Or so claims an article that is making its rounds on the internet recently. Over at the Atheist Forums message board one of the members exuberantly posted a link to the infamous article and exclaimed that Christian opposition to same-sex marriage “may not be quite as long-held as they think.” Curious, and ever the skeptic, I clicked the link to see what he was so willing to share without any critical comment—and what I found was a dubious article reproduced at Livejournal by an unknown author who presents an everything-you-were-told-is-a-lie type of argument that does not reference any material other than the largely discredited work of one John Boswell.

Why, I wondered, am I alone in my skepticism over the multitude of red flags being raised by that article? Why did that member find it compelling enough to uncritically share? And did anyone else find it compelling? (Well, it would seem that there are at least five others who did, giving his post a thumbs-up.) The pronounced absence of skepticism denoted an appalling level of uncritical credulity that ought to have been embarrassing—although I suspect that they were not embarrassed.

So I decided that I would not only perform my usual due diligence but also, given the nearly viral popularity of that article on the internet, publish the results for the sake of getting truth and history right, putting this silly twaddle in its place.

The article that he cited was not even original. It was a full reproduction (with some initial commentary) at a Livejournal account of an article published by an individual who wrote under the pseudonym ThosPayne; the article was published 24 August 2008 on the web site for Colfax Record, the online presence of a local newspaper in Colfax, California, [1] apparently under his myColfax personal blog. [2] That article no longer exists at its original location, although there exists an archived copy of it. [3] For whatever reason, that particular member could not be bothered to do even this most basic of searches in order to reference original source material—something that is of particular interest to skeptics and critical thinkers.

But what about the article itself that he cites? It is an intellectual train wreck that any skeptic would give a wide berth. Allow me to demonstrate for readers and visitors here who might be as credulous as him what skepticism and critical thinking looks like.

[Professor] John Boswell … discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents …

This label of “heterosexual marriage” is disingenuous, misleading, and question-begging, for it carries the implication that Christian liturgies recognized any other form of holy matrimony, thus preparing the reader to accept that homosexual marriage was one of them, as the cited article would subsequently attempt to argue. One must not assume the very thing to be proved, which the label “heterosexual marriage” attempted to do by implying that marriage was not strictly between a man and a woman. Although there were same-sex unions (adelphoi genesthai), these rites were neither homosexual nor were they marriages.

… there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” … and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” …

According to Shaw, who is sympathetic to same-sex marriage but does not tolerate scholarly incompetence, these titles are mistranslated. “Boswell’s translation of their titles (akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin and parallels) as ‘The Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men’ or ‘Office for Same-Sex Union’ is inaccurate. In the original, the titles say no such thing. And this sort of tendentious translation of the documents is found, alas, throughout the book” (which the article in question is predicated upon). When these words are translated in a straightforward manner, “they impart a quite different sense to the reader.” [4]

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied [sic] in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Not one single piece of evidence is cited to support any one of these claims, leaving the reader with no reason to accept any of them. Worse yet, given the detailed refutations by scholars such as Shaw, Young, and Woods, there exists manifold reasons to be highly skeptical of the claims. Consider for example the “holy union” of Basil and John. Although Basil was arguably a homosexual, the ceremonial in which the two were united was not one of matrimony. Boswell translates the text of historian Theophanes into English as saying that Basil “honored him with the title protospatarius and granted him intimacy with him on account of their earlier shared life in ceremonial union.” There are two misleading translations occurring here, as Young points out. [5] First is his translation of parrhesia as “intimacy,” which is misleading because the context of his argument gives a sense to the reader which the word simply does not convey. The intimacy being referred to in the text is not the romantic sort shared by lovers; rather it refers here to the freedom granted John to speak his mind plainly and boldly to Basil, which is what parrhesia means. [6] Second, the earlier ceremonial union spoken of was not a marital one; the Greek clause reads "kai tes pros auton parresias metedoke dia ten phthasasan koinonian tes pneumatikes adelphotetos," which is properly translated as “previous association in spiritual brotherhood” [7] (pneumatikes adelphotetos)—although, contrary to Young, the meaning of koinonia conveys something deeper than mere “association,” as attested in Scripture by its use in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper and the powerful communion shared by those in Christ. [8] (And therefore, contrary also to Boswell, it does not denote a union of lovers joined in holy matrimony either.)

[The curious icon] shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Since the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of the Christian church recognizing marriage only between a man and a woman, to say that this icon depicted a “wedding” scenario of a “married couple [who] are both men” is to illegitimately beg the very question. The author must not assume the very thing to be proved. Given the extensive historical evidence for Christian rites which bless adelphopoiesis or the making of a brother, it is more probable that this is the sort of union being depicted in that icon; as such, the author shoulders the burden of proving that it depicts something else. His conclusion is not impossible, but it is certainly improbable—and cannot be assumed from the outset.

The full answer [as to whether or not the icon depicts Christ sanctifying a gay wedding] comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. … In the definitive 10th century account of their lives …

Although the author references a tenth-century account, he does not cite it; evidently the reader is supposed to just take his word for it, including his claim that this text states that Sergius was the “sweet companion and lover” of Bacchus, a statement which seems rather crucial to his conclusion about what the icon depicts. But then the author also does not explain how this unnamed account from over half a millennium after Sergius and Bacchus had died can be meaningfully considered “definitive,” never mind reliable.

Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers.

This is a significant claim of great import to his conclusion, so where are the references to these “many modern scholars”? Who are they and where is their research that shows Sergius and Bacchus were lovers? A red flag to any skeptic, the author does not cite any support whatsoever for this claim, using what Wikipedia contributors would flag as “weasel words.”

But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek, describes them as erastai, or “lovers.” In other words, they were a male homosexual couple.

This is likewise a significant claim of great import to his conclusion, so why is it that the author neither cites nor includes a Greek quote from this “oldest text of their martyrology”? It would be valuable to those interested in assessing the accuracy of the claim and its interpretation. I submit that his reason is perhaps the same as or similar to the reason why Boswell neither cited nor quoted from the specific original text and its context: because the claim is utter fiction. As a salient matter of fact, the word erastai is simply not there! Starting at page 373 of Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 14 (Indiana University Press), the skeptic can access the original Greek text of “Passio Antiquior Ss. Sergii et Bacchi” for himself and see that this claim is entirely fictitious. The author and Boswell are not content with their revisionist history; they have to further their dishonesty by inventing support.

One Greek 13th century rite, ‘Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union,’ invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints.” The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.” … Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic ‘Office of the Same Sex Union,’ uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

And here we have a direct quote; but, like before, there is not a single citation for it. The reader is simply to take the author’s word for it. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, a red flag always goes up (and should) when a Google search of a quote never points anywhere but the same article and its various reproductions. This should lead the reader to be highly skeptical of the supposed quote, to say the least.

The actual text for these Christian rites which bless adelphopoiesis—the making of a brother—comes from an eleventh-century Greek manuscript (Grottaferrata B. ii.) for Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin (translated by Boswell as ‘Office for Same-Sex Union’), which Shaw cites and quotes using Boswell’s translation of it, while inserting “some of the significant original Greek words in transcription” [9]:

I

The priest shall place the holy Gospel on the Gospel stand and they that are to be joined together place their right hands on it, holding lighted candles in their left hands. Then shall the priest cense them and say the following:

II

In peace we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For heavenly peace, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For the peace of the entire world, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For this holy place, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That these thy servants, N. and N., be sanctified with thy spiritual benediction, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal all the days of their lives, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That they be granted all things needed for salvation and godly enjoyment of life everlasting, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That the Lord God grant unto them unashamed faithfulness [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], we beseech Thee, O Lord…

Have mercy on us, O God.

“Lord, have mercy” shall be said three times.

III

The priest shall say:

Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape] and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one other [to agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.

IV

Another Prayer for Same-Sex Union:

O Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another and to forgive each other our failings, bless and consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art the light and the truth and thine is the glory.

V

Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one another, and conclude.

“It is this ceremonial,” Shaw observes, “and blessings like these, that Boswell claims to be part of a lost, or deliberately suppressed, tradition of church-legitimized same-sex marriages between men,” which he then proceeds to thoroughly refute. The point that I wish to raise here—aside from citing and properly quoting the rites which the original article made a complete mess of—is the fact that nowhere in any of this material is there so much as a hint of homosexual marriage, and that it is moreover entirely consistent with the well-established and recognized historical church rite of making a brother (adelphopoiesis).

“But it says they were to kiss!” Indeed it does. But is that a romantic kiss between newlyweds? Of course not; observe that they were to “kiss the holy Gospel and the priest” as well. Furthermore, such kissing in that culture and period was entirely customary (e.g., Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14) and did not connote what it largely does in the modern West. “The ancient and medieval world about which Boswell writes was not riven by the same anxieties and repressions that mark our own,” Shaw writes. “In that world, public and affective bonds between men were typical, even banal. But this is not the same thing as the legitimization, or the sacralization, of homosexuality.” [10]

Records of Christian same-sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand years from the 8th to the 18th century. …

Again, there certainly were same-sex unions (adelphoi genesthai) but these rites were neither homosexual nor were they marriages. If the author wishes to argue otherwise, he needs to do far more than simply point to the well-attested historical evidence for adelphoi genesthai church rituals. “The ‘new’ documents that Boswell has unearthed,” notes Shaw, “are nothing more than a few additional texts that shed more light on a primitive and basic power linkage between men in the ancient Mediterranean, and the rituals attendant on its formation.” [11]

[Professor] Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality. For the church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

Whom Boswell’s embarrassing work “poses a fundamental question for” is Boswell himself, whose so-called research is fraught with selective citations, revisionist history, inaccuracies, mistranslations, misleading equivocations, and other various disreputable errors that are an affront to proper scholarship. There is a reason why “Boswell’s methodology and conclusions have been disputed by many historians.” [12] There is no good reason for this embarrassing substitute for good scholarship to be taken seriously or propagated by skeptics and critical thinkers.

[1] 233 S. Auburn Road, Suite 205, Colfax, CA 95713.

[2] At the original article the author name is hyperlinked to a my.colfaxrecord.com user profile.

[3] http://web.archive.org/web/2009121908482…91429.html

[4] Shaw 1994.

[5] Young 1994.

[6] Ibid. (cf. Foucault 1983).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Koinonia. (2012, January 16). Wikipedia. Accessed 13 May 2012.

[9] Shaw 1994. Shaw’s inserted Greek words are placed within square brackets.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Saints Sergius and Bacchus. (2012, May 13). Wikipedia. Accessed 13 May 2012.

REFERENCES:

The Bollandists, “Passio Antiquior Ss. Sergii et Bacchi,” Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 14, §19 (Indiana University Press), 373ff.

Michel Foucault, “Discourse and truth: The meaning of the word ‘parrhesia’.” From a lecture given at the University of California at Berkeley (October–November 1983).

Brent D. Shaw, “A groom of one’s own?” The New Republic (1994, July), 43–48.

David Woods, “The origin of the cult of Ss. Sergius and Bacchus,” University College Cork, Ireland (2000, April). This is a revised version of his paper, “The Emperor Julian and the Passion of Sergius and Bacchus,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997), 335-367.

Robin D. Young, “Gay marriage: Reimagining church history,” First Things 47 (1994, November), 43-48.

Did you know that Tim Keller is a heretic? Oh yes, the adjunct professor of practical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (Pennsylvania) and founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York) is a rank heretic.

At least that is what certain Baptists would have you believe because, horror of horrors, Keller believes that the earth has been around considerably longer than 6,000 years. (He also denies that the earth is constituted as a circular disc, and that it is the center of the universe; but let us ignore for the moment his denial of those biblical teachings because his rejection of young-earth creationism is bad enough.) We know that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF) clearly proclaims young-earth creationism as the teaching of the Bible; we know that much of the church throughout her history has affirmed a young-earth view; we know that numerous highly esteemed men of God throughout the centuries have affirmed that view; and we know that Keller definitely rejects the young-earth creationist view. Therefore, we know that Keller is a heretic.

“Wait, is not Pastor Tim Keller a Presbyterian?” Yes, he is. But that does not bring any relief for his heresy. In fact, it makes him all the more a heretic because Presbyterians baptize infants and we know that the LBCF proclaims believers baptism as the teaching of the Bible, that the early church baptized believers, not infants, that numerous godly men affirmed believers baptism, rejected baptizing infants, and so forth. Therefore, we know that Keller simply compounds his heresies.

“Keller does not subscribe to your confessional standard. He is a Presbyterian; he subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith” (WCF). Indeed he does, but the WCF is wrong in certain and important areas, such as baptism. As the LBCF makes clear, the biblical teaching is believers baptism; so then Keller is heretical with these strange new doctrines that are sub-biblical at best and unbiblical at worse.

“Pardon? These are not strange new doctrines. Christ’s church has been discussing these issues for centuries—millennia, even!” No. Look, they are new, because they are new to me.

Read the rest of this entry

“It is finished” (John 19:30). What exactly was finished when Jesus uttered those words? What could He have accomplished through ending His three years of public ministry by dying via the most torturous and humiliating form of execution mankind has ever devised? The answer is that what Jesus finished on the cross was a business transaction. We are all familiar with the idea of making business deals. A lot do it quite regularly in our day to day lives. Yet we seldom think of the death of Christ in those terms, when in fact what He accomplished on the cross was the most important business transaction in all of history.

But what is the point of this kind of deal? In order to understand its significance, it is important to first understand our state of nature. An old philosopher once said that man is born free. He is clearly mistaken, because the Bible teaches that we are born enslaved to sin: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). We look at the evil people in the world around us and think that we are somehow better. Yet the word of God does not mince words when it talks about the condition of our hearts: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, NKJV). This is a condition from which we cannot escape by our own power, which is why Jesus said “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). When we sin, we incur a debt on our record. Our payment for this debt is slavery in this life, and condemnation in the next, hence the scriptural saying: “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). This is why in the end, those who remain slaves to sin will experience the fiery wrath of God on Judgment day, when He cleanses the world of every last trace of evil, including those who scripture says are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), who are destined for shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). Read the rest of this entry

Max Andrews at his blog Sententias is developing a new series which he would like to see grow in response to the running series called “Why I am an atheist” from Paul Zachary “PZ” Myers at Pharyngula hosted by Freethought Blogs.

I wanted to start a counter-series here on your story. The series will be, “Why I’m a Christian.” All you would need to do is send me an email … and tell me why you became a Christian and why you continue being a Christian.

Your story can be however long you want it to be. Unless you note otherwise (if you want last name, last initial, anonymity, etc.), I’ll only use your first name.

I hope to spread your stories to demonstrate the glory and work of God in your lives.

Another benefit in doing this is so we can encourage other Christians to persevere in the faith and hopefully some of your stories will resonate with the hearts others—Christian and non-Christian.

See his post here, with an email address for your submissions, which he will post as they come in. Spread the message to all the Christians you know within your own social network—including the offline one, your family, friends, and church.

I have posted previously on The Ultimate Apologetics MP3 Audio Page by Apologetics.com and frankly, nothing can top that as a general resource for all things both audible and apologetic. But when we zoom in and have a closer look at some of those resources in more detail, we find little gems like Premier Christian Radio’s Unbelievable? podcast. [no, the question mark is not a typo]

Relatively unique in its style among many of the podcasts I have heard, host Justin Brierly (pictured), expertly moderates, what can be at times, a dramatic discussion, on a vast range range of hot topics concerning theists and atheists alike.

I knew I had discovered something special having listened to only one show; a  lively discussion on Intelligent Design and Evolution. I was to learn later that the program won a Gold Medal at the New York Festival Awards.

Justin Brierley, produced and presented the award winning show on evolution that features atheist Pete Hearty of the National Secular Society defending the theory of Evolution, while Peter Williams of the Damaris Trust argues for Intelligent Design.

“We chose this particular debate because it is timely.” Brierley said. “There are a number of court cases in the USA discussing what public schools should be teaching regarding evolution and similar heat is now being generated in the UK over schools that have included Intelligent Design on their syllabus.”

The evolution episode of Unbelievable has secured the programme it’s first award, within a year of going to broadcast.

Obviously thrilled, Brierley said, “For us to win an award so early on in the life of the show is wonderful, but for it to be a gold world medal at the New York Festival Awards is astounding.”

The Chief Executive of Premier Christian Radio, Peter Kerridge, said of the show, “Unbelievable is like nothing else on Premier.” Well, not only is it unlike anything on Premier Christian Radio, I haven’t heard anything quite like it anywhere. And I say that as someone who listens to a number of different podcasts, from Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason radio show to the thought-provoking Apologetics.com broadcast. Those have their niche and I think Unbelievable? have theirs. It certainly is a rare type of show.

Closer to home (my home, that is) fellow Aussie blogger, Stephen Cracknell, wrote a great article that captures the unique mood and style of the show, in words that I’m sure I would’ve used, if only I had written them first. And so I hope he doesn’t mind me closing by quoting him at length.

Just recently a few of us lads headed off to the Katoomba Men’s Convention – a long way from the Mid-North Coast (Coffs Harbour) but, hey, it was worth it.

On the way back home, my son Sam, plugged his iPod into the car’s speaker system and we all settled back (apart from the driver!) to listen to a discussion between a Christian and a non-Christian.

We were stunned! We were impressed! We were focussed!

The actual podcast we listened to was a somewhat tense discussion (at times) between Peter Hitchens (anti-theist Christopher Hitchen’s brother) and Adam Rutherford (atheist and editor of the science journal ‘Nature’).

Christian v non-Christian!

And that, essentially, is what Premier Christian Radio’s ‘Unbelievable?’ is about – provoking discussions between Christians and non-Christians.

…

Occasionally there is the Christian who gets grilled by a number of atheists (‘Grill a Christian’) and sometimes 2 Christians discuss their differences (e.g. is the King James Version the ‘best’ available English translation?).

But mostly, the very likeable Justin Brierley invites prominent Christians (e.g. William Lane Craig, James White, Os Guinness) to debate prominent non-Christians (e.g. John Hick, Dan Barker, Paul Davies).

Justin has that very healthy skill of knowing when to allow discussion (and passion) flow but also knowing when to include his thoughts and questions into the ‘debate’. He’s an intelligent guy, with sensitivity. These qualities help shape “Unbelievable?” as a really valuable podcast.

…

‘Unbelievable?’, I believe (couldn’t resist it!) is essential apologetics podcast listening – I really like it, my friends really like it and I’m sure you would too!

Why? Because there is nothing to hide behind!

‘Experts’ present their views but then must be prepared to defend them, publicly, – how good is that!

My References & Notes:

http://www.apologetics315.com/
http://www.premier.org.uk/
http://www.christianfaith.com.au/

Note: The show does also discuss/debate some topics within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. For example, as Stephen mentioned, “Is the King James Version the Best?” And another recent discussion that I found very interesting featured opposing views on how we should support Gay Christians. Titled “Ex-Gay and Gay-Affirming approaches to homosexuality – Two different approaches to supporting gay Christians”  with Jonathan Berry & Jeremy Marks.

The Gospel Coalition is running a series of articles this week on classical, evidential, and covenantal (presuppositional) apologetics from a variety of contributors. My interest is of course with covenantal apologetics so in this post are listed all the articles regarding that issue published this week at The Gospel Coalition (including responses that those articles generate which I found particularly informative and helpful.)

Last Modified: 14 March 2012.

• William Edgar, “Fides quaerens intellectum: What is presuppositionalism?” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 11).
   
• Paul Copan, “Questioning presuppositionalism,” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 12).
   
  
  • James Anderson, “Does presuppositionalism engage in question-begging?” Analogical Thoughts (2012, March 13).
     
  • James White, “Apologetics methodology: Paul Copan’s questioning of presuppositionalism,” The Dividing Line (2012, March 13). [Video.]
     
  • Steve Hays, “Copan on presuppositionalism,” Triablogue (2012, March 13).
     
  • Joshua Whipps, “Questioning Copan,” Choosing Hats (2012, March 13).
     
• K. Scott Oliphint, “Answering objections to presuppositionalism,” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 13).

Updated (scroll down)

Mike Duran at his blog posed what he considers a dilemma regarding the relationship between apostasy and abandoning the Bible as authoritative. [1] Duran invoked the example of Leo, son of the famed intelligent design proponent Michael Behe, who said that his trust in the Bible was shaken by reading The God Delusion by Dawkins and considering for the first time “the fallible origin of Scripture.” [2]

It did not occur to me until later in life to examine the reliability of the Bible, the infallibility of which my Christian opponents would always agree upon. [3]

That point in particular was what originally shook my specific faith—Catholicism—and planted seeds of skepticism … [4]

Once my trust in the Bible was shaken, I still believed strongly in a theistic god, but I realized that I hadn’t sufficiently examined my beliefs. Over the next several months, my certainty of a sentient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity faded steadily. I believe that the loss of a specific creed was the tipping point for me. [5]

This erosion of trust in the Bible “is often the first step in Christian apostasy—‘the loss of a specific creed’,” writes Duran, quoting Behe’s phrase.

The first step toward the deconstruction of Christianity must always be the deconstruction of Scripture. For once “the foundations are destroyed” (Ps. 11:3), you are free to construct another worldview, preferably one to your own liking.

However, this creates a problem. If we can’t question and debate the  authenticity, authority, and limits of Scripture, how do we know we can trust it? Unquestioned belief in the Bible is just as wrong as unequivocal rejection of it. [6]

Read the rest of this entry

While this was something that many in the Christian community had been praying for, including the staff here at the Aristophrenium, it still came as a shock when I read today that Harold Camping released a letter to Family Radio listeners and supporters in which he confessed and repented of his sin.

Camping confessed by admitting his bold insistence “that the Bible guaranteed that Christ would return on May 21 and that the true believers would be raptured” was an “incorrect and sinful statement.” He acknowledged that those who were calling his attention to the fact that no one knows the day or hour of Christ’s return, not even the angels in heaven (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32) “were right in their understanding of those verses and Family Radio was wrong.” Camping, along with the board of Family Radio, “tremble before God as we humbly ask Him for forgiveness for making that sinful statement.”

Camping furthermore repented of his sin when, regarding the circulation of many alternative dates for the end of the world, he wrote that “Family Radio has no interest in even considering another date.” He said that he has “learned the very painful lesson that all of creation is in God’s hands and He will end time in His time, not ours.” He said that he and the board of Family Radio have been humbled by God in these experiences to “even more fervently search the Scriptures (the Bible), not to find dates but to be more faithful in our understanding” regarding their original mission, “the proclamation of the Gospel, God’s Word.”

Your courageously public humility is a blessing, Mr. Camping, and a lesson that so many of us could learn from. Out of the overflow of Christ’s grace and love in us, we forgive you with humble hearts.

For the full statement from Harold Camping and Family Radio, please see:

“Harold Camping admits he’s wrong about doomsday predictions (full statement),” The Christian Post News Briefs (2012, March 7).

Some time ago I was working through CS Lewis’s classic, The Problem of Pain. In it there is one line that I lifted out of its pages and plugged into my Twitter timeline – and shortly after that there started some dialogue with a fellow (we’ll call him Pete) who believed that the statement I offered was contradictory and he subsequently mocked it as such.

Well, either this Pete is a very intelligent man and CS Lewis was an idiotic fool or, quite probably, the quote I tweeted was most likely misunderstood.

Speaking on the necessity of God’s love for us and of the characteristic of God’s love for us, I echoed Lewis’s sentiment and tweeted:

[It is because God] already loves us [that] He must labour to make us lovable.

Moments after I shared this on Twitter, I received this reply from Pete: “lol contradiction is faith”.

When I inquired as to how the statement was contradictory, Pete wrote back that “If you’re lovable, you don’t need to be made lovable. You already are”.

Now that might sound reasonable, but I believe it misses the point entirely, let alone misreads what was actually tweeted (which was that God’s love for us compels him to make us even more lovable). Lewis was not stating that God already saw us as lovable. In an effort to correct Pete and to point this out, I tweeted: “Love seeks to perfect the object of its love”.

What did I mean by this? Parents know this all too well. When your child is born you love your child not for anything that your child has done, nor even for how adorable your child may be. I should think that you love your child simply because you choose to love your child – the word “lovable” doesn’t really come into it at this point. When your child wakes crying at 1am in the morning, then again at 2.30am, and yet again an hour later, as a parent, the word “lovable” isn’t the exact word that enters your head. But as a parent you do attend to your child out of the love you have for him / her – again, not for anything your child has done to deserve it.

Where I believe Pete erred is that he equated the term “lovable” to be a prerequisite in order to love. In other words, on his view, you cannot love someone unless that someone has a quality that you find lovable. Another problem in defining the term “lovable” in this fashion is that the definition is purely arbitrary – what I find lovable might well be unlovable to you.

God does not see us as “lovable” in this sense at all. In fact, God has some pretty strong words for how He does view us: He hates the sinner; we are far from being lovable (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Leviticus 20:23).

Paradoxically, God loves us immensely (John 3:16, John 15:13). He cannot love us for what we are – rebellious, wanton, unruly, sinful – for God is holy and his holiness will not tolerate what is impure. So what does Lewis’s statement, it “[is because God already] loves us [that] He must labour to make us lovable” then actually mean?

Part of the implication of Lewis’s statement is that discipline is involved in the act of love. It has to be: without discipline, love is not love at all. Without discipline, love morphs into an act of, as Lewis says elsewhere in The Problem of Pain, a Benevolent Grandfather who’s sole intent is to please his grandchildren; this type of love leaves unruly behaviour unchecked; and unruly behaviour left unchecked leads to the development of selfish and self-centred adults.

God’s love for us is far removed from that of the Benevolent Grandfather’s; God’s love is richer and purer. God’s holy love entails discipline. As the writer of Hebrews writes:

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he [God] disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:7-11, emphasis mine.)

So this is what Lewis means when he says that it is out of God’s love for us – his desire to see us develop into an upright and holy people – that God must work at making us lovable, more perfect, more like his son Jesus. This is why I responded to Pete that Love seeks to perfect the object of its love, to desire the very best – God requires that we be perfect for he is perfect (Matthew 5:48). Yet the only way we can be perfect is for God to work on us to become so and it is out of his love for us that he “labours” to achieve this (Heb 12:5-8).

God so loved us that he sacrificed his only son, Jesus Christ, so that through Jesus’ cleansing blood we become perfect in his eyes and, as a result, become truly, purely, lovable through and through.

(The following is my response to @JohnHileman who sent me a message on Twitter earlier this evening.)

Thank you for raising those questions to me on Twitter and directing me to your article (Hileman, 2011). You asked me two questions; first, whether or not I believe in miracles, and second, what I think of your story about faith.

Do I believe in miracles? The short answer is yes. However, I do not really look at miracles in the way they are most commonly supposed, as violations of nature by an act of God. On the one hand, I tend toward a view that is most succinctly captured by Augustine who said, “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us in nature,” such that the term ‘miracle’ is sort of shorthand for our ignorance of how God accomplished some extraordinary thing he did. On the other hand, I tend toward a view of the Creator and the cosmos that the Israelites of the ancient Near East held, in that everything is an act of God. As noted by John Walton, Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, there was no concept of a ‘natural’ versus ‘supernatural’ dichotomy in their world view. That is a relatively modern invention. God revealed to them—and to us through them—that everything is a product of him acting. “Every plant that grew, every baby born, every drop of rain and every climatic disaster was an act of God,” Walton observed. “There were no ‘miracles’ (in the sense of events deviating from that which was ‘natural’), there were only signs of [God’s] activity (sometimes favorable, sometimes not). The idea that deity got things running then just stood back or engaged himself elsewhere (deism) would have been laughable in the ancient world because it was not even conceivable. As suggested by Richard Bube, if God were to unplug himself in that way from the cosmos, we and everything else in the cosmos would simply cease to exist. … The categories of ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ had no meaning to them, let alone any interest” (2009, pp. 20-21). The universe would not exist but for the providential sustaining power of this covenant God. All of creation exists by him, through him, and for him; by his word all things were created and have their being; all things are held together in him. This is the biblical world view to which I am committed.

What do I think of your story of faith? Well it is edifying, first of all, and I thank you for sharing it. Although there were fewer players involved, I experienced something that was not too unlike your story. My wife and I along with our newborn daughter had gone for a long drive away from civilization; we were looking to enjoy a warm Sunday afternoon at a lake someone had told us about. At the end of the day, as we started to make our way back toward civilization our car got stuck, and quite badly. It was just the three of us, in the middle of nowhere and very alone as the afternoon was creeping toward evening. This was a few years before the ubiquity of cell phones, and it would have taken several hours of walking before reaching any signs of civilization. There was nothing we could do but pray, and we certainly did. About 30 minutes later a tow truck showed up. In the middle of nowhere. On a single-lane dirt road in the woods. Several miles from anything. A tow truck. Did I mention that our car was badly stuck? How perfect is a tow truck? Later that night after our daughter was asleep in her crib, my wife and I grabbed the telephone book to find the number for the towing company whose name was on the side of the truck. We wanted to get the name of the gentleman so we could send him some kind of thank you gift. There was no listing for a towing company by that name. We called a couple of listed numbers and were told they had never heard of a company by that name. It was a mystery. I am not suggesting that he was an angel who specially appeared from God in answer our prayer, but to my wife and I that man certainly was an angel, even if metaphorically. I have no idea who he was, where he was from, or what he was doing with a tow truck in the middle of nowhere, just what we needed and at just the right time, but I do give God all the glory for that answer to our prayer.

Is there a plausible and perfectly ‘natural’ explanation for our experience? Maybe. I have a very good imagination and can think of any number of perfectly ‘natural’ explanations for a tow truck being in the woods miles away from civilization as evening was drawing near. Perhaps he worked for a local towing company and had recently purchased this tow truck from another town and was just taking it for a drive to check it out. Who knows. But as I indicated earlier, I reject the notion that miracles are violations of nature by an act of God. At the most profound end of the spectrum, miracles are events which contradict what we know about nature—and when it comes to nature we have more ignorance than knowledge, a fact which our scientific pursuits keep humbling us with. We have no idea how Jesus walked on water, for example, but we cannot on that basis conclude that it therefore violated the laws of nature. Maybe there is a scientific explanation for how he did that, which we have yet to discover. We have such a long, long way to go before we truly understand the laws of nature. As I said, ‘miracle’ in this sense is shorthand for our ignorance of how God accomplished some extraordinary thing he did. He is a covenant God of promise: he will not violate the laws of nature (cf. Jeremiah 33:25-26, “But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth. Just as surely as I have done this, so surely will I never reject the descendants of Jacob. Nor will I ever refuse to choose one of my servant David’s descendants to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”).

But as I also indicated earlier, everything is an act of God. As such I glorify him for the entire experience—for our getting stuck, for the tow truck appearing, for the lessons of faith that we learned, for however it edifies those I share the story with and so forth. And the same should apply to the story that you shared. You are a writer so you also have a very good imagination and could probably think of any number of perfectly ‘natural’ explanations that would account for the various elements in the story. But even supposing one of those explanations being the case, would that mean that it was not an act of God in answer to your wife’s prayer? According to the biblical world view to which I am committed, it certainly was an act of God in answer to her prayer; as such I would say her attitude (and yours) and what she said to your daughter was right and entirely consistent with what God reveals about himself and his creation. Like I said to you over Twitter earlier, “I think you and your wife glorified God for his providential care.” I appreciate your story, particularly the way it made me reflect upon my own similar experience and motivated me to thank him all over again.

References:

John Hileman, “Is it really God?” John Michael Hileman [blog] (2011, August 2).

John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (InterVarsity Press, 2009).