Stand to Reason Blog

Bart Ehrman...Again

Darrell Bock begins his critique of Ehrman's latest book.  As Bock identifies here, Ehrman has a modus operandi that, once you recognize it, basically deciphers the flaws in his books.  But that M.O. creates a lot of hype and sells a lot of books.

Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted by his own admission says nothing new. It packages what scholars have been saying for two decades. Since he learned the historical critical method in place of the devotional method, he discovered the Bible was full of contradictions and discrepancies, a completely human book with Christianity being a religion that is completely human in its origin and development. That is the core thesis of Bart Ehrman's new book, who has become a one man marching band to make clear what everyone should know about the origins of the Christian faith. We cannot speak of the divine in any of this, he says, because historians cannot handle that kind of data. This represents a convienient limitation on what he can speak about (even as he makes all kinds of pronouncements about what is taking place and who is responsible).

One has to wonder when an author admits to providing nothing new in a book what the motive is for writing. Informing? Apparently not. Crusading? Perhaps. But to leave the criticism on this point would be to ignore the case Ehrman tries to make. The conservative writers Erhman apparently wishes to challenge (and mostly ignore) have engaged on all the "non-new" points Ehrman makes, even highlighting themselves the "human" side of the Bible's production. But partly by caricature and partly by setting rules where God cannot be invoked in a historical discussion, Ehrman proceeds. God is not even able to be brought into the possibility of an interpretive spiral, because "miracles are not impossible," just very much unlikely and a least likely explanation (read a "next to impossible" category). I think what is most bothersome in this book is the way it sets up discussions, pursues a topic for several pages, often noting the point is not as devastating as the impression given (usually with a sentence that qualifies things so the author has cover) and then continues to launch in a direction that implies more than the evidence really gives, leaving a greater impression about what is said than the author claims in the qualification.

Bock responds to some of the specifics claims in Ehrman's book, so read the rest.

Tactical Evangelism

Ashley asked how she can tactically revisit the Gospel with her grandmother who has already told her "...Enough of THAT."

Christian Web Conference 2009

The-Conference-Formerly-Known-As-GodBlogCon now has a website--and a name.  The Christian Web Conference will be happening again this year on September 11-12.  And though I could tell at least one interesting/funny story that resulted from its being in Vegas for the past two years, I'm happy to say that this year it will be at Biola University in La Mirada, CA.

More info from the website:

Attendees should expect to meet and interact with some of the top intellectual Christian web users in order to form friendships, learn how to improve their web media knowledge and ability from experts, and participate in vision casting for Christian use of web technologies.... Your ideas and skills can help transform the way people use and think the web so come prepared to share and collaborate.

Up to now, many people and companies still wrestle with figuring out how to use new media well. If Christians are to use media to reach the world, then we must understand, challenge, and inspire one another to use the web well to the glory of God.

As usual, I'll be attending, and I look forward to meeting some of you there.

John 7:37-39 Redux

Last Sunday a caller to the radio show challenged the authority of Scripture by identifying what he thought were errors.  One passage was John 7:37-39 where, he claimed, Jesus misquotes Scripture. 
John 7:38 “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’”

I don’t always answer on the spot the way I’d like to, so, as I counsel others, I thought about it afterwards and here is what I wished I had said.  And what I’ll say the next time someone raises the same question.

“By the way, I’m just curious, have you read the entire Old Testament carefully?  If not, then how do you know that this verse occurs nowhere in the text?  Just because no Christian has produced it does not mean it isn’t there.  Strictly speaking, it’s your job to show the text is missing.  It is not my job to produce it.”

But let’s just say he’s right.  Is this verse a problem for me?  No.  Here’s why.

Before you can claim either a contradiction or an error in the text, you must first determine what the author intended to say and then show that his intended meaning contained an error.  If I say there were 100 people at the meeting and there really were 102, this is not an error if I intended to give a round number.

If I said, “As the Constitution of the United States said, the people of the United States shall be ruled by three branches of government:  the legislative, the executive, and the judicial,” I will not be faulted because there is no place in the Constitution that contains this exact quote.  The reason is, my intention in this case isn’t to cite a Constitutional quotation, but to sum up its content.

Note that Jesus’ statement was almost perfectly parallel to the one I just made about the Constitution:  “As the Scripture said, from his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.” 

So here’s the question:  Was Jesus quoting or was He summarizing?

It doesn’t appear that He was quoting.  How do I know?  Because apparently no such quote can be found.  But we don’t immediately charge Him with an error at this point, because it would only be a error if He were intending to quote.  But summing up is another completely legitimate possibility of what Jesus was trying to do.  Do we have any reason to believe He could have been summing up?  Or, put another way, is there any teaching in the Old Testament that might suggest the summation Jesus might have had in mind?”

Sure.  Plenty.  But first we must get clear  on exactly and all that  Jesus actually said in his statement (NRBV):

John 7:37-39  Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.  He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"  But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Notice that Jesus isn’t offering cold beverages to thirsty people sitting in the sun at a midday event.  Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit.  He is inviting people to “drink” from Him to satisfy their “thirst” and the result would be that “living water” would be “flowing” out of them.  By the way, do you see the picture of satisfaction of desire such that one is overflowing with abundance?  Yes.  And the specific “water” in view is the Holy Spirit that “those who believed in Him were to receive,” but they hadn’t yet because “the Spirit was not yet given.”

So, do we have references in the Old Testament that speak of God satisfying a deep “thirst” with “water” and that water is an abundance and overflowing of the God’s Holy Spirit that would be given some time in the future?  And if we find these things, would  it be reasonable for us to sum them up the way Jesus did, “From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water”?

Consider these verses:

Isaiah 44:2-4     Thus says the LORD who made you
    And formed you from the womb, who will help you,
    ‘Do not fear, O Jacob My servant;
    And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen.
   ‘For I will pour out water on the thirsty land
    And streams on the dry ground;
    I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring
    And My blessing on your descendants;
    And they will spring up among the grass
    Like poplars by streams of water.’

And…

Isaiah 58:11     “And the LORD will continually guide you,
    And satisfy your desire in scorched places,
    And give strength to your bones;
    And you will be like a watered garden,
    And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.

And…

Isaiah 55:1-3  “Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat.  Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourself in abundance. Incline your ear and come to Me.  Listen, that you may live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, according to the faithful mercies shown to David."

What covenant might this be?

Jeremiah 31:31-34 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

And from the same historical time period:

Ezekiel 36:24-27 For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.  Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.  I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

And the next chapter…

Ezekiel 37:14 I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it,” declares the LORD.’

And not just the Jews…

Joel 2:28  “It will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.  Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days."

So the Old Testament promises that God would satisfy the thirst of his people by pouring out his spirit as part of a new covenant that would be given in the future in which all people would  b able to drink of his spirit in abundance until they were overflowing.

Does this sound at all like, “‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water”?  That certainly would be one way of putting it, wouldn’t it.  Do you think Jesus might have known of these verses I just cited?  Of course.

Clearly Jesus is not intending to cite one verse, but is rather characterizing the teaching of the Old Testament summed up in the phrase, “From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.”

This is an entirely reasonable—and charitable—way of taking Jesus comment.  Indeed, he would be talking much like we do when we make a similar point.  It is unreasonable, then, to charge Jesus with an inaccuracy for misquoting something, when he never intended to quote a specific verse in the first place.

And it doesn’t matter if someone else doesn’t agree with this interpretation.  As long as it is a reasonable one given the facts and the details of Jesus’ remark, then we have shown there isn’t a clear inaccuracy the way the detractors claim.

STR Radio Expands

...to three hours on May 3 - 2-5 p.m. Pacific Time.

The Coming Evangelical Collapse?

Finally!  I’m taking the time to respond to the article by Michael Spencer that has gotten so much circulation on the web and generated some concern and fear in some Christians.  I think he’s right – and he’s very wrong.  I think evangelicalism very well can collapse, but that would more likely be a good thing rather than a bad thing, and I believe the church will meet the challenge that a collapse would represent.

I believe Spencer is right that evangelicalism has become a rather shallow thing theologically, for the most part doesn’t have the theological or philosophical resources to respond to the rise of secularism, and it very well could collapse.  Fine.  Remember that evangelicalism is not equal to Christianity – or even Protestantism. 

It’s very common in history for movements to rise up within Christianity to meet a particular challenge, they serve their purpose, and then die down.  But by nature, they are temporary structures.  Evangelicalism rose up in the mid-20th century with a strong commitment to the authority of Scripture and evangelism when it seemed liberalism would overwhelm Christianity.  That didn’t happen because of the evangelical movement.  But a movement is not Christianity.  And movements often have a narrower focus than the whole Body of Christianity must.  So rather than the doom Spencer predicts, I think that things are out of balance, and there’s some correction that needs to take place.  That is healthy.

Spencer is accurate in describing the current big challenge to Christianity – secularism.  I would add to that postmodern pluralism, which recognizes religion as intrinsically subjective with no objective truth-value, thereby privatizing Christianity.  That’s simply another attempt to ban Christianity from the public square, but that can’t be done unless we leave.  It was a mistake for Christians to abandon the public square with the rise of naturalism in science represented in the Monkey Trial.  Our response may require a shake-up in Christianity, but it must not include retreat.  That will create conflict with the culture, as Spencer says, but I believe the response from the church will not be collapse but a new vibrant, substantive movement that has more theological and intellectual meat than we have right now.  And that will result in more effectiveness for God’s Kingdom. 

I know those resources already exist in the church, though they may not be widespread and many Christians may currently be ignorant of them.  It is our Christian heritage and we have neglected it for far too long.  The church has a long and deep theological history, and I believe the new need will drive Christians to rediscover this fact.  What will result will be Christians with robust worldviews based on a richer foundation and understanding with much more meaning to offer those who discover that secularism is devoid of the kind of meaning and truth human beings crave.  And I truly believe that many Christians are craving this kind of substance, too, yet sadly have no idea so far how meaty Christianity is.

What I hope happens is that if evangelicalism dies off – evangelicalism as the generic brand that has a mere Christianity approach so as appeal to the broadest possible audience – some denominations will rise to the challenge.  Denominations that have a theological and confessional basis that can offer the meaning and substance that should characterize the church.  Denominations that know how to catechize their members and ground them in the content, meaning, and worldview of Christianity.  Denominations that can claim membership rather than attendance because that is what encourages accountability for the kinds of lives Christians should lead to add authenticity to the message we carry.  I know these churches exist and they will not collapse.  They will be rediscovered.  Evangelicalism is not the whole of Protestantism, as Spencer seems to imply, and the only alternative to the collapse of evangelicalism isn’t Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Eastern churches.

I always find it hard to discuss anything about evangelicalism because the term has become too vague.  I’m never quite sure what definition anyone is using. There was a distinct theological definition at the founding of the movement, but it has taken on a more cultural sense over the 60 years since. It certainly has become a generalization.  I think generally, and the way I take Spencer’s meaning, is the trend to have little denominational identity, Bible teaching focused on application, lots of programs to attract people.  Those things are good in and of themselves, but they are not deep enough to draw from the full resources of historic Christianity to make the church as effective as it must be.  They are not enough as the entire menu. 

I think evangelicalism has become pretty thin milk – and I use that in the Biblical sense.  Milk is good, but it’s not a full, balanced meal.  Along with the broad appeal and a very focused diet of a certain kind of Bible teaching, a tremendous amount of the substance of Christianity that has been worked out painstakingly for 2000 years has been left on the shelf resulting in Christians who barely know what Christianity is about and are therefore handicapped in their ability to evangelize and respond to the culture.  But those resources exist, and just as the founders of the evangelical movement responded in their time when the core teachings of Christianity were challenged, churches, leaders, and Christians who have been waiting to be called upon will respond with vigor to begin serving more meat resulting in better-fed Christians who then are in better shape to carry on the Great Commission.

I disagree with Spencer that evangelicalism is “identified” with the culture war.  That may be the media caricature, but most evangelical churches on focused on their own members.  Go to the average church any day of the week, and you won’t hear a thing about those issues.  There are many and prominent organizations that have engaged moral issues that have become part of the political realm, but they are working parallel to the vast majority of congregations, not in them, turning them into political war rooms. 

Rather than Christians encroaching into politics and culture, my perspective is that politics and secularism are increasingly taking on issues that are moral issues, aggressively moving to change mores and law, and then crying foul when those with a moral voice object.  Christians live in this culture, too.  Are we to keep quiet when we not only will be affected, but we also have an informed moral perspective to offer?  A perspective that not only draws from theology – theology that stretches back multi-millennia to the foundations of western law in the Old Testament – but also draws from a long history of philosophy?  Part of our biblical mandate is to be salt and light to the culture, and we would do our churches, the culture, and ourselves no good to abandon the public square to secularism.

I agree with Spencer that we’ve failed to “pass on an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught.”  That may be true on the whole, but there are plenty of exceptions and those people exist in the church to lead as the next challenge faces us.  I disagree that Christian schools have failed.  Sure, some schools exist as a retreat from the culture to avoid engagement.  But many are equipping students with excellent educations to enter a variety of vocations applying a Christian worldview to whatever they do and preparing them to be thoughtful messengers in the midst of people who need God.  Biola University and Hillsdale College immediately come to mind, but there are many, many others.  There are many Christian parents who have not sought to incubate their children from the culture, but inoculate them and equip them to be ambassadors for Christ able to engage the culture.  They will not run from it, as Spencer predicts.  And they will be the vanguard of the needed change to come.

Spencer thinks that ministries will “take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.”  Some will, and good riddance.  Crisis and challenge shake out the chaff.  But it’s always better to know your true ranks.  I agree with Spencer that other movements within Christianity that have really abandoned the foundations of the faith will disappear.  Good. 

The church’s refining is always what has happened throughout the history of Christianity; and it’s also what’s predicted to happen in the end times.  I don’t think that’s where we are in history.  But the Bible tells us that even in the Tribulation, the church will endure – the church that is truly grounded in the Truth and doing their jobs.  God’s church isn’t going to pass away.  As we become leaner we become more effective.  Hard times have a tendency to focus the mind, will, and energies.  And that is all the more true with the Holy Spirit’s help.

The church’s job has always been multitasked:  teaching, catechizing, making disciples, evangelizing, missions, helping the needy, learning, thinking, and understanding the Bible, etc.  That’s why God gave us the model of the Body.  Evangelicalism may be focused on a narrow piece of that job description – it was created that way because it was a response to a particular need.  And that may lead to its collapse.  If it does, that only means that the movement has accomplished its mission God had for it and now it’s time to move on to a new and current challenge.  And God will provide the resources for it for those willing to answer the call.  Evangelicalism may contract rather than collapse, continuing it’s task in a smaller way. 

What I hope, believe, and have a firm conviction will happen, whatever the fate of evangelicalism, is that the church – Christianity – will rediscover the theological foundation and heritage that so many saints before us labored to deliver to us on God’s behalf.  Many churches have been teaching and making disciples from this heritage all along, and they have the model that will serve the church as we equip Christians and engage the culture with the new challenge at hand.  Evangelicalism may or may not collapse, but Christianity never will.

The State of the Stem Cell Debate

I have three thoughts on the state of the stem cell debate; one is upsetting, but two of them are encouraging. 

1.  Clearly, there is a great amount of ignorance out there about the issue.  And if there are so many misunderstandings in the press and in the government, one can only imagine how little the average citizen knows about ESCR.  It's a pretty bad sign that nobody seems to be able to think through what's being said, spot the flaws, and ask the right clarifying questions.  It's as if people are just learning a set of words, repeating them, and then applauding others who repeat them.  The most schooled generation in the history of our country seems to be unable to think clearly.  Bad news.

2.  There is a great amount of ignorance out there about the issue!  Good news!  All this time, I thought people understood our position and its moral reasoning and rejected it.  But if not even Bill Clinton seems to know what ESCR involves, or even what an embryo is, then I was wrong.  Now that I know how little is actually known--that most people have no idea about the poor record of ESCR and the promises of adult stem cell research, that ESCR involves cloning and/or killing embryos, that there are new methods of creating pluripotent stem cells without using human embryos, or about the one restriction Bush actually imposed--now that I know this, I think we still have a chance.  If we can educate people, perhaps we can change some minds, or at least we can put an end to the dismissive anger people have against our position because they've absorbed the idea that we're "anti-science."  If we can do that, we can get a real debate going.

3.  The opposition to Bush's policy appears to have been mainly politically and/or emotionally motivated--more anti-Bush than pro-ESCR.  I say this because when Obama brings up the subject rather than Bush, as was the case in the NYT article, there seems to actually be sympathy for the idea that it's not a good idea to experiment on human embryos.  Or at the very least, the idea is respected.  Very good sign. 

Welcome to College

 We know that many Christians walk away from Christ during college.  And many parents and students are desperate for guidance and wisdom on how to navigate this perilous part of life's journey.  That’s why Jonathan Morrow’s new book, Welcome to College, is a must-have resource. 

If a parent or student asked me for a single book to read before or during college, I’d give them Morrow’s book.  He has written a comprehensive guide broken into 42 manageable, “bite-sized” chapters, yet it is remarkably in-depth.  It’s definitely not your typical dumbed-down Christianity-lite. 

And Morrow deals with both head and heart.  Chapter 2 really frames the book, as he unpacks what it means to “Think Christianly.”  Next, he lays a vital foundation, clarifying issues Christians are profoundly confused about, like theology, faith and knowledge.  Then he offers clear-thinking yet gracious apologetics for the contemporary challenges a college student will be sure to face from peers and professors. 

But he doesn’t just offer pat answers.  Morrow has the philosophical training (he’s a graduate of Talbot’s premiere masters in philosophy of religion and ethics program) to equip students how to think, introducing them to important categories of thought like metaphysics and epistemology. 

Morrow doesn’t stop with the intellectual work though.  As a pastor, he knows head and heart cannot be divorced.  So he tackles very practical issues like managing money, God’s will, sex and dating, navigating media, and alcohol.  And all of this is placed in the context of a life lived in apprenticeship to Jesus of Nazareth. 

Check out FamilyLife Today's interview with Jonathan today and tomorrow.  Also, Jonathan blogs regularly.  And be sure to get a copy of his book for every graduating high school senior you know this spring.  

My Kind of Chick

Confident Christianity and Two Chix Apologetics (their Facebook Group) - Check out the articles on resurrection myths under Articles.

Presidential Nonsense

There is no way to make a coherent policy out of this mess.  I really have tried, but the facts - stubborn things - don't allow it.  Read this report on the President's press conference and his answer to questions about his ESCR policy and recent executive order. 

First, instead of the ethical issues he considered, we get an autobiographical report that he wrestled.  Second, he is either dishonest or woefully misinformed about what his own EO said because it specifically deferred formulating ethical guidelines for the future and contained none itself.  Third, I haven't been able to figure out what research he thinks was authorized in the EO.  The Dickey-Wicker Amendment precludes research of any kind that destroys an embryo, no matter where it has come from.  Looking back over the EO, I realized these are the only words that have any meaning:  "to the extent permitted by law."  The rest of the document was a sham.  No research destroying embryos is allowed by law and the EO didn't change that.  So what did that EO mean?  Apparently nothing of substance.  It was all an act that didn't change anything. 

The Clinton Administration interpreted the Amendment differently than the Bush Administration and allowed funding for research from stem cells lines that were currently being derived from destroying embryos.  Perhaps the ethical guidelines coming down the road referred to in the EO will also allow that.  However that requires no EO - it didn't in the Clinton or Bush Administrations.  This EO meant nothing because the law doesn't allow it to mean anything.

Of course, I'm happy that there still will be no Federal funding of ESCR, though certainly there will soon be funding that is complicity in destroying embryos.  But I'm stunned and appalled by the extent of the political theater.

Apparently, improving his paygrade hasn't improved the President's understanding of the ethical issues.