes across as though he has embraced the “Gospel of Wishful Thinking” more than the historical Gospel of Jesus. If Rauser’s assessment of McLaren’s latest book is correct, then I must confess that I am both grieved and bothered by where McLaren is at now. Does it grieve and bother you?
Is there such a thing as an inevitable “slippery slope?” I would argue that going down a “slippery slope” is indeed a logical fallacy, as not everyone who embraces one particular “progressive” expression of Christianity necessarily is on their way down to apostasy. It would be going too far to say that Dallas Jenkins is sliding down a slope towards Mormonism and away from orthodox Christianity. However, in the case of a Brian McLaren, the slope away from historic, orthodox Christianity appears to be well-lubricated for him.
Some people are drawn to folks like Brian McLaren, because they resonate with McLaren’s on-going concerns about doubt and disillusionment, as they wrestle with their own doubts. However, I would pushback on this to say that there are also those who are drawn to progressive Christians like McLaren, only to be driven deeper into their doubts, and abandon their faith.
Did Jesus “Change His Mind” Because of “Mistakes” That He Made?…. Brian McLaren’s New Reading of a Somewhat Difficult Text
If you think I am misrepresenting Brian McLaren, or being too hard on him, let me share with you something that McLaren said in a recent interview, promoting Do I Stay Christian? In that interview, McLaren commented on Jesus’ first miracle, as recorded in the Gospel of John, at the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12 ESV). When Mary, Jesus’ mother, comes to Jesus saying that the wedding party had run out of wine, Jesus gives what appears to be a rather stiff rebuke (v.4):
“Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”
Interestingly, Mary then speaks to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Oddly, at first glance, Jesus then proceeds to turn the water into wine. Admittedly, it is a rather strange passage. I mean, would you ever talk to your mother like that?
Sadly, a lot of church sermons will simply brush that issue aside and move on to talk about Jesus’ power that turns water into wine. So, kudos to Brian McLaren for not side-stepping the obvious. But a careful exploration of a good study Bible, like the ESV Study Bible, the NIV Zondervan Study Bible, or the Christian Standard Bible Apologetics Study Bible, three sources that I consulted and highly recommend, might help illuminate what is going on.
Evangelical scholarship on John 2:4 broadly indicates that Jesus is warning his mother not to try to press in too hard and insist that Jesus inaugurate the full coming of the Kingdom of God, right there and then. Instead, Jesus performs the miracle as a sign that points towards the future coming of the Kingdom, a good example of typological interpretation of biblical prophecy at work within the Gospels themselves, whereby the miracle at the wedding at Cana is a “type” that looks forward to the full revelation of the heavenly wedding banquet, where Christ the bridegroom is united with his bride, the Church. The messianic times were breaking through into human history at the wedding of Cana, but it would not be until Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross that the full impact of the Messiah’s coming would be felt.
The NET (New English Translation) notes that the verse here is actually using an idiomatic expression common in first century Greek, “Woman, what to me and to you.” This idiom suggests that the speaker is saying that the matter at hand is simply none of his or her business. In other words, Jesus is saying to Mary, “That is your business, how am I involved? My hour has not yet come.”
McLaren begs to differ with all of this, suggesting that in verse 4 Jesus is being “a little bit cheeky” saying to his mother that he will not perform the miracle. However, later, upon seeing his mother’s insistence for Jesus to do something, Jesus gives into his mother’s wishes and performs the miracle anyway. In a sense, McLaren is saying that Jesus has made a mistake, then realizes his error, and then “changes his mind” and acts differently. For McLaren, this incident shows him just how human Jesus really was; that is, Jesus made “mistakes” and learns from them.
What exactly does McLaren mean by “mistakes” here? It is one thing to say that Jesus did not know everything. Mark 13:12 tells us explicitly that Jesus did not know exactly when the Kingdom would arrive in its fullness. In his humanity, Jesus set aside the divine attribute of omniscience, which explains how Jesus was able to learn, and increase “in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52 ESV).
However, the problem here is the kind of “mistake” McLaren believes Jesus is making at the wedding of Cana. It implies, at least in my mind, that Jesus is at first a bit abrupt with his mother, then he realizes how he was in the wrong in doing so, and therefore he then rectifies the situation by performing the miracle anyway, as though Jesus was acting out some form of repentance.
Dear reader: Do you think Jesus, as the Son of God, who is without sin, would really behave this way?
Ponder that a bit before you read on about my year in review……
Clarke’s Blogging Year in Review…. a Series on “Historical Criticism” of the Bible
My primary focus in early 2022 was writing a multipart blog series on the “historical criticism” of the Bible. Simply put, “historical criticism” is about getting at the story “behind the text” of Scripture. Two current cultural trends prompted me to address this topic. First, the stunning decline of the mainline liberal Protestant church has created a new crisis in evangelical Christianity. Many mainline liberal Protestant churches, that stood on the corners of 20th century Main Street, are simply dying today, with rapidly aging congregations. Unless something disrupts the current trend, a number of the formerly largest Protestant denominations will cease to exist within the next few decades, or they will become minor cultural oddities.
As a result, more and more people who once populated the Protestant mainline are making their way into evangelical non-denominational and interdenominational churches. While this may appear to be a boon for evangelicalism, in many ways the same problems that have taken down the Protestant mainline (and put them on the “sideline”) are now entering the evangelical megachurch world. Sociologists often associate this as a consequence of the rise of the “nones” and the “dones.”
This ties into the second cultural trend, associated with the rise of social media. The current fascination with stories of “deconstruction” within evangelical Christianity showing up on Facebook, Instagram, etc., reveals the shallowness of much of American megachurch Christianity, and the failure to address the challenge posed by the “historical criticism” of the Bible, that is shaking many folks’ confidence in Scripture as God’s Word. Briefly stated, “deconstruction” refers to the experience of those raised in our churches, some of whom are simply asking good yet tough questions about Christianity. Admittedly, there are those who have been “deconstructing” , who yet remain in the faith. They find their Gospel footing again, and have a renewed confidence in the God of the Bible. We should be grateful for that.
However, there are others who are either walking away from the faith altogether, or redefining faith with meanings that differ significantly from any form of historic orthodox faith. Some call the latter challenge, of redefining faith, as part of the progressive Christianity movement. The first post in the series begins here.
If the label “progressive Christianity” sounds unfamiliar or confusing to you, then I would recommend the following YouTube video dialogue between evangelical apologist Sean McDowell and self-described progressive Christian Brandan Robertson. McDowell is well-known in that he is a professor at Biola University and son of Josh McDowell. Brandan Robertson is less well-known, but he is a longtime progressive Christian blogger, who now looks up to a scholar like John Dominic Crossan as his mentor. Crossan was one of the popular scholars who participated in the Jesus Seminar of the 1990s (If you are not familiar with Crossan and his brand of “progressive Christianity,” I would recommend a YouTube video, on an atheist channel, MythVision, where Dr. Crossan is interviewed).
What is most interesting about this interview with Brandan Robertson is in how he redefines faith with meanings far afield from historic orthodox Christianity. He redefines terminology, such as “the Bible is inspired,” to mean something completely different from how evangelical and other historically orthodox Christians think about the inspiration of the Bible. While not all “progressive Christians” can be easily lumped into the same category, such as what Brandan Robertson describes about himself, a common feature in progressive Christianity is the redefining of classic Christian terminology, also including “resurrection,” “atonement,” “sin,” “hell,” “Jesus’ divine nature,” “second coming of Jesus,” “marriage,” “male,” “female,” etc., this list goes on, to mean things radically different from how historically orthodox Christians have viewed these things for 2000 years. For example, Brandan Robertson believes that when Luke 2:52 says that Jesus as a young boy “increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man,” that this means that Jesus “made mistakes.” As in the story above about Brian McLaren, does this suggest that Brandan Robertson believes that Jesus sinned? Watch the video and decide for yourself:
While some efforts towards “progressive Christianity” can be positive, healthy reactions against a wooden, fear-based fundamentalism, other expressions of “progressive Christianity” are not.
What is new about this “progressive Christianity” movement is that it is not simply taking place in the dying liberal Protestant mainline. Rather, it is taking place right in the heart of evangelical megachurch Christianity. Brandan Robertson did not grow up in a mainline Protestant church, but rather, he is a graduate of Moody Bible College, a leading evangelical institution of higher education, and he has served as a pastor at a “nondenominational” or “interdenominational” church that markets itself as being “evangelical in style but radically progressive in the message.” This is not your grandmother’s fundamentalist church!!
I read several books in 2022 that dived into the story of “historical criticism” of the Bible, and various aspects of the “deconstruction” phenomena, and the progressive Christianity movement, which I blogged about in the “historical criticism” series:
A History of the Bible: The Book and Its Faiths, by John Barton. Barton is a liberal Anglican scholar at Oxford who wrote a very readable summary of how mainline liberal Protestants look at the Bible. Barton’s views are now becoming a common feature of progressive Christianity, that is seeping into evangelical megachurch Christianity today.
Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is probably the most well-known critic of evangelical Christian faith writing today. My review of his book about the afterlife was by the far the longest and most detailed book review I wrote this past year…. and probably the most important.
Tradition and Apocalypse: An Essay on the Future of Christian Belief, by David Bentley Hart. D.B. Hart is perhaps one of most influential theologians living today (and one of the most entertaining writers I have ever read!). Some fifteen years ago, Hart was a champion of a Christian critique of the New Atheist movement in his Atheist Delusions, a book that was recommended to me by many evangelical friends of mine. Now Hart is an emboldened, and down-right dogmatic proponent of a Christian universalism. Despite his Eastern Orthodox background, the story of David Bentley Hart is the story of someone who started off on the right foot but who now has gone into a fully progressive Christianity direction.
Paul: The Pagan’s Apostle, by Paula Fredriksen. Paula Fredriksen, a world-class New Testament scholar, argues that Paul did not convert to Christianity such that he left his Judaism behind. Instead, Paul saw Christianity as the fulfillment of Old Testament Jewish promises. Even though Dr. Fredriksen does not share my evangelical Christian theological convictions, I contend that historically orthodox Christians can still learn something from her insights into Paul.
In 2023, I plan on digging into some more pressing issues related to “historical criticism” of the Bible. I wish more evangelically-minded churches would take this challenge more seriously. The future of the church, and the faith of our children depends on it.
More on the Debate about How Men and Women Can Flourish Together in Both the Church and in the Family
In 2022, I also did a two part series on the ever-present complementarian-egalitarian issue; i.e. about the role of women in the church and family, focusing on two different books:
In 2023, I plan on reading one more book on this topic and blog about it, as well as writing a blog series on the related topic of head coverings, as discussed in 1 Corinthians 11, which is a challenge for any Christian, complementarian or egalitarian. Then I want to move on to something else.
I would recommend Mike Winger’s YouTube series that covers the complementarian/egalitarian debate in-depth. Mike is a Christian apologist and a pastor, so he is not an academic by profession, which some critics fault him for. But he does a decent job covering the different views. He lands on the “moderate complementarian” side of the debate, not taking an extreme complementarian approach (like DeYoung), but he does not embrace egalitarianism (Peppiatt). Just a warning: many of Mike’s videos are long, but he is a good presenter, even if you do not agree with his conclusions, and I have listened to him for hours at a stretch.
Some egalitarian scholars have written some responses to his videos. I have not seen that many rebuttals from the more extreme complementarian direction yet, but I am sure that they will come, too. The debate just seems to go on… and on…. and on….and on…….. Some complementarian arguments I find are not very convincing, but on the other side, a number of egalitarian arguments are just as unconvincing, if not worse. I tend to land near Mike Winger, but I am more moderate than he is. A lot of extreme complementarians seem like they just want to double-down against any reasonably egalitarian argument that is actually pretty good. Like Mike, I really wanted to be convinced of egalitarianism, but I simply could not get there without thinking that the data was being distorted to an unfair degree by some egalitarian authors. I want to try to find some middle ground in this debate, but it just seems to be getting harder and harder as time goes on….. *SIGH*.
On the other hand, the controversy over gender in the church today has helped me to dig deeper into the Scriptures, in order to explore the answers found in God’s Word.
Back in the early 1990s, I heard an Eastern Orthodox bishop predict that the debate about gender within the church would be the defining theological debate for the next fifty years, paralleling the debate over the deity of Christ that eventually gave us the Nicene Creed in the 4th century. That was twenty years before public opinion in the West shifted dramatically on the question of same-sex marriage and before most people began to think seriously about transgender issues. Almost thirty years after hearing that prediction I have come to believe that this Eastern Orthodox bishop was 100% correct!!
Final Wrap-Up for 2022
In addition to what I described in my “end of the summer review“, I have a few more random book reviews:
Powers and Thrones, by Dan Jones. A historical survey of medieval Europe.
Divine Violence and the Character of God , by Claude Mariottini. Dr. Mariottini invited me to review his book and I was glad to do so. It is an extremely difficult and delicate topic, but something made ever more pressing due to the war in the Ukraine.
The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain, by Ronald Hutton. This is perhaps the best go-to reference source for explaining how we got many of the holidays in the United States. It is pretty dense and academic, but packed with evidence to dispel many of the popular misconceptions about where Christmas, Easter, and Halloween came from.
I finally got around to reading C.S. Lewis’ classic, Mere Christianity. Simply excellent. A must read. Why did I wait so many years before I read this??
Aside from listening to Audible and ChristianAudio.com books on my work commute, I have to say that YouTube is still where it is at to get excellent content regarding Christians apologetics.
FINALLY, here is my book of the year, that I can recommend to every Christian who reads Veracity:
Why I Trust the Bible: Answers to Real Questions and Doubts People Have about the Bible, by Bill Mounce. Readable and practical. Dr. Mounce is a senior Bible translator, who has had an enormous impact on both the NIV and ESV bible translations, which are two of the most popular Bible translations available today. This is perhaps the best single volume you can get that addresses common issues faced by Christians today when sharing their faith and their confidence in the Bible.
Odds-and-Ends
Now a few more little “odds-and-ends”…. I have been enjoying the PourOver, a Christian summary of the news, without all of the vitriol of the 24-hour news cycle and social media madness. Recently, they recommended a new Bible app, Dwell, that I might try out for 2023.
Speaking of news, for years I was one of those loyal NPR (National Public Radio) listeners, who faithfully listened to NPR’s All Things Considered radio program almost every evening on my commute home from work. More than a few times I would have one of those “driveway moments,” as I continued to listen spellbound to one of NPR’s stories. I always knew that there was a bit of liberal bias in their reporting, but I thought they did at least a decent job interviewing someone on the “other side” of the issue.
I gave up on NPR for two reasons, the main one because I started to shift to podcasts and audiobooks for my commute. The other reason was that I kept getting the sense that NPR stopped trying as much to enter into dialogue with diverse points of view. But this year, I learned that a whole cross-section of former NPR supporters, not just evangelical Christians like me, have given up on NPR, particularly over the past 5-7 years.
What amazes me is that the vast majority of this “I stopped listening to NPR when….” group are actually secular-minded or others with a liberal political bent. Apparently, NPR has gone so far to the cultural left that not even someone like my mother, who was a life-long political liberal, would be able to stand what has happened to NPR. Author and public-intellectual, Peter Boghossian, who would describe himself as a classic liberal and an atheist, put out a multi-episode podcast, All Things Re-Considered, featuring interviews with such former NPR listeners, and even former NPR employees, who have become disillusioned with NPR. The days of a widely trusted news journalist, like a Walter Cronkite, are sadly far behind us.
My book reading (or should I say, “listening”) list keeps growing, as we head into the New Year. But there are some really important issues found in these books that I believe will be of help to fellow Christians, that I hope to blog about further.
Well, that is my rambling update for 2022. Onwards to 2023!! Happy New Year!!
Oh, if you are still in the Christmas mood (or you are Eastern Orthodox, and just getting into it!), you might enjoy this bluegrass version of “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel” & “Come Thou Long Expected Jesus” by the Petersons…… or if you are tired of winter, the Peterson’s have a new version of “Wayfaring Stranger”:
Veracity 