The reliability of the Gospels

Christianity Today offers a list of websites with resources about the reliability of the Gospels.

The List: BlogWatch | Liveblog | Christianity Today

Ridiculing Christianity

Frank Lockwood, the Bible Belt Blogger and religion reporter for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is offended by the double standard with which the press treats religions, at the expense of Christianity:

I'm not a Catholic, but I'm tired of artists who belittle people's faith - publicity hogs who dunk crucifixes in urine and craft images of saints out of elephant dung.

I'm also disappointed by U.S. news organizations that have a double standard when it comes to religion: They're more than happy to mock evangelical or Catholic Christianity, but they're somewhat leery of offending Judaism and they're down-right terrified of offending Islam. Muslims absolutely deserve respect as do Jews and people of all faiths - even Christians.

Here's the lead of a story that moved on the AP wire today (along with a photo):

"Chocolate Jesus is resurrected.

'My Sweet Lord,' an anatomically correct milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ that infuriated Catholics before its April unveiling was canceled, returns Oct. 27 to a Chelsea [New York City] art gallery, its creator said Tuesday."

If the story sounds familiar to you, it's because the national media pounced on it during Easter week - the first time Chocolate Jesus was unveiled. Now it's back for round two.

In the latest story, the sacred cornerstone of Christianity, the resurrection, has been reduced to a journalistic punchline ["chocolate Jesus is resurrected..."]. Isn't that witty and urbane? And people wonder why newspapers can't hold onto readers.

Artists with scant talent (and even less originality) have figured out that blasphemy is an easy (and safe) ticket to national notoriety - as long as it's lowly Jesus of Nazareth who is ridiculed. Newspapers in this overwhelmingly Christian nation gobble it up. They shouldn't.

Can you imagine the national media laughing it up about an anatomically-correct chocolate Mohammed in Manhattan with his genitals on display? They'd be too afraid to print the pictures. [They don't have the nerve to print artistic renderings of the Prophet with his clothes on!]

Would the media laugh at a nude chocolate Mohammed?

Imagine...

Christianity Today has a column by Collin Hansen about The Gospel Coalition. I've posted about the organization here before. It would seem to be an extremely worthy endeavor. Hansen illustrates what it could mean:

Imagine an evangelical movement led by churches that grow by multiplying, preach with theological substance and winsome apologetics, encourage holiness among members, engage their communities in areas such as politics and art, and even share economic resources and welcome the poor.

Thanks to Denny Burk for the reference.

Tethered to the Center | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

The "Religious Left"

Steven Malanga in today's Wall Street Journal writes about "The Rise of the Religious Left." If religious leaders wish to speak out about economic and environmental issues, that is surely their right. But good intentions hardly guarantee the advocacy of good policy, and if, in addition, it means less emphasis on other things to which the Church can speak with moral authority, then it is a betrayal. It is also interesting that this kind of involvement is never greeted with the alarm that invariably attends the activities of the "Religious Right." From the article:

This new religious left does not expend its political energies on the cultural concerns that primarily motivate conservative evangelicals. Instead, working mostly at the state and local level, and often in lockstep with unions, its ministers, priests, rabbis, and laity exert a major, sometimes decisive, influence in campaigns to enforce a "living wage," to help unions organize, and to block the expansion of nonunionized businesses like Wal-Mart.

The new religious left is in one sense not new at all. It draws its inspiration in part from the Protestant "social gospel" movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially Baptist Minister Walter Rauschenbusch, who believed that the best way to uplift the downtrodden was to redistribute wealth and forge an egalitarian society. Rauschenbusch called for the creation of a kingdom of heaven here on earth - just as presidential candidate Barack Obama did last week at a church in South Carolina. ....

Religious left leaders blindly refuse to acknowledge the considerable academic research showing that mandated wage hikes often eliminate the jobs of low-skilled workers - the very people whom it seeks to help. David Neumark, for example - a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley's Institute of Business and Economics Research and one of the world's foremost authorities on wage laws - has found that while living-wage laws do boost the income of some low-wage workers, they also have "strong negative employment effects." That is, they vaporize jobs. In one study, Mr. Neumark noted that a 50% boost in the living wage produced a decline in employment for the lowest-skilled workers of between 6% and 8%.

Religious left clerics also ignore the evidence that much poverty in prosperous, opportunity-rich America results from dysfunctional - dare one call it "sinful"? - behavior. Around two-thirds of poor families today are single-parent households, largely dependent on government subsidies and headed by women with little education. The entry-level, low-wage work for which these mothers are qualified makes it hard to support large families. And the time they must devote to raising their kids makes it hard to climb the economic ladder. Poverty is increasingly about the irresponsible decision to have children out of wedlock. In many inner city communities where poverty is entrenched, 75% of all children are now born out of wedlock. .... [more]

The Rise of the Religious Left - WSJ.com

In the face of death

When grief and hardship come - and they always do, sooner or later - what we know will be more important than what we feel. In fact, conclusions reached in the face of strong emotion are the least reliable. Martin Downes on "Grief, hope and the comfort of doctrine":

One of the soul impoverishing dangers of regarding doctrine as no more than "head knowledge" is that it denies Christians the comfort and encouragement they need in the face of death. In fact a lack of knowledge leaves us in a position where our grief finds no relief, and our thoughts are given no solid hope.

Consider Paul's approach in 1 Thess 4:13-5:11. He doesn't want them to be ignorant or uninformed about those who have fallen asleep. If they are uninformed then they will grieve like those without hope. The remedy for this is knowledge, doctrine, truth. In the face of death, to those who grieve over believers that have died, Paul confesses the truth of Christ's resurrection. He says "We believe that Jesus died and rose again" and that he will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. In the face of death Christians confess the resurrection of the Son of God. In the midst of grief they hold that believers who have died will be woken from the sleep of death. [more]

Against Heresies: Grief, hope and the comfort of doctrine

Joel Osteen

I've never watched Joel Osteen, but a great many people have and his books are best-sellers. He seems to have a lot of influence. Last evening 60 Minutes did a report on his work. It can be viewed here:Denny Burk watched that report. Here is a portion of his reaction:

The sad thing about Joel Osteen is that he has all the marks of a sincere person. I just finished watching the profile of his ministry on “60 Minutes,” and there is not one thing about him that looks phony. He is one of the most likeable, loveable fellows that you’ll ever see. I really think he believes everything he is saying. ....

Yet by his own admission, his message focuses on the “positive,” and not on sin, redemption, and the cross of Jesus Christ. In other words, his message doesn’t focus on the Gospel. I would have to say that there is hardly anything distinctively Christian about anything that he says. And in fact, the prosperity “gospel” is decidedly anti-Christian (1 Timothy 6:10).

As I was watching the “60 Minutes” interview, I was aghast that Osteen openly admits that he preaches this way. He doesn’t even blush when he says it.

Faith-based

HolyCoast's Rick Moore notices a story about the apparent success of faith-based programs for prison inmates. Needless to say, the programs are opposed by Americans United.

HolyCoast.com: Faith Based Prison Programs Giving Hope to Inmates

An easy call

This should be a no-brainer for religious conservatives:

Social conservative leader Gary L. Bauer has issued an appeal to supporters to consider former Sen. Fred Thompson's bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

"I hope pro-family, pro-life Christians will continue to keep an open mind about Senator Thompson's candidacy, even as we work with him to strengthen his stand on some key issues," Mr. Bauer wrote in an e-mail addressed to supporters. "A Thompson vs. Hillary [Clinton] race would be an easy call for me to make."

If, in fact, Giuliani is unacceptable because of his positions on abortion and gay rights, then social conservatives must coalesce behind a candidate who is more acceptable. Huckabee has no chance. McCain's record on these issues is good, but his candidacy seems to be fading and he has previously alienated religious conservatives. Romney is saying the right things, but seems altogether too flexible at the level of principle. By process of elimination, if nothing else, who is left but Thompson?

Moreover, it should be easy to support Thompson on positive grounds. His record is good on pro-life issues. He is in favor of protecting the right of states to determine family law. From a conservative point of view, he is solid on economic and national security issues, and he seems willing to speak straightforwardly on the difficult issues regarding our future.

There are those who seem reluctant to support Thompson because they question whether he is a Christian. I hope he is, for his own sake, but it should not be an important consideration politically. Martin Luther supposedly said that he would “rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a foolish Christian.” I would much rather be ruled by a non-believer who will promote those policies that are right than by a sincere believer who will not.

A failure to unite in Senator Thompson's support would appear to be allowing the best [which doesn't seem to exist as a candidate] to be the enemy of the good.

Bauer urges 'open mind' - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

"While in Him confiding..."

Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines,
the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food,
the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls,
Yet I will rejoice in the Lord;
I will take joy in the God of my salvation.
God, the Lord, is my strength;
He makes my feet like the deer’s;
He makes me tread on high places. 

Habakkuk 3:17-19 [ESV]

Sometimes a light surprises the Christian while he sings;
It is the Lord who rises with healing in His wings:
When comforts are declining, He grants the soul again
A season of clear shining, to cheer it after rain.

In holy contemplation, we sweetly then pursue
The theme of God’s salvation, and find it ever new.
Set free from present sorrow, we cheerfully can say,
'E'en let th' unknown tomorrow bring with it what it may.

It can bring with it nothing, but He will bear us thro'.
Who gives the lilies clothing will clothe His people, too;
Beneath the spreading heavens, no creature but is fed;
And He Who feeds the ravens will give His children bread.

Though vine, nor fig tree, neither, their wonted fruit should bear,
Tho' all the field should wither, nor flocks, nor herds, be there,
Yet God, the same abiding, His praise shall tune my voice
For while in Him confiding, I cannot but rejoice.
(William Cowper, c. 1779)

Poets' Corner - William Cowper: Olney Hymns

"...in America all parties are religious."

A primer for Israelis on religion and Presidential politics in the United States.

The true believers - Haaretz - Israel News

"Lost Gospels or False Gospels?"

Ignatius Press offers a DVD titled "Lost Gospels or False Gospels," about the apocryphal "gospels" and starring a remarkably ecumenical group of New Testament scholars, including Mitch Pacwa, Dr. Craig Evans, Dr. Ben Witherington, III, Dr. Timothy Gray, Dr. Edward Sri, Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, Dr. Craig Blomberg, and Dr. Gary Habermas.

I haven't seen it, but it looks interesting.

The site includes a clip of Ben Witherington commenting on the "Gospel of Judas."

Lost Gospels or False Gospels?" DVD | From Ignatius Press

"Red-letter Christians"

Stan Guthrie explains "Why I am not a Red-Letter Christian," and Tony Campolo responds, somewhat disingenuously.

When Red Is Blue | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Trinity

Justin Taylor offers Trinity 101 at Desiring God. This is a good introduction to the doctrine — a doctrine which I have called "a solution, not an explanation." If God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and if there is One God, then the doctrine is necessary.

Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology defines the Trinity as follows: “God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God” (p. 226).

Broken down, this amounts to three propositions:

• God is three persons.
• Each person is fully God.
• There is one God. ....

And Taylor also offers helpful diagrams:

Theologians have typically described God as being of “one essence” but “three persons.” But what exactly do we mean by “essence” and “person”? In its simplest terms, essence answers the question, “What are you?” Person answers the question, “Who are you?”

So when we say that the Trinity entails “one essence” (God) and “three persons” (Father, Son, and Spirit), we are saying that the Trinity has one What and three Who’s. We can draw this as follows: 

(more, with links to additional resources)

Trinity 101 :: Desiring God

"Doesn't anyone teach logic anymore?"

Michael Spencer doesn't much care for Ann Coulter, but he thinks Donny Deutsch needs a course in logic.

internetmonk.com » Blog Archive » Ten Big Ideas for Donny Deutsch

Why should salt suffer?

Some people are horrified by the eating of meat - one thinks of PETA, for instance. Most of them become vegetarians. One wonders how they will respond to a report that appeared this week:

Plants chatter amongst themselves to spread information, a lot like humans and other animals, new research suggests. ....

If it is cruel to exploit animals by killing and eating them, and if plants also possess consciousness, and warn each other about danger, then the implications for the more sensitive among us are potentially devastating. G.K. Chesterton described what could happen:

.... Tolstoy and the Humanitarians said that the world was growing more merciful, and therefore no one would ever desire to kill. And Mr. Mick not only became a vegetarian, but at length declared vegetarianism doomed (‘shedding,’ as he called it finely, ‘the green blood of the silent animals’), and predicted that men in a better age would live on nothing but salt. And then came the pamphlet from Oregon (where the thing was tried), the pamphlet called ‘Why should Salt suffer?’ and there was more trouble. ....

Plants Communicate to Warn Against Danger - Yahoo! News, G.K. Chesterton: The Napoleon of Notting Hill

Filled with the Word of God

Gene Edward Veith recently returned from England where he had the opportunity to worship in two magnificent cathedrals:

In London the Montgomeries took me to the Evensong service at St. Paul's Cathedral. Then in Salisbury I went to morning and evening services in the cathedral there, which is one of the most magnificent of all gothic structures. I had been to both places before as a tourist, but to experience them for the purpose for which they were built was overwhelming. With the ethereal voices of the children's choir chanting the Psalms, the rich Biblical language of the Book of Common Prayer, and the extensive Bible readings, those transcendent structures were filled with the Word of God.

The cathedral services had no sermon, which I considered a good thing, given the current state of Anglican theology. But no one could deny, being in those cathedrals at worship, that Christianity is a formidable, profound, culture-creating religion, with a palpable presence.

He goes on to reflect on the state of Christianity in Europe and the West, and observes:

My observation from the conference, after meeting many faithful Christians from England and elsewhere around the world, is that in countries where the church is culturally unpopular, ONLY those who are true believers bother to go to church. The intensity of faith increases.

I've been to both cathedrals, and during worship the sounds of the organ and the boys' choirs reverberate in the great spaces. The structures were intended to create a sense of awe - and they do. They are magnificent structures for their purpose.

Within the last half century, the Christian faith seemed to be an important part of the lives of the English people. It is, perhaps, a warning to us that the decline in public profession of faith can be so rapid. It is already true here that the public profession of Christian faith is looked on with suspicion - even hostility - by important segments of society. The worshiping community in the United States may also soon be reduced to "those who are true believers."

The exterior pictures are of Salisbury, and the interior is at St. Paul's. [The photographs are not my own, and the painting is by Constable.]

Hope for Europe and the rest of us

Redeeming the remarried

At Christianity Today, a thoughtful article about how churches ought to respond to those divorced and remarried. This builds on the article on divorce referenced here earlier.

Redeeming the Remarried | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

What should pro-lifers do?

At Between Two Worlds, Justin Taylor reacts to those who say they would never vote for a "pro-choice" candidate, i.e. Giuliani. In my opinion, Taylor understands the arguments and what is at stake. Here are his points 4-7:

• The next president will undoubtedly get to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. No one doubts that Hillary Clinton will nominate judges with a judicial philosophy at odds with constructionalism and originalism.
• I think there are good reasons to believe that Giuliani would appoint constructionalists and originalists, as he has promised to do - in part because I think he will want to placate the Republican base. (Even if he does this for only one term in order to win reelection, which I think is doubtful, then the next point still stands.)
• One must recognize that if it comes down to Guiliani vs. Clinton, a vote for a third-party candidate will undoubtedly guarantee a Clinton presidency (likely for the next eight years). Read that sentence again. Now read it one more time. I think it's incontrovertible, and I'm not sure some pro-lifers have sufficiently recognized this.
• The irony, then, is that being a single-issue voter on the cause of justice for the unborn can actually lead to increased injustice for the unborn. [read it all]

There are extensive comments after the post reflecting a spectrum of opinion. A recurring theme in them is discomfort with the idea of voting for a "lesser evil," since as one commenter says "we are still voting for evil!" Unfortunately, in this fallen world, many of the choices we have to make involve choosing the lesser evil. We seldom [never?] have an unadulterated "good" to choose.

I would very much prefer that Giuliani not be the Republican nominee, and that a candidate be nominated who can be expected not only to move the pro-life cause forward, but who will also support traditional values in other areas - the protection of marriage, for instance. But if Giuliani's nomination is to be prevented, it must be by the nomination of someone else - someone preferable on our issues, and someone who could win in November. That is still possible, and Fred Thompson is the most likely candidate.

At First Things, Joseph Bottum reacts to the realistic choices religious conservatives have in the Republican party:

Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee: The early days of the race had Republicans who were strong social conservatives. But only the purity of defeat—a decadent desire—could force one to support them. Which leaves the more ambiguous cases of John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson.

What to make of them, I don’t know. McCain has always seemed to me a disaster waiting to happen. Tales of his insane bursts of anger are legendary among journalists, who have generally not reported them. But they will if he should get the nomination and then run not against his fellow Republicans but against a Democrat. And then there’s Mitt Romney. The issue of his religion has always seemed to me overplayed by the media; the ecumenism of the trenches surely reaches at least as far as the Mormon Church, and Romney won’t be rejected by social conservatives simply for his Mormonism. But there are other reasons to worry about him, beginning with his actual record on life issues and his failure to draw in the people who remain committed to other conservatives.

Which leaves Fred Thompson. He does seem ­genuinely Reaganesque—Reagan-lite, yes, but with some of that old great-communicator touch and Teflon feel that Ronald Reagan had. And on the combined issues of church-state relations, abortion, and economics, he seems (for the little we know) the best of the major candidates.

Or, at least, so far. Rudy Giuliani will have to run the table on Super Tuesday, winning nearly every primary on February 5 after losing all the ones before. Maybe he can do it. But the deeper into the winter the campaign goes, the more Thompson benefits. A Fred Thompson nomination, a slim election victory over Hillary ­Clinton, a stealth pro-lifer slipped on the Supreme Court through a Democratic Senate—that weak ­scenario is about the best a social conservative can hope for today. Everything else is bad. Very bad.

Between Two Worlds: Guiliani vs. Clinton: What Should Pro-Lifers Do If It Comes Down to Two Pro-Choice Candidates?, FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life

The best-selling author in the world

For mystery readers, Agatha Christie is the most popular representative of a particular style — the very English, fair-play, "Golden Age," author who obeyed (almost always) the "rules of the game." Hercules Poirot and Miss Marple are, perhaps, the most beloved of detectives among those who enjoy reading "cozy" mysteries. The Times reviews a new biography of the author. The reviewer is not a fan, but the books remain in print and her characters remain a source of pleasure for millions.

Between 1920, when she was thirty, and her death in 1976, Agatha Christie published seventy-one full-length murder mysteries. She also brought out five collections of stories, two volumes of poetry, a number of successful West End plays and a couple of autobiographies; five non-crime novels by her appeared under the name of Mary Westmacott. In some years there were several publications; between 1939 and 1946 there were nineteen. By 1950, she had sold a total of 50 million books and she is still the bestselling author in the world. It seems reasonable to wonder where it all came from. (more)

Christie is a perfect example of the mystery writer who creates a situation in which an idyllic environment (a village, for instance) is disrupted by murder, exposing many of its inhabitants to suspicion, until the detective restores order by revealing, among those who had a motive, who actually committed the crime. Neither Poirot nor Marple ever had any illusions about human nature.

Agatha Christie's anti-novels - Times Online

Young evangelicals and politics

GetReligion reports that, according to the Pew survey, young Evangelicals are more conservative than their elders:

A few numbers are already up at the Pew website. I imagine that the big headlines will focus on the fading numbers for President Bush and the possible implications for 2008. However, what jumps out at me is that young evangelicals are remaining quite traditional on the hottest of hot-button social issues — abortion.

Thus, the earliest document posted at Pew ends by noting:

And when it comes to abortion, younger white evangelicals are even more conservative than their older counterparts. For example, 70% of younger white evangelicals favor “making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion,” compared with 55% of older white evangelicals and 39% of young Americans overall who share this view.

This strong allegiance to conservatism and conservative positions suggests that young white evangelicals’ turn away from the president and his party may be the product of dissatisfaction with this particular administration rather than the result of an underlying shift in this group’s political values and policy views.

Frankly, that is totally logical. Let’s see if there are any surprises in the rest of the numbers. This ought to be interesting.

Pew set to parse the young evangelicals » GetReligion