When refuting Islam, history is more effective than hysteria

Robert Jeffres, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, fancies himself as the next Jerry Falwell. That is, he presents himself to the media and to the world as the spokesman for fundamentalist Christianity, wrapping himself in a pseudo-prophetic mantle, warning that, absent some heavy duty repentance and turning back to obeying the laws of God, doom is imminent.

Jeffres, however, is no Falwell.

To begin with, Falwell was more of a social crusader and proto-culture warrior than a doomsayer. While he shared with Jeffres the same aberrant view of eschatology (pre-millennial dispensationalism), its excesses were muted, especially after Falwell dove headlong into American politics and actively campaigned for numerous causes, even going so far as to endorse candidates for office. Correcting the moral course of the country through the political process was antithetical to Falwell's theological orientation. He was more functionally post-millennial than pre-millennial. Whether or not you agreed with him, he was an articulate spokesman for a particular moral vision, although he did occasionally lapse into hysterics. Moreover, Falwell's enduring legacy is that of a pioneering Christian educator, having founded what has now become a well respected institute of higher learning.

Jeffres, conversely, lacks all of Falwell's virtues while possessing all of his shortcomings in spades. In his frequent appearances on cable television programs, he comes across as buffoonish and intellectually incurious, regurgitating what has been standard fundamentalist boilerplate for over half a century. Last year, he published a book in which he made the convoluted argument that Barack Obama, while not himself "the Antichrist," was nevertheless "clearing the way" for his coming. Like so many dispensationalist doomsayers before him, Jeffres based nearly all of his dire predictions on the faltering moral condition of the United States, giving no consideration to the good, bad, or indifferent conditions of other nations.

More recently, however, Jeffres has taken a more international view, setting his sights on Islam and the mortal peril it poses to its followers.

"It was Satan himself who delivered those delusions to those people to lead people by the millions away from God," Jeffress told his 11,000-member congregation. "Islam is a false religion that will lead you to hell. It is based on a false book that is based on a fraud. It was founded by a false prophet who was leading people away instead of to the one true God."

Jeffress made parallels between Islamic radicals like Boko Haram, al-Shabaab and ISIS and the antichrist. The antichrist, he explained, will work to exterminate Jews and Christians from the world just like these terrorist groups.

"Did you know that there were more martyrs in the 20th century than all the other centuries combined together? ... Jesus said, 'These things are going to be like the birth pains of a woman. They will increase in intensity and in frequency,' he warned.

"Christians will be slaughtered by the millions for their faith in Jesus Christ. You say, 'Wait a minute, during the tribulation? I thought all Christians were going to be raptured and we were going to get out of here and that there weren't going to be any Christians. It's true, the church will be raptured before the final seven years of Earth's history, but during that final seven years, many people will come to faith in Christ but they will pay a terrible price to do so."

Jeffress made clear that the Quran is a fake, noting over 35 verses that command Muslims to murder Jews and Christians who get in the way of Islam's jihad.

The Quran is filled with phony stories and includes over 35 commands to kill Christians and Jews and those who stand against the expansion of Islam.

"These terrorists are Islamic terrorists, doing what they're doing in the name of their faith," said Jeffress. You cannot find one single verse in the New Testament that calls for violence against non-believers. Jesus said to love your enemies. Muhammad said to butcher your enemies."

Set aside, for the moment, the references to the "rapture" and the seven year "tribulation," a dispensationalist "end times" scenario developed from a misinterpretation of a patchwork of unrelated biblical texts. That is to be expected from a preacher of Jeffres' theological bent. Weeding all that out, his harangue against Islam certainly points out some of its obvious dangers and rightly condemns the despicable practices of its most radical practitioners. But the argument is undermined by a lack of historical perspective. Simply calling Islam "Satanic" and labeling it a "false religion," without explaining the circumstances surrounding its origins, makes for nothing more than an hysterical rant.

It is all too easy to rage against Islam and its holy book as the work of Satan. It is a bit more challenging to buttress that claim with solid historical evidence. As Peter Leithart has noted in his review of the essay collection, The Hidden Origins of Islam, there is credible scholarly opinion that the Quran was originally intended as a lectionary of Scripture readings compiled by a heretical Syriac Christian sect. The term "Quran" itself means "lectinarium." In other words, Islam's sacred book was intended as commentary on Scripture (Old and New Testaments), not as Scripture in and of itself.

The most likely explanation for the historical origin of Islam is that it grew out of Nestorianism and Monophysitism, two ancient heresies which were popular among Syriac Christians. Islam is best understood, then, as a heresy of a heresy; not so much a false religion as an apostasy of the true religion.

None of this makes Islam any less "Satanic." Any claim which denies Jesus is the Messiah is antichrist and of the Evil One. It is important, however, when seeking to expose the falsehood of Islam, to understand its actual historical origins rather than simply hurling a-historical hyperbole and invective.

Ebola and Israel? A new low, even for John Hagee

It's hardly surprising that fear-monger John Hagee would weave the Ebola crisis into his apocalyptic narrative, but the manner in which he has done so is shameless even by his low standards.

Ebola may be part of God's judgment for President Barack Obama's alleged attempts to "divide Jerusalem," said John Hagee, a San Antonio-based pastor and founder of Christians United For Israel.

Citing the Book of Joel, the televangelist took to Tuesday's broadcast of the "Hagee Hotline" to tell listeners that "our president is dead set on dividing Jerusalem. God is watching and he will bring America into judgment," according to the left-leaning Right Wing Watch.

"There are grounds to say that judgment has already begun, because he, the president, has been fighting to divide Jerusalem for years now," Hagee said in a YouTube video posted by Right Wing Watch.

"We are now experiencing the crisis of Ebola," he said.

Hagee, who heads Cornerstone Church, added that threats from Islamic radicals and ongoing unrest in Ferguson, Missouri are all part of God's judgment on the United States in response to Obama's policies.

David Fischler at Stand Firm observes:

To say that people like Hagee bring disrepute upon the Christian faith when they make pronouncements like this is being generous. People who claim to know exactly what God’s specific actions are in response to specific human events are at least borderline blasphemous, and definitely Gnostic, by claiming that they know the mind of God in a way that the rest of us can’t. For them, the Scripture is just window-dressing for their politics, and God is simply their political consultant as they pursue their agendas. It’s as bad when done by conservatives as it is when its done by liberals, if not worse, since conservatives should know better.

Of course, calling Hagee a "conservative" is also being generous.

"Left Behind" should be . . . left behind, and here's why

Many thanks to Randall Hardman of Ministry Matters for saving me the trouble of writing (yet again!) a lengthy refutation of the relentlessly popular, but biblically dubious, "rapture" theology and its latest Hollywood adaptation. You will want to read the entire piece, but here is a choice excerpt.

To the surprise of many, rapture-based theology has only been around for the past couple hundred years and predominantly in America. Indeed, the world's leading biblical scholar, N.T. Wright, refers to it as an “American obsession” and notes that few Christians in the U.K. hold any sort of belief in it. I would say the same for biblical scholars (in fact, I can't think of a single trained biblical scholar of Revelation that endorses rapture based theology minus a couple at Dallas Seminary.) The origins of rapture theology lie in 1830 Scotland where a fifteen year old girl name Margaret MacDonald claimed to see a vision of a “two-stage return of Jesus.” Enter John Nelson Darby, a British evangelist and the founder of the Plymouth Brethren. Darby took MacDonald's vision and created an entire system based off of it in which Jesus returns not once (as Christians have always believed) but twice! Darby and others who were sympathetic to his views went back to the Bible to search for clues, signs, and verses which would justify thinking of worldly history in terms of “dispensations” which included a seven-year tribulation and a preceding evacuation of the church from it.

Through various “mission trips” to the U.S. in the late 19th century, the notion of a “rapture” found itself appealing to American Christians who were going through the atrocities of the Civil War which, by all measure, must have looked like Armageddon: nation rising up against nation, brother against brother, son against father, etc. With more than half a million dead, who wouldn't find a “let's get out of here” theology attractive? This mindset, of course, was exasperated with World War I and the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible which was handed out to soldiers in the trenches. Two other events corresponded to the promotion of the “rapture” in America: the conversion of Dwight L. Moody to the eschatological system (he later founded Moody Bible Institute and a major radio program which would become important in the promotion of rapture theology) and the establishment of a dispensationalist training center, Dallas Theological Seminary (get why their scholars are the exception?)

Now Christians have always affirmed the second coming of Christ, but only in the system which Darby, Scofield, and later dispensationalists developed were there three comings. This was a brand new take on the end, and while Christians throughout the centuries have always wondered whether their day was the last day (including Paul), with some interpreting contemporary events in such a way, the establishment of a system and a timetable was entirely new, as was the presupposition that Jesus would exorcise his Church from the last days.

When Paul refers to some being “caught up” (1 Thessalonians 4:17) he's not referring to a rapture which will precede a time of tribulation in the modern world: He is giving his audience hope in the midst of persecution and death and reminding them of the hope that all Christians share, that Christ will come again (just not again and then again!) When Jesus speaks of “one being taken” (Matthew 24:40) he is not referencing how Christians all across the world will escape from a period of trial; rather, he is referencing the Genesis flood story (vv 37-40) and, as the context makes clear, being “taken away” is actually unfortunate, as it is the one who is “taken away” that faces judgment.

I could go on with a verse by verse analysis of all the “rapture verses” but there exists an underlying problem with rapture theology, one which has the ability to affect so many aspects of how Christians interact with the problems of this world: It embraces escapism as a solution. Rapture-based theology teaches us to think and hope for an escape from this world, not endurance to persevere in it. In this view, Jesus loves his Bride too much to let it go through the intense suffering and judgment the world will face (very similar to the popular notion that suffering doesn't happen to godly people). But that is not the message of Scripture, nor is it the message of Revelation in particular. Sometimes terrible things do happen to good people and Scripture doesn't promise us an “out.” It promises us a “how.”

Underground Pewster: How did your preacher approach John 14:6?

Today's Gospel reading is one which post-modern false prophets of "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" would just as soon ignore. That was the Underground Pewster's experience in church this morning, and he is interested in how others handled it.

Today's Gospel reading was John 14:1-14. After sitting through today's sermon, I wondered how other preachers tackled verse 6, 

"Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." 

I know how it was handled in our church.

It was ignored.

Sigh...

John 14:6 is felt by many to be a "clobber verse" or a sure-fire conversation killer. Repeating Jesus' exclusive claim is not going to make you many friends if you bring them up during an interfaith dinner party, and writing about it in the public sphere will assure that you are removed from any list of potential commencement speakers.

I remember trying to get a handle on this verse a few years back during an on-line theology group. At that time, I came up with what I called an inclusively exclusive response to the question of whether or not John 14:6 means that someone who has never heard the Gospel, or a good Muslim, or a good Buddhist needed to follow Jesus in order to come to the Father. I reasoned that Jesus could call a non-christian at the time of their death at which time that individual soul could respond positively or negatively. I for one would not want anyone to wait until the last minute like that, and I think we are clearly commanded to go and make disciples in the here and now, so my non-scriptural solution may not be of any merit.

Even if it poses problems for the modern, pluralistic mind, I think the subject is something that should not be ignored when it comes around on Sunday morning.

For what it's worth, here's my sermon on the text from this morning.

So, how did your church celebrate the resurrection of Christ?

"The Prince of Preachers" saw it coming a century and a half ago. . .

. . . and on this Easter Sunday past, his prophetic word found its tragic fulfillment.

(If you can't make the correct guess from the multiple choice, you've missed the point of this post.)

Review: "Noah" lives up to fundamentalists' worst expectations

After spending the better part of my afternoon viewing the highly touted Noah movie, I am inclined to agree with my old friend Ken Schenck. I wanted to like what I saw but, unfortunately, it turned out to be every bit as bad as those raving fundamentalists warned us it would be.

From the start, the film throws biblical caution to the wind, even managing to take extreme liberties with the non-canonical Pseudepigrapha writings attributed to Enoch. "The Watchers," fallen angels who are said to have protected the murderer Cain after he went into exile, are portrayed as rock-like creatures who look very much like a stone-age version of the Transformers. In one particularly theologically aberrant scene, they are released from their imprisonment and taken back into heaven after helping Noah build the ark and then warding off an invading army of Cain's descendants, despite the fact that Tubal-Cain, the leader of the line of Cain who had murdered Noah's father Lamech at the beginning of the film, manages to slip through and stow away on the ark.

As the plot unfolds, any resemblance to the actual biblical account is strictly coincidental. God is referred to throughout as "the Creator," a rather generic and aloof deity who apparently chose Noah to build the ark not to save a remnant of humanity to repopulate the earth after the flood, but to save only "the innocent," that is "the animals," who still live as they did in the Garden (another serious theological aberration, as the Fall affected all of creation, not just humanity).

Noah sees it as his mission to make sure the human race, including his own family (sons Ham and Japheth are without wives, a total departure from the biblical account), is wiped out so that the animals can repopulate a pristine new earth uncontaminated by the presence of man. "The Creator," it seems, is quite capricious. Only Tubal-Cain seems to have a grasp on the idea of man being created in God's image, even though he grossly misinterprets it for his own evil ends.

Things come to a head when the wife of Noah's son Shem, who was barren until given a special blessing by the elderly Methuselah, gives birth to twin daughters. Noah, not wishing them to grow up to become mothers themselves, prepares to kill them, in obedience, so he thinks, to "the Creator." It is a test of faith which he fails, as he instead lays down his dagger and kisses his granddaughters. Thus, we are left to think that Noah preserved the human race in defiance of the will of "the Creator." The conclusion of the film makes this more nuanced, but Noah's lapse into drunken nakedness after the flood is presented as though it were the result of his inability to fulfill his mission.

So, as much as I had hoped the anti-hype by some of the more stringent among the faithful would turn out to be another false alarm, I came out of the theater feeling very disappointed and, dare I say it, somewhat defiled. I cannot recommend Noah as a serious biblical film. It is a Hollywood production which borrows names for characters from biblical sources, but it is not a work done in any way, shape, or form to give honor to the one true and everliving God whom we encounter in the Scriptures.

Pardon me, Madam, but have you bothered to read your own Prayer Book?

Few would argue that Anglicanism's most significant contribution to the wider Christian community is The Book of Common Prayer. Many a believer, Anglican or otherwise, has been enriched by its profound and theologically rich prayers and liturgy. First compiled by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in 1549, it underwent several revisions until 1662. The expansion of the Anglican Communion around the world necessitated different editions, but the 1662 edition has remained the theological standard.

The most obvious advantage of having a Prayer Book is that Anglican Christians can always be ready in season and out to offer a prayer or devotional exposition, not because they have a pre-written script, but because they have been steeped, or at least should have been, in a grand tradition of theologically rich prayer and spirituality. There should never be any need to "wing it," or to make something up as you go along. So, it is more than a little bizarre that the "Presiding Bishop" of the former American province of the Anglican Communion has so much trouble in this video, posted on her denomination's website, explaining the Christian holy season of Lent.

While some have criticized the 1979 American edition of the Prayer Book as lacking in some of the finer points of theology, it nevertheless includes a rather succinct explanation of the meaning of Lent in its Ash Wednesday liturgy.

Dear People of God: The first Christians observed with great devotion the days of our Lord's passion and resurrection, and it became the custom of the Church to prepare for them by a season of penitence and fasting. This season of Lent provided a time in which converts to the faith were prepared for Holy Baptism. It was also a time when those who, because of notorious sins, had been separated from the body of the faithful were reconciled by penitence and forgiveness, and restored to the fellowship of the Church. Thereby, the whole congregation was put in mind of the message of pardon and absolution set forth in the Gospel of our Savior, and of the need which all Christians continually have to renew their repentance and faith.

I invite you, therefore, in the name of the Church, to the observance of a holy Lent, by self-examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; and by reading and meditating on God's holy Word. And, to make a right beginning of repentance, and as a mark of our mortal nature, let us now kneel before the Lord, our maker and redeemer.

So one is left to wonder if Madam Oven Mitt has even read her own Prayer Book!

Justin Welby: The harsh reality sets in

If you still had any lingering doubts that Justin Welby is an unmitigated disaster as Archbishop of Canterbury, the events of the past week should clear them all up. First came a press release bearing his name in which he heaped praise upon Madam Oven Mitt on the occasion of her "richly deserved" honorary doctorate from Oxford. It was a statement which, to the many victims of the Presiding Bureaucrat's "intellect" and "compassion," came across as hurtful, insensitive, and mean-spirited.

As Canon Phil Ashey observes:

How can Justin Welby ascribe “remarkable intellectual gifts dedicated to the service of Christ” to a leader who has been challenged time and again over the last ten years by the Windsor Process itself, who has ignored the moratoria begged of her and TEC, and whose acceleration of those innovations was the very cause for the response of the Anglican Churches in Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and elsewhere in the majority Global South which offered pastoral care and covering to those Episcopalians, now Anglicans, who would not submit to her innovations as a matter of conscience and fidelity to Biblical teaching and Lambeth Resolution 1.10?

Is such conduct really an expression of remarkable intellect in the service of Christ?

What possessed Justin Welby to say that Jefferts Schori “richly deserves” an honorary award for her “remarkable gift of compassion which she has dedicated to the service of Christ,” in the face of the following facts:

On February 17, 2011, The American Anglican Council published a documented report of how Bishop Jefferts Schori and the leadership of TEC had violated the very text of its canons, due process and natural justice to inhibit and depose (at that time) 12 bishops and 404 deacons and priests. Since then, the estimate of total inhibitions and depositions of bishops, priests and deacons has risen to 700. This represents the largest exercise of penal discipline by any Presiding Bishop in the history of the TEC—and perhaps in the history of any Church in the Anglican Communion.

In one notable case, Bishop Jefferts Schori deposed Bishop Henry Scriven of the Church of England! In another notable case, her “compassion” led her to inhibit retired Bishop Edward MacBurney (VII Quincy) on April 2, 2008. On April 4, his son died, leaving the grieving father and bishop unable to conduct his son’s funeral rites.

Through her Chancellor, Bishop Jefferts Schori authorized and continues to authorize litigation against volunteer vestry (parish council) members and other volunteer leaders in church property cases. Although volunteers do not hold title to the property of the departing congregations, we documented at least 48 instances (as of the date of our report) where such volunteer vestry members have been sued by TEC or the diocese—in some cases, seeking the personal assets of these volunteers for monetary punitive damages in excess of the value of the property at issue. Such claims represent a position by Episcopal bishops and attorneys that a volunteer vestry member‘s vote to leave TEC is oppressive and malicious illegal behavior that justifies the forfeiture of a volunteer‘s personal assets. In addition to suffering the intentional infliction of emotional distress at the possibility of losing their personal assets, volunteer vestry members and other leaders have suffered damages by the mere filing of such claims including difficulty in refinancing their homes, difficulty in obtaining security clearances for new jobs, and prejudice to their credit reports.

When “Christian compassion” might have moved Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and the leadership of TEC to accept the Primates call for a moratorium on litigation at their 2007 meeting in Dar es Salaam, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori chose instead to accelerate the litigation. In 2009 when TEC cut staff and program by 30%, it increased the line items in the budget for litigation. We documented at least 56 complaints filed by TEC and its Dioceses against individual churches, clergy and volunteer vestry members. Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori led a delegation of bishops to Lambeth 2008 who demonstrated reckless indifference to the truth by telling other Anglican bishops in their “indaba groups” that TEC was being sued by local churches—when precisely the opposite was true. The Episcopal Church has continued to stonewall every request for an accounting of the funds it has expended on such litigation, and conservative estimates based on public records indicate that the cost is already in excess of $30 million.

Really-Is this “compassion dedicated to the service of Christ?”

Next came the Archbishop's speech to the Church of England General Synod, presented with that typical winsomeness which British clerics seem to think can cover a multitude of sins. Matt Kennedy, however, was not fooled.

This speech by Justin Welby could have easily been given by Rowan Williams or, indeed, any number of revisionist Episcopalian bishops. It is, of course, about women bishops and how those who rightly oppose the move to make them ought to open themselves to the “perfect love” that casts out all that curmudgeonly concern for biblical fidelity which as we all know inhibits “human flourishing”. But this speech is not only about women bishops. The language he uses here is “precisely” the language he uses to push reconciliation with those leaders in the Communion who want to mainstream and bless homosexual behavior. This subtext breaks to the surface quite clearly in the paragraph below

“This sort of gracious reconciliation means that we have to create safe space within ourselves to disagree, as we began to do last summer at the Synod in York, and as we need to do over the issues arising out of our discussions on sexuality, not because the outcome is predetermined to be a wishy-washy one, but because the very process is a proclamation of the Gospel of unconditionally loving God who gives Himself for our sin and failure. It is incarnational in the best sense and leads to the need to bear our cross in the way we are commanded.”

Note here that Welby identifies the gospel with the “very process” of creating a “safe place” to disagree about human sexuality.

No. That is not the gospel. The gospel is the truth that God became Man to save sinners from the consequences of sin and its enslaving power. God did not become Man to make peace with those who lead people into sin. To those who do such things, quite contrary to the Archbishop’s claim, Jesus suggested millstones and deep lakes would be far more bearable compared to what he has planned for them apart from repentance.

Remember, if you will, the constant revisionist refrain beginning in 2003: “These issues do not have to divide us. We still gather round the same table and worship the same Jesus. Let us work on being brothers and sisters despite our differences…”

But these very pleasant sounding coaxings only obscured the truth. The “differences” that divided us then and continue to divide us now are gathered around two options: 1. teach the biblical truth about sexual sin and call people who experience with same sex attraction to live lives of repentance and faith resulting in eternal life or 2. teach people with same sex attraction that the behaviors the bible says will keep people out of the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9) are really no sins at all.

There is no “middle road” here. There is no reconciliation ground between these two viewpoints. None. If those who believe #1 above are correct, then then those who believe #2 are leading people God loves to hell. These leaders must be called to recant or be subject to discipline and expulsion. What Archbishop Welby wants to do, and he does it clearly in this speech, is re-cast the question as if it were tantamount to “should Christians drink wine?” or “What is the appropriate length for women’s skirts?”. He wants to reduce the question to “adiaphora”, to the level of a matter about which God does not speak. This is a lie as anyone equipped with reason, a bible, and the ability to understand human language ought to know. To promote this notion is to sully and obscure the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is time for orthodox, evangelical Anglicans to face the harsh reality about Justin Welby. He is no better than Rowan Williams, and possibly even worse.

Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy.

"Liberalism" then and now: Different, but still the same

Trevin Wax has an interesting post examining the great reversal which has taken place in "liberal" Christian circles in the roughly 100 (actually 90) years since the publication of J. Gresham Machen's classic, Christianity and Liberalism. "Liberalism" in Machen's day referred to an aberrant religious system which sought to preserve certain vestiges of Christianity, namely its moral foundations, while casting aside its "miraculoous" or "supernatural" elements. Wax outlines the trajectory of early twentieth century liberalism thusly:

We are living in a scientific age of discovery.

The miracles we read about in the Bible were written from another cultural vantage point.

It is important to maintain the ethical and moral teaching of Christianity.

Belief in the literal occurrence of biblical miracles is not needed to maintain the moral center of Christianity.

If belief in miracles is embarrassing to modern people, we should deemphasize them in order to extend Christianity into the next generation.

Christian "liberals" in Machen's day wanted to advance a society based on Christian morals and ethics but, as Machen so adeptly pointed out, this was a fool's errand. Any number of religions encouraged moral and ethical living. Only Christianity backed up the truth of its claims with signs heralding the in-breaking of the kingdom of God.

Conversely, Wax observes, the present-day heirs of "liberalism" have done a 180, embracing the miraculous and ditching the morality.

We are living in a tolerant age of enlightenment.

The morals we read about in the Bible were written from another cultural vantage point.

It is important to maintain the miraculous and supernatural events of Christianity.

Interpreting the commands of biblical morality literally is not needed in order to maintain to center of Christianity.

If belief in biblical morality is embarrassing to modern people, we should deemphasize it in order to extend Christianity into the next generation.

I'm not sure I would agree that today's "liberals" (a misnomer today, as it was, likewise, in Machen's day) are anymore favorably disposed to "miracles" than were their predecessors. It would be more accurate to say they have embraced an expansive view of the work of "the Holy Spirit," whom they often credit with leading them into "new truth," that is, a new understanding of morality and ethics unfettered from traditional restraints.

This "Holy Spirit" is not the Third Person of the Trinity which we encounter in Scripture, but an impersonal force whose "leading" today's open-minded "liberals" seem incapable of resisting. As such, they are, in fact, no different from those who came before them. In both Machen's day and our own day, the only "spirit" which guides "liberalism" is the spirit of the age. By any other name, it is, in the words of that great theologian Bob Seger, still the same.

A quick primer on the antichrist, Robert Jeffres edition

Barack Obama is possessed with an overestimated opinion of himself and of the powers of his office, but he is not "the antichrist," no matter how many Scripture passages you pull and twist to make such a claim. The latest effort to associate Obama with that ignominious title comes from Robert Jeffress, the flamboyant pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas. In a unique twist on this old dispensationalist game, Jeffres argues in a forthcoming book that Obama is not himself the antichrist, but is "clearing the way" for his coming.

Already no stranger to controversy, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, a Dallas megachurch pastor, is coming out with a book that claims President Barack Obama is clearing the way for the Antichrist.

Jeffress, head of the 11,000-member First Baptist Church of Dallas, writes in his book “Perfect Ending” that he does not believe Obama is the Antichrist, yet he links Obama’s support of gay marriage to the coming of the Antichrist. Many Christians believe Jesus’ Second Coming will feature a confrontation with an enemy called the Antichrist, based on interpretation of passages 1 John and 2 John.

“For the first time in history a president of our country has openly proposed altering one of society’s (not to mention God’s) most fundamental laws: that marriage should be between a man and a woman,” Jeffress writes, according to an advance copy provided to RNS.

“While I am not suggesting that President Obama is the Antichrist, the fact that he was able to propose such a sweeping change in God’s law and still win reelection by a comfortable margin illustrates how a future world leader will be able to oppose God’s laws without any repercussions.”

I have long suspected that Jeffres is not a particularly bright fellow. This ridiculous exercise in dimestore theology pretty much confirms my suspicion. It is nothing more than his contribution to the endlessly recycled "end times" hysteria that has enjoyed a long and embarrassing history in the "Christian" book publishing business. Popular eschatology and biblical eschatology, however, are not necessarily one and the same. A quick primer on what the Bible actually teaches about "the antichrist" might be in order here.

The term "antichrist" appears only in the first and second letters of John. It does not appear in Daniel, Revelation, or any other apocalyptic or prophetic books. Paul does not use the term, and it does not appear in any of the Gospels. It is staple of dispensationalist hermeneutics to conflate "the antichrist" with other terms, such as Paul's "man of lawlessness" and "son of perdition" (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12) and "the beast" with his infamous "mark" and "number" (cf. Revelation 13:11-18). Such conflations, however, are tendentious and lacking in serious exegetical rigor.

When John uses the term "antichrist" in his epistles, he is referring specifically to schismatic elements who "went out from us [the gathered faithful, that is, the church], but they were not of us" (1 John 2:19). They are possessed of a spirit that does not confess Jesus as having come in the flesh, that is, they deny the Incarnation, the Word made flesh (cf. 1 John 4:3). The term "antichrist" is, for John, primarily of theological, not political, import.

It is also important to note that John refers not only to "the antichrist" but to "many antichrists" (cf. 1 John 2:18) who had already come at the time he was writing. Unlike the truth, which is singular, falsehood comes in many forms. Thus, while the fullness of the truth is embodied in the one Lord Jesus Christ, falsehood cannot be embodied in a singular entity. Attempting to identify one person as the "antichrist," or his forerunner, is a futile endeavor. For just as "many antichrists" had come in John's day, so many more have come in our day. Their names, however, are of little significance. In the end, they will all be brought to nothing by him whose Name is above every name, the King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ.

Fig leaves won't do in the presence of a holy God

I have long soured on what I not so affectionately refer to as "pop culture evangelicalism," that faddish brand of "relevant" spirituality popular of late among the young and foolish. Some will protest that the term is unfair, and I might even be inclined to agree. To add the qualifier, "evangelicalism," to a movement that is entirely a product of "pop culture" is to diminish both, but that is precisely the point. Evangelicalism does not need pop culture and its addiction to celebrity in order to be "relevant," and pop culture does not need evangelicalism to clothe its narcissistic excesses in spiritual garb.

The dirty little secret is that American evangelicalism, unhinged from anything resembling historical moorings, has been married to pop culture almost from its inception. Its current adriftness--theologically, spiritually, and substantively--is the natural outcome of the exaltation of the autonomy of the individual over the mutual accountability of the community. The emergence of an evangelical celebrity culture mirroring that of the secular entertainment world was inevitable in such an environment.

Depravity, however, that most wholesome yet distasteful doctrine of the Reformation, has a way of wielding its ugly head at the most inopportune of times. The well documented downfalls of celebrity "mega-church" pastors are testimony to this. Sex brought down Ted Haggard. Muddled theology felled Rob Bell. Now, allegations of plagiarism threaten to derail the ministry of Mark Driscoll.

As is often the case when accusations of impropriety arise, many of Driscoll's critics, who have never cared much for his bombastic brand of evangelicalism, have taken to piling on, calling attention to some of the Seattle pastor's other questionable actions.

In an article posted at Juicy Ecumenism today, however, Mark Tooley raises an issue with Driscoll which may seem superficial, but actually goes to the very heart of the problem with pop culture evangelicalism.

It once was a redeeming quality for traditional once Mainline Protestant churches that, whatever their other deficiencies, they offered a respectful, traditional worship atmosphere, with clergy and parishioners dressed formally. Increasingly this seriousness is less and less common, and I sometimes see worshippers dressed similar to Driscoll in this photo. Usually I see only a handful wearing a coat and tie at my own church and other Methodist churches where I attend, a big shift from just a few years ago. Recently I was asked to be an usher at a church I visited, my only apparent virtue as a stranger apparently being that I was among the very few in a suit. 

An elderly woman in my church has recalled that her father, when pastor of the church in the 1940s, had been the last minister to appear in the pulpit wearing a frock coat and not a robe. Apparently not until well into the 20th Century did Methodist clergy start wearing robes, previously wearing dark suits. Francis Asbury, founding bishop of American Methodism, was famous for crisscrossing the American frontier in his dark suit, which naturally got frayed. John Wesley reputedly preached often to outdoor crowds in the robe of an Anglican clergy. 

The largest church in the neighborhood of my church is an historic black Baptist congregation. Their traffic creates a small traffic jam on Sunday mornings. And as I pass their parishioners walking from their parked cars they are always formally dressed, men and women, all ages. This particular church is pretty well to do. But as a black seminary president recently explained to me, historically black people who were not well off saw church as their most important experience of the week and dressed accordingly. I’ve noticed that worshippers at immigrant Hispanic evangelical churches are often dressed very formally, probably for similar reasons. 

Shouldn’t church be the most important event of the week for everybody, at least as important as a wedding or other celebration?

Tooley is quite on target in pointing out the inadequacy of Driscoll's wardrobe. I am not as big a stickler for congregational uniformity, but clergy ought always to dress appropriately when leading worship, proclaiming the Word of God, and presiding at the Lord's Table.

Driscoll and others of the "casual" persuasion may argue that their ragged and disheveled attire is an expression of incarnational ministry. However, that is missing the point. The minister leading worship has a great weight upon his shoulders. It is his responsibility to bring the worshiping community into the presence of a holy God. From the Garden of Eden onward, this is not something one does when clothed with mere fig leaves.

Desperate times for the enemies of the cross

In the fantasy world of the secular media, orthodox Christianity is in retreat in the West and in danger of being wiped out completely in the East. It is an illusion, of course. The kingdom of God is always advancing against the kingdoms of this world. This is not so obvious at times, however, because the church operates under a power made perfect through weakness. Persecution of Christians in Islamic-dominated countries is real and the silence of the West in the face of it is scandalous. Revisionist interpretations of the faith have gained a foothold in mainline denominations in America and Britain and the leaders of those bodies are propagating a false gospel which undermines the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Underneath the media-created veneer, however, these are desperate times for the enemies of the cross. That is clear when you read two articles which have surfaced today. The first is a rather sensationalistic piece from The Blaze about a "self-professed 'Bible scholar'" preparing to make a preposterous claim about Jesus in an upcoming symposium.

On Oct. 19, self-professed Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill is planning to make public some very flammable allegations. At a day-long symposium called “Covert Messiah” in London, England, he’s set to unveil purported evidence that Roman aristocrats manufactured Jesus Christ – a claim that, if substantiated, would devalue the core of the Christian faith.

The only problem? Most Biblical experts disagree with the scholar’s pronouncements.

A press release announcing the purported new evidence claims that Atwill has discovered “ancient confessions” that purportedly prove that Romans invented Jesus Christ in the first century. He has long argued that the faith system was used as a political tool to control the masses — something he says is still going on today.

“I present my work with some ambivalence, as I do not want to directly cause Christians any harm, but this is important for our culture,” he said of the alleged debunk – one that he believes will eventually be universally accepted.

Yeah, right. We've seen this movie before. This Atwill fellow is just the latest incarnation of the publicity-seeking "biblical expert" of dubious pedigree who hopes to generate a mountain of publicity to hide the molehill of his vacuous claims.

Some twenty-odd years ago, a group of second- and third-tier "biblical scholars" (that is, professors languishing in the religion departments of state universities because they couldn't procure appointments at prestigious religious institutes of higher learning) operating under the collective moniker of the "Jesus Seminar" generated headlines by putting out press releases touting their "findings" about "what Jesus really said" as opposed to the words the early church had inserted in his mouth via those propaganda documents known as the Gospels. Not suprisingly, the "authentic Jesus" turned out to be the stereotypical late twentieth century social liberal whose "actual words" supported the left-of-center political and theological agendas of the "scholars."

The fiasco that was the "Jesus Seminar" demonstrated, not for the first time, that the secular press can easily be taken in by anyone and everyone who claims the title of "biblical scholar." Mr. Atwill, despite his dubious credentials, will doubtless generate a great deal of media attention. His claims, however, are nothing more than the same worn out revisionist bromides repackaged in new wrapping. Move along here. It's the same old song.

Old songs, of course, bring back old memories and, if the second article courtesy of RNS, a hagiographic profile of retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, is any indication, nostalgia is pretty much all the revisionists have to run on. Despite his best efforts to remain relevant, Spong has been out of the pubic eye for over a decade now and his legacy as Bishop of Newark is, as George Conger notes in his critique, one of theological adriftness and declining church membership.

As a bishop, Spong is a failure. As a theologian, he is a dim bulb. As a social prophet, he is a discredited wishful thinker. In other words, John Shelby Spong is the perfect hero for theological and political liberals who, for all their bravado, have nothing left but the memories of a past that was never as glorious as their memories so selectively, and desperately, recall.

Horace Bushnell: A misguided herald sounding an uncertain trumpet

Naturalistic theology (often referred to as theological liberalism) did not appear as a challenge to orthodoxy overnight. Its precursors constituted the panoply of heresies repudiated by the Ancient Church and, as the preacher of Ecclesiastes long ago observed, there is nothing new under the sun. The rise of naturalistic theology first in Europe and then in America was, in large part, merely a repackaging of old lies in newer, more sophisticated, wrapping.

In his encyclopedic history of homiletics, The Company of Preachers (Kregel, 1998), David L. Larsen notes the rise of "New England theology" in the early nineteenth century and the negative influence it had on the preachers of the day. Like most expressions of naturalism, this was a theology of denial, not affirmation. New England theology denied the orthodox doctrines of sin, depravity, and imputation, paving the way for even more radical departures from the faith as the century progressed.

The person at the center of the transition from doctrinal purity to theological liberalism, was Horace Bushnell (1802-1876), a gifted preacher with a penchant for pushing the doctrinal envelope well beyond acceptable limits.

Bushnell has been called the father of liberalism, and indeed in moving beyond New England theology he lurched very close to Unitarianism. Certainly in God in Christ he lapsed into Unitarian thinking, espousing a modal view of the Trinity. In his Vicarious Sacrifice and Forgiveness and Law, Bushnell jettisoned transactual and propitiatory aspects of the atonement. In a reaction against revivalism, he opted for gradualism rather than conversion in his book Christian Nurture. Neither did he believe a child to be depraved. He believed the child was to grow up never knowing that he or she is other than a Christian.

Charles Hodge spoke of his views as "less than Christian." For Bushnell the Bible was essentially figurative. In 1866 he indicated his leaning toward understanding the fall in Eden as a myth. Jesus was teacher rather than the crucified and suffering God. His were "orthodox memories, Unitarian hopes." The old wine had not survived being transferred to new bottles. He scoffed at the idea of the Second Coming. He was very theological but he did not preach sound doctrine.

What Bushnell lacked in doctrinal substance, he made up for in homiletical style. This was not enough, however, to spare him criticism for going off the theological and exegetical reservation.

Yet Bushnell was a preacher's preacher. There was a virility in his style and a fire inside him, but the common people were not drawn to his variety of naturalism. Early on, he gained a reputation as a public speaker of note, and his ability to title sermons is dramatic. Little wonder he was offered the presidency of the College of California (later the University of California at Berkeley), which he turned down.

Bushnell's celebrated sermon on "Unconscious Influence" is based on John 20:8, "Then went in also that other disciple." But for Bushnell this had nothing to do with the resurrection or Jesus Christ. He did not do exegesis, and even Brastow speaks of his interpretations as often "fanciful" and lacking "the support of recognized exegetical canons."

[Larsen, p. 528]

In the end, Bushnell must be characterized, in Larsen's words, "as a tragic figure in American pulpit annals" whose "influence upon successive generations has been unfortunate." For all his intellect and homiletical ingenuity, he was a misguided herald sounding an uncertain trumpet.

[Annual Re-post] Jeremy Taylor: Not everyone's favorite Anglican

On the Anglican liturgical calendar, today is the commemoration of Jeremy Taylor, the prolific divine who served as Bishop of Down and Connor in Ireland after the Restoration. Most famous for his devotional treatises, The Rule and Exercises of Holy Living and The Rule and Exercises of Holy Dying, Taylor was influential to several generations of Anglican clerics, including Charles Wesley. However, the theology he espoused in many of his written works (the notable exception being his prayers) has left him open to charges of legalism and Pelagianism. Samuel Taylor Coleridge offered the first, and for several centuries the only, comprehensive critique of Taylor's theology.

And yet Jeremy Taylor will not be called a Pelagian. Why? Because without grace superadded by Christ no man could be saved: that is, all men must go to hell, and this not for any sin, but from a calamity, the consequences of another man's sin, of which they were even ignorant. God would not condemn them the sons of Adam for sin, but only inflicted on them an evil, the necessary effect of which was that they should all troop to the devil! And this is Jeremy Taylor's defence of God's justice! The truth is, Taylor was a Pelagian, believed that without Christ thousands, Jews and heathens, lived wisely and holily, and went to heaven; but this he did not dare say out, probably not even to himself: and hence it is that he flounders backward and forward, now upping and downing. (Quoted in Allison, p. 94)

Elsewhere, Coleridge made the devastating conclusion that "Socinianism is as inevitable a deduction from Taylor's scheme as Deism or Atheism is from Socinianism."

In more recent times, Bishop C. FitzSimmons Allison has acknowledged the usefulness of Coleridge's critique and offered a comprehensive critique of his own in his book The Rise of Moralism. Taylor, according to +Allison, expounds a Gospel that "may be concisely summed up as the willingness of God to accept us tentatively on account of his more lenient covenant. Thereafter, however, our hope depends upon our sincere endeavours in the life of repentance."

Christianity is, for Jeremy Taylor, an enterprise only for those capable of helping themselves. There is no indication as to how Christianity applies to the helpless, nor as to how the weak and the wicked are initially contacted by God's grace. A person caught in a sinful habit of which he is unable to purge himself cannot expect God's pardon to help him, and the Church's role is merely to exhort him to further, seemingly futile, efforts. Such a person may receive Holy Communion only at the further peril of his soul. Taylor almost invariably insists upon the initiative of the sinner and not of God. The sinner must first endeavour, obey, believe, and love, then God will accept, forgive, pardon, love, and save. (pp. 80-81)

Jeremy Taylor, while still held in high esteem for his literary and devotional works, is not everyone's favorite Anglican.

Pat Robertson's unique talent for making a bad situation worse

Even in his prime, during the heyday of oldline evangelicalism, Pat Robertson was a bit of a loon. Now in the autumn of his career, however, his nationally televised faux pas are becoming something of a daily occurrence. Earlier this week, he appeared to give his blessing to sex change operations.



As if that wasn't bad enough, two days later, he endorsed contraception while managing to insult Appalachians and Catholics.



Of course, Robertson is not the only aging spiritual leader to have lately opened his mouth to insert his foot. Desmond Tutu, however, only comes out of retirement from time to time these days. Robertson, who should have retired years ago, can't seem to resist the temptation--daily, on national television--to exhibit his unique talent for making a bad situation worse.

The "new" NIV: Bad for women, bad for the church

Gender-neutral or "inclusive" language, as I have said before, is ugly, loathsome, and sterile. It has wreaked havoc on nearly all aspects of the church's worship, most notably its liturgy and hymnody. It has also wielded a destructive influence in the field of biblical translation. Now, its prevalence in the nefariously revised edition of the New International Version (NIV) has effectively rendered that once lauded translation useless.

Like all deceptions, the "inclusive" language troll came disguised as an angel of light, a herald of linguistic liberation for women long oppressed by the evil of gender specificity. In reality, however, it was a one-way ticket back to Egypt for the church in general and women in particular. Mary Kassian, writing for Girls Gone Wise, offers a tenfold elaboration.

The new gender-inclusive NIV was published earlier this year. It contains thousands of changes to the Bible’s male-gendered language. Having a gender-inclusive Bible appears to be the latest trend amongst cutting-edge, cappuccino-slurping Christian hipsters. Don’t get me wrong. I like to be hip. And I enjoy cappuccino as much as the next person. But my biggest beef with gender-inclusive Bibles is that they lack doctrinal precision. If you mess with the words, you mess with the meaning. Respected Bible scholars have explained why inclusive translations such as the New International Version (NIV), New Revised Standard (NRSV), and Common English Bible (CEB) are deeply flawed. If you haven’t yet considered their arguments, you might want to check out these Gender Neutral Bible Articles.

Notwithstanding the doctrinal imprecision and blatant politically-correct translating agenda, there are additional reasons why I dislike gender inclusive Bibles. Undoubtedly the publishers had good intentions, and genuinely wanted to help women, but in my mind, a gender-inclusive Bible is BAD for women. Really, really bad for women! I react to people reading from the new, gender-inclusive NIV the way I react to nails scratching down a chalk board. Here are ten reasons why:

1. It obscures the profound symbolism of gender:

Gender has a profound, cosmic meaning. God created manhood, womanhood, marriage and sex to put the love story of Christ and the Church on display. When we mess with the Bible’s gender language, we obscure gender’s symbolism. We make truths about God and the gospel more difficult to understand

2. It exalts gender above that to which it points:

Changing the Bible’s gender language implies that the Bible’s gender language is about us. It’s not. The Bible is ultimately not about male and female—it’s about Jesus, the Son of Man and Son of God. The Bible does not use predominantly male gendered language to exalt men; it uses it to exalt THE Man who paid the ultimate price to redeem His Bride.

3. It diminishes the unique beauty of womanhood:

Blurring the Bible’s gender language contributes to the blurring of gender distinctions. It diminishes and devalues the unique role and beauty of womanhood.

4. It is less inclusive of women:

Gender inclusive Bibles cast women as “other” rather than part of the collective whole. God collectively named male and female “man” (Hebrew: ‘adam. See Gen. 5:2) to indicate that male and female would share a common condition for which He would provide a common answer. Because both male and female are ‘adam, both are equally represented by the first man, Adam. Both are fallen and in need of a Savior. The good news of the gospel is that both are also equally represented by the Second Man—the Last Adam—Jesus Christ. When God named male and female ‘adam, he had the Last Adam in mind. So when, in order to appease modern sensibilities, we change “man” to something we think is more inclusive,” we diminish the theological meaning and exclude woman. If woman is not specifically identified as “man” then how can she be represented by the first man, Adam? What’s more, how can she be represented by the Second Man, the Last Adam, Jesus Christ? Gender inclusive Bibles are supposed to be more inclusive of women, but pardoxically, the language theologically does the exact opposite. It excludes women from the collective whole.

5. It demeans women:

Gender inclusive Bibles imply that women are too stupid to figure out that in the Bible, the words “man” and “brothers” are inclusive terms. The male translators have to fix the words for us, since we’re not theologically astute enough or bright enough to get it on our own. Quite frankly, I feel like gender-inclusive Bibles insult a woman’s intelligence.

6. It patronizes women:

Poor little girls. The translators need to change the words of the Bible so our feelings don’t get hurt. Boo hoo. Women are so easily offended. Sorry, . . . but changing the words of the Bible because you think some women might be offended by its language is downright patronizing.

7. It calls God’s attitude toward women into question:

Making changes to gender language is based on the premise that God ought to have given gals and guys equal air time. Trying to minimize the discrepancy suggests that God didn’t care enough about women to take our feelings into account. The natural conclusion is that He obviously loves his boys more than He loves his girls. The conclusion is wrong. And the premise is wrong.

8. It calls God’s wisdom into question:

Poor God. His bad. He needs our help. He wasn’t smart enough to get the words right. He obviously isn’t as enlightened as people living in the new millennium. We have to step in and update His image, to make the Bible more palatable to woman’s modern sensibilities.

9. It encourages further changes to Scripture:

I know of at least one Muslim that is aghast that Christians would have the audacity to tamper with the wording of our Holy Book. And since we’re audacious enough to tamper with gender wording for humans, it won’t be long till we’re audacious enough to tamper with gender wording for God. Translators will undoubtedly feel the need to update God’s names so that HE becomes more gender inclusive. Terms like “Mother-Father God,” “Jesus, child of woman and man,” “Great Source of Being in the Sky” and our “God-Goddess” communicate the concept of a gender-inclusive deity much better than the male-gendered language of the Bible. Don’t be naive. I’ve studied feminist theology long enough to know that naming self leads to naming the world leads to naming god. It’s audacious indeed!

10. It leads women away from truth:

I care about women. Deeply. I long to see them experience healing and wholeness in Christ Jesus. I do them a disservice when I apologize for the Bible, fail to embrace its unvarnished beauty and power, and shrink back from sharing the Words that are perceived by some as foolishness and a stumbling block, yet are actually the power and wisdom of God for righteousness and sanctification and redemption. I fail women when I try to make God or His Word more palatable. I empty the cross of its power (1 Cor. 1:17-30).

Gender and gender language is important. It touches on the essence of a woman’s identity, the essence of the character of God, and on the essence of the gospel. We get things so very wrong when we think we can improve on the Bible’s teaching on gender or the gender language it uses. The big picture informs us that from the very beginning, God’s plan for gender has very little to do with us and very much to do with Him. And we need to trust that even if we don’t fully understand them, the words, images and means He has chosen to display His glory are not only right, they are also good. Very good! And also very good for women!

A Battle Worth Fighting

I understand that language changes over time, and that translation is not always an easy task. But I am saddened that Christians seem so eager to jump on the cultural bandwagon to update God’s Holy Book with inclusive language. I don’t think they realize what is at stake. I have had students struggle with understanding concepts about God because their native language did not lend itself to translating/expressing the gendered concepts that exist in the original languages of the Bible. We will lose something very critical and essential if we lose the linguistic concepts afforded us by the gendered nature of English. Retaining gender distinctiveness in our language is a battle worth fighting. There is a great deal at stake.

So ladies, please don’t jump on the gender-inclusive Bible bandwagon. Be hip. Be courageous. Be politically incorrect. Insist on a Bible that accurately translates gender language– like the ESV, Holman Christian Standard, or New America Standard. Because in the end, inclusive language, and inclusive language Bibles, are bad for women.

This is not going to end well for the NAE

Marvin Olasky and Mark Tooley are reporting on a disturbing alliance between the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, an organization funded by the pro-abortion Hewlett Foundation. Preliminary information suggests this is a marriage bought and paid for in hell.

Here are several items worth considering now, beginning with the money trail. During the past decade the Hewlett Foundation, one of the nation’s largest abortion promoters, gave The National Campaign nearly $50 million. The National Campaign in turn gave $1 million to the NAE in 2008 and is now negotiating with the NAE a new grant that would “continue the work started under the previous grant,” according to National Campaign chief program officer Bill Albert.

The $1 million (apparently for use over several years) was not much by Hewlett or National Campaign standards, but it’s big for the NAE, which had a total budget of about $1 million in 2009, 2010, and 2011, according to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. And what exactly is “the work” that will continue if the NAE gets another grant?

Here’s an example: The NAE sponsored a panel in April at the Q Gathering in Washington, D.C., where young evangelicals gathered to hear speakers and panels address numerous topics, including abortion reduction. According to Q founder Gabe Lyons, the NAE “highly recommended” for inclusion in the panel the speaker who ended up dominating it, National Campaign CEO Sarah Brown—without disclosing its financial connection to her.

Brown urged contraceptives for the unmarried as well as the married. No one on the panel disagreed. When it concluded, 372 audience members had the opportunity to answer electronically this question, "Do you believe churches should advocate contraception for their single 20-somethings?" Almost two-thirds voted yes.

News reports trumpeted that result as evidence that the debate over contraceptive use by the unmarried is over, since even evangelicals favor it. In this and other ways, the National Campaign’s grant paid off.

The NAE has had its share of public relations problems ever since the downfall of its infamous former president Ted Haggard. However, its leftward slide began with the unholy crusade of its former director of government affairs Richard Cizik, who resigned under pressure in 2008 after stating that he was "shifting his views on same sex unions." Current president Leith Anderson now appears to have also gone wobbly on the subject.

Meanwhile, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that Anderson, who retired last year as pastor of a large Minnesota church, will not take a public stand on that state’s upcoming vote on the definition of marriage. “When churches start getting really politically engaged, they often lose focus over what is their primary mission,” Anderson told the newspaper. “There are appropriate times to do it [be politically engaged]. I think churches should, but they need to be careful about what they do. I especially think churches should seek to be nonpartisan in their approach to teaching moral truths.”

Anderson recalled he had stated his opposition to same-sex marriage in 2004 while at the church. NAE officially opposes same-sex marriage. But in recent years NAE has moved away from its traditional focus on social issues and increasingly has endorsed more politically liberal causes. Under Anderson’s presidency NAE has opposed U.S. enhanced interrogation techniques, called for nuclear disarmament, and endorsed Comprehensive Immigration Reform including legalization for illegal immigrants. Last Friday, Anderson publicly backed President Obama’s decision to stop enforcing U.S. immigration law against illegal immigrants under age 31 who assert they came to the U.S. as minors.

If Anderson is quoted correctly, he seems to believe the church should not vigorously affirm laws upholding the traditional definition of marriage. But he thinks the church should publicly espouse very specific positions on issues like immigration law and national security, where Christian teachings are not so traditionally defined.

It gets worse. In 2010, the NAE adopted a resolution seeking "common ground" and "fresh national dialogue" on the subject of reducing the number of abortions in the United States. Cizik's successor, Galen Carey, said at the time that partnering with notorious pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood was a possibility. It would seem logical to conclude that the alliance between the NAE and the Campaign is an outgrowth of the 2010 resolution.

This is not going to end well. No story involving the selling out of principle for political expediency and social acceptance ever does.

From the "They think we still care" file

In one of the more memorable scenes from the movie Major League, aging catcher Jake Taylor (Tom Berenger) walks in on a dinner party hosted by his ex-girlfriend and her fiance. Urged to stay despite the awkwardness of the situation, Jake introduces himself and says he is a player for the Indians. "In Cleveland?" asks one of the dinner guests. "I didn't know they still had a team."

I recall that scene every time I come across some stray piece of news about some entity that long ago ceased to have any relevance and was not particularly significant even in its heyday. Such an entity is the Jesus Seminar, a consortium of "biblical scholars" so obscure that those of us who, upon reading this article by Jeff Walton, have been duly notified of its continued existence had, first, to be reminded that it had ever existed at all. 

Yes, I do recall that marvelous little book, The Five Gospels, in which this esteemed collection of biblical brainiacs presented their scholarly "findings" based on the cutting edge research and hermeneutical methodologies of the late nineteenth century. That was two, maybe three, decades ago (the late twentieth century) and it provided ample fodder for late night conversations among insomniac seminary students at the time. Most of us, however, have long since forgotten about these luminaries of the literati. The real world of parish life is a far more edifying pursuit.

Unfortunately, so it seems, the Jesus Seminar is forgotten, but not gone. Their message today is as fresh as yesterday's mildew on the water-stained pages of a first edition printing of Schleiermacher's Reden über die Religion.

Early Christianity was an oral culture launched by an illiterate Jesus Christ, according to two liberal New Testament scholars who spoke recently at a Jesus Seminar event in Washington, D.C.

The claim was one of several bold assertions made during a recent March workshop in which the prevalence of Evangelical Christianity was bemoaned and scripture was “reimagined” from a feminist perspective. The Salem, Oregon-based Jesus Seminar dismisses scripture’s historicity and draws from sources outside of the Biblical canon in order to produce what they claim to be a more authentic view of Jesus than the church teaches.

Bernard Brandon Scott of Phillips Theological Seminary in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Joanna Dewey, a professor emerita of Biblical Studies at Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, argued that a later move into manuscripts minimalized the role of women in the early church.

“Early Christianity was an oral culture based on oral authority,” Dewey claimed, adding that manuscripts were “inherently male” and eliminated women, while oral story kept them in.

Reimagining Mark

During one session of her presentation, Dewey donned a head covering and dramatically sought to “re-imagine” a female-centered telling of Mark’s gospel, performing as an imaginary late first century woman.

“I think something like this could have happened,” Dewey proposed, titling her performance “the Gospel of Ruth.”

The Episcopal seminary professor described such a “reimagining” of Mark’s gospel as an important step in countering alleged sexist distortion of Biblical history. Women, Dewey argued, would be at center, rather than periphery, of any actual gospel events.

Scott agreed, asserting that “These days, unless you are a right-wing conservative, a feminist reading of the Bible is typical.”

An Illiterate Christ

Dewey was firm in her assertion that Jesus was illiterate. Refuting the Luke chapter 4 account of Christ reading in the synagogue as an invention of the gospel writer, Dewey claimed it was “because he couldn’t imagine Jesus as illiterate.”

The seminary professor claimed that a scroll of Isaiah would have been too expensive for the Nazareth synagogue, and the story manufactured. Dewey did not address Jesus writing on the ground in John chapter 8, or other examples of his literacy.

“Jesus did not know how to read and write, there was no reason to,” Dewey flatly declared, adding that while modern people take literacy for granted, “this was not true in antiquity.” Dewey offered that the only group among whom literacy was the norm at the time was the elite, with letters orally dictated and then performed before community.

Scott mostly agreed, stating that no more than 10 percent of the urban population was literate during the time period, and that only 2-3 percent of the rural population was literate. The two speakers differed on whether or not Jesus spoke Greek, with Dewey arguing it was less likely, while Scott countered his observation that lower classes quickly learned the language of dominant culture, and Jesus’ peers would have been no different.

Imperial Images

While Scott and Dewey agreed on Jesus’ alleged illiteracy, Scott argued that widely understood images pervaded early Christian society. Citing early images of Christ portrayed as Roman Centurion, Praetorian Guard and lastly in the clothing of an Emperor, his hand lifted in imperial gesture, Scott stated that early Christianity was juxtaposed with imperial image.

Pointing to a recurring image in some Roman tombs of a woman praying, Scott identified those tombs as Christian, and the woman as a pre-Constantinian Christian image paired with Christ as a shepherd youth. While this female praying form was not mentioned in writing, Scott asserted it was “all over artwork” and the images would later be displaced with Christ portrayed as an emperor.

Sweeping claims by Scott and Dewey, including an assertion that monastics rejected episcopal authority, went mostly unchallenged during the workshop at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church on Capitol Hill. Scott at one point suggested to the audience of 40 mostly elderly participants to “make up your own canon” of scripture.

“I would trade the book of Revelation for Hamlet any day,” Scott announced, adding that he would swap the Pastoral Epistles for any two Emily Dickinson poems. “We’d be way better off.”

The United Church of Christ layperson also categorized Revelation as the book of “a left-wing bomb thrower” violently reacting against the violence of Rome.

No Love Lost on Evangelicals

Both Scott and Dewey shared their dismay at the continued worldwide spread of Evangelical Christianity and the failure of liberal religious thought to gain widespread traction. Both of the Jesus Seminar speakers complained that the prevalence of evangelicalism led to assumptions that it is the only viewpoint of Christianity, resulting in either adherence to evangelical belief or a rejection of Christianity altogether.

Mainline Protestants also earned Dewey’s scorn, as the retired Episcopal seminary professor expressed frustration at “pressure still there to preach [Bible] stories as true.”

“We’re not just talking about Evangelicals – but liberal, east coast Episcopalians,” Dewey fumed. Scott agreed, sharing that he no longer revealed to fellow airplane passengers that he was a New Testament scholar out of frustration with preconceived notions he encountered.

“We have lost the public battle for what it [scripture] means, and that’s unfortunate,” appraised Scott, with Dewey adding that the church was going through a “profoundly anti-intellectual” period.

The über stupidity of these "scholars" is eclipsed only by their slavish adherence to a feminized pseudo-hermeneutic which makes the "colored bead" voting system of the Seminar's early years seem almost respectable. David Fischer eviscerates the arguments of Scott and Dewey with a few simple facts of history.

1) Christianity grew directly out of Judaism. Judaism was, indisputably, a “manuscript culture,” one that took great pains to pass down the revelation of God and its rabbinic interpretation in written form. That doesn’t mean there weren’t oral elements, of course (that’s where most if not all of the Talmud comes from), but that by Jesus’s day Judaism was based on the written word. So how could Jesus have been taken seriously as a teacher and preacher if He wasn’t familiar with the written tradition of His faith?

2) Given the extraordinary care that was taken to insure that the written tradition was properly maintained, why should we think that there was some kind of opposition between the two in the early church?

3) Why was writing “inherently male,” other than because it happens to fit the presuppositions and ideology of the academic?

His whole critique is well worth your time.

Pat Robertson: Foot(ball) in mouth, again

If nothing else, the continued presence of Pat Robertson on the airwaves provides ample material for the more lighthearted posts I prefer to put here on Fridays. Yesterday, the aging (ageless?) evangelical hanger-on offered his prescient commentary on a subject about which he has always been an indisputable expert: the National Football League!

David Fischer at Stand Firm points out just how reckless Robertson's seemingly trite comments are.

Do you suppose it even occurs to Pat that what would “serve [the Broncos] right” would be painful, perhaps disabling, likely career-ending, possibly life-changing, for Peyton Manning? Do you suppose ol’ Pat ever thinks before engaging his mouth? Is it possible to arrange for a permanent power failure just for CBN’s studios in Virginia Beach? Now that would serve him right.

Fischer's sentiments are shared by many, but every time someone expresses the wish that Robertson would just go away (whether via power outage or what have you), I have to bring up this unfortunate piece of information reported several years ago by Ted Olsen at Christianity Today.

Television and televangelism usually work through viewership. A show with few viewers won't stay on the air: On commercial television, no advertisers will buy space. In religious broadcasting, no donations will come in. But Robertson hasn't needed viewers for almost a decade. He has contractual obligations.

Many people have complained about the 700 Club to cable channel ABC Family, which airs it. But ABC Family has no choice. It is obligated under contract to air it. (The FCC may not be able to do anything, either)

In 1988, Robertson sold the Family Network to Fox for $1.9 billion. Not bad, when you consider the channel was originally launched in 1977 through the donations of viewers who had been promised a Christian alternative to "secular" television, then taken public in 1992. CBN got $136 million from the sale. Robertson's Regent University got another $148 million. Robertson personally received $19 million, and the rest went to the Robertson Charitable Remainder Trust, which will fund CBN after Robertson and his wife die.

But the money wasn't the biggest part of the deal: Fox Family was required to air The 700 Club three times a day—and, if Fox sold the network, the obligation to air The 700 Club had to be part of that deal, too.

Cable World reported in 2001 that Robertson turned down hundreds of millions of dollars to renegotiate. Largely due to frustration that the 700 Club had disrupted its programming, Fox sold the network to the Walt Disney Company in 2001 for $3 billion and $2.3 billion in debt. Now ABC Family is obligated to air the program three times a day.