Not So Much in Common After All

"In A Common Word Between Us and You, 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals have unanimously come together for the first time since the days of the Prophet to declare the common ground between Christianity and Islam. . . . [T]he signatories to this message come from every denomination and school of thought in Islam. Every major Islamic country or region in the world is represented in this message, which is addressed to the leaders of all the world’s churches, and indeed to all Christians everywhere."

Thus summarizes the official website hosting this unprecedented letter from "Muslims" to "Christians." Having read a couple of articles on this, as well as the document itself, I have the following thoughts.

1) They begin by insisting that "The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians." This suggests that there is present (or at least potential) strife between the two. In spite of what the military actions against terrorists might be taken to suggest, it is not the case that the West is in a general war against the religion of Islam, much less that Christians are. For this reason, a peace offering may be seen as rather mundane, though comforting for those Christians who see too much "Islam" in terrorist camps. However, this would be a far more momentous letter if its signatories included members of Hamas, al-Qaeda, or any of the other numerous Muslim-run groups who presently believe that peace is not the answer to the differences between us.

2) I notice that the major, traditional Islamic nations are under-represented here, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia. In fact, the list of signers largely comes from the more secular and westernized nations, and USA representatives make up a large part of the list. I have to wonder if the signers of this represent the more liberal side of Islam, and what the majority view is within those who are committed to the authority of the Qur'an.

3) This document goes beyond an appeal to mere social and political harmony, it seeks to make a case for some level of theological unity. In the opening page they appeal to Sura 3:64 (in the Qur'an) to say we should "Come to a common word between us and you." Interestingly, if we actually browse this book for ourselves we find the following texts shortly after this:

O people of the Scripture [Jews and Christians], why do you mix truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know? (3:71)

And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. (3:85)

4) One of the primary tenants of our supposed unity is our "love of God." Unfortunately, God is scarcely defined, but therein lays the difference with Christianity. G-O-D is just three consecutive letters of our alphabet. It is the meaning that you pour into them that is important, and Christianity and Islam pour from the apple and orange juice pitchers. I suspect that if "God" has gone to the trouble to give us the very specific information about Himself that we find in the Bible OR Qur'an, then He's likely to get rather cranky if we assume we can worship Him according to the standards of the other contradictory book.

5) In spite of their desire to find unity in God, they do a curious thing. No less than 17 times they quote Qur'anic passages that end by stating that God has no "partner" or "associate." But what is meant by this? Do we just have unity because neither religion is polytheistic? If we are to take the Qur'an seriously, then including these passages undercuts this whole ecumenical project. Let's let the Qur'an speak for itself. Observe Sura 5:72-75:

Certainly they disbelieve who say: Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Mary. And the Messiah said: O Children of Israel, serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, Allah has forbidden to him the Garden and his abode is the Fire. And for the wrongdoers there will be no helpers. Certainly they disbelieve who say: Allah is the third of the three. And there is no God but One God. And if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement will surely befall such of them as disbelieve. Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; messengers before him had indeed passed away. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We make the messages clear to them! then behold, how they are turned away!

It seems they cannot help but jab (consciously or unconsciously) at the primary belief about God that stands between us: Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity.

6) With the "no partner" quotes, they even (gratuitously it seems) include one verse that ends with this text: "Each soul earneth only on its own account, nor doth any laden bear another's load." (Sura 6:164) I take this as a thinly veiled rebuke of the Christian doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and probably was meant as such by Muhammad.

7) The Bible is quoted numerous times — both Old and New Testaments — as though it is a valid source of divine authority. Verses from Matthew and Mark are particularly quoted. But these are books that speak of the crucifixion and bodily resurrection of Jesus, which they deny, and that show the Father and Son in an intimate, unique relationship, the thought of which they abhor. Indeed, the very idea that God should have a "son" is explicitly rebuked in the Qur'an. Now, just what has survived the corruption that Muhammad claimed had come to the Gospel of Jesus? Perhaps just the sections they cite? In that event, let's look at the immediately surrounding text of one particular saying of Jesus they cite in both books (Matthew 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-33).

What is interesting is that immediately before the verses they cite we see Jesus echoing the Old Testament refrain, "I Am the God of Abraham Isaac, and Jacob." Why is this significant? Because Ishmael, who they believe themselves to be descendents of, who rivals Isaac in importance in the Qur'an, and is generally listed in this company, is not even mentioned here! And immediately after their cited verses we see Jesus making the case that the Messiah is to be in some way prior to, and Lord over, David. The Qur'an affirms Jesus as Messiah, but reserves Lordship for God alone and does not grant that Jesus, as a mere man, could preexist His own birth.

8) Another appeal to unity is made stating that "Muhammad brought nothing fundamentally or essentially new." This is done by reference to Suras such as the following:

Naught is said to thee (Muhammad) but what already was said to the messengers before thee. (41:43)

I am no new thing among the messengers of God. (46:9)

We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. (5:48)

If this were true, and Muhammad were essentially underscoring the prior revelation, then we might simply put the Qur'an aside and go with the original teachings we already have. Unfortunately, that won't play for Islam, since the unique and conflicting doctrines found in the Qur'an are indispensable parts of the true religion. In practice, for them, it is the Bible that may be set aside, since it must of necessity be a corrupt and/or misunderstood book. In order to sympathize with the Christian apathy towards Muhammad's claim to stand for Judeo-Christian orthodoxy, I would ask them to contemplate their own response to the claim that Baha'i is the true expression of Islam, bringing nothing essentially new to it.

9) When justifying the unique Muslim interpretation of Jesus as Messiah they insert this parenthetical comment: "but Christians themselves anyway have never all agreed with each other on Jesus Christ's nature." So, since Christians differ over Jesus, then why not allow the Muslim view of Him into the pale of orthodoxy? The problem with this is that with all the differences that Christians may have in their theology, none of them comes even close to teaching the purely human view of Jesus that Islam maintains. Even the most challenging disputes from the first few centuries of the church never were based upon the idea that Jesus was "just a messenger" (i.e., just a man). In fact, there is almost universal agreement within Christendom on exactly this point. Rome, Orthodoxy, and Protestants alike can comfortably unite in reciting something like the ancient Nicene Creed, which states:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Pretty specific, and poles apart from the understanding taught in the Qur'an.

10) In the final pages of the letter we read, "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them — so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes." Perhaps before they seek to pursue the finer points of theological unity with Christians they should begin by working to stop the Christian persecution in the many countries where their religion dominates. That would be at least one thing about which we could get excited.

Radical Objectors of Radical Religion

Newshound Andrew Breitbart is no Christian, by his own admission. In fact, I recently listened to him fill in for the vacationing Dennis Miller, on Miller's own radio show, and I heard him make several very un-Christian statements about his personal moral views. However, he is, in many ways, what I have come to call a "common-sense conservative." That is one who holds certain conservative views, not because they are logically consistent parts of some larger belief system, but because they just seem to be true and right when the politics are dropped (or before they are acquired) and the real-world observations roll in.

As a Christian, I found one of Breitbart's lucid observations particularly refreshing. It was in response to a thoroughly postmodern caller anxious to keep her religiously pluralistic Tao in balance by claiming that radical Islam was no different or worse than radical Christianity, and that it was no more or less common. Here was his rather unsympathetic reply, which also speaks to why he and many secularists like him have parted company with their peers to the left:

If you can tell me that there are Christians in this country that are as radical, or even in the ballpark as radical, as radical Islam, then we're living in two different worlds.

I am not a Christian. I'm not a practicing Christian. As a matter of fact, I was a trained secularist in college. I was trained to hate Christianity. I no longer do, because they kept telling me that Christianity was this extreme religion, and the evangelicals were going to come over the hill, and they were going to create a Taliban. And the second that the Taliban showed up, the second that radical Islam put its flagpole down on America and decreed us evildoers, the Left has been AWOL. It does not even have a language — a lexicon — to deal with the raw evil that is radical Islam. And to talk about Christianity in the same sentence as it causes my head to spin.

As astonishingly ill-conceived as it seems to be, I have often heard this comparison — from Rosie O'Donnell on The View to Thomas Friedman of The New York Times. But let me ask a very basic question:

What comparison do Christians, by the most generous definition of that term and of the most radical form, have to radical Muslims who are numerous enough to form competing armies; who commonly have their entire holy book memorized; who are often students and teachers of recognized religious schools; who assault their enemies with directly applicable scripture verses on their lips; who have deep historical precedence for their actions after the pattern of their own religion's founder; and whose more moderate peers seldom even bother to speak against them?

At what point may we begin calling the radicals "devout" and the moderates "liberal?" Perhaps the confusion is in the idea that "devout" means holy, peaceful, and self-sacrificing rather than one who is earnestly devoted to a belief or cause. The irony is that the former conception of the term is the legacy of our western Judeo-Christian theological tradition.

If we want to make comparisons between two religious systems let's not be narrow and selective in our comparison; let's compare the character of those who are most sincerely and accurately following the teachings and traditions of that religious system. That being said, and with a little historical knowledge of Islam's roots in hand, let us ask ourselves who would be more likely to help pack a truck full of explosives and send it off into the camp of unbelievers: Jesus or Muhammad? What about the Christians of the first hundred years, who spread their message across the Roman Empire through private evangelism under the heavy thumb of the secular and the Jewish authorities, versus the Muslims who had taken much of the old Roman Empire into possession by the sword within 100 years after Muhammad's death?

We can only pray that all of Islam becomes apostate and the more moderate, liberal version of it prevails.

How Can You Know if Your Religion is Right?

I've been playing around on Yahoo! Answers and I thought my answer to the following question might be worth posting here.

Question:

How are you sure that your religion is right? There are many religions that all teach different things, and some people do not practice any religion at all. How can you be sure?

My Answer:

One of the most important criteria is that a religion has to make sense out of the world; it has to fit our observations and deepest intuitions about it. So, if it tells a historical tale, like the Book of Mormon does about the Americas, that had absolutely no archaeological, genetic, or documentary verification, then that would be a big strike against it. Or if it claims that the world is an illusion, like Buddhism, in spite of everything in your experience (and the actual behavior of Buddhists) indicating the contrary, then you'd have a big rational barrier to deal with. Or if, like Christian Science teaches, it insists that there is really no such thing as evil, in spite of all the horrors to be witnessed in the world, then you might conclude that the religion's founder was out of touch with the truth.

Important themes that any belief system must wrestle with are things like origins, purpose, morality, and destiny. A worldview needs to be able to answer questions like, "Where did it all come from?", "What are we?", "Why is there evil and suffering in the world?", "How should I live my life?", "Is there any meaning to life?", and "What should we be striving for?"

Many belief systems either fail to give much of an answer to all of these or they give unsatisfactory ones. For instance, paganism deals quite a bit with the world itself, but isn't much good with explaining where the whole cosmos came from in the first place. Eastern religions don't give much traction for asking the "what are we" question, since there's supposedly not really any individuals to ask it ("we" are part of the One). Many systems cannot make much sense of why humans would find themselves in such a sorry state (i.e., there's no "fall of man" type of doctrine). And the issue of morality is a vague or even meaningless concept for others.

Atheists don't get off the hook simply by rejecting religion. They've also got to answer these questions. Unfortunately, most of their answers are "don't know," some form of raw speculation, or some kind of subjective construction. For instance, what caused the Big Bang and why the laws of physics are so finely tuned for life is just an invitation to a science fiction discussion for an atheist. And trying to ground an objective ethical system without any transcendent source for moral principles is something that most astute atheistic philosophers have abandoned. And, while not really a logical strike against atheism, answering the question, "What is the meaning of life?", with something like, "There isn't really one; we make up our own meaning," is very unsatisfactory to those who believe that the universal human drive to ask the question suggests that a real answer must exist. You might just as well tell a hungry man that food is a figment of his imagination and that he go satisfy his odd craving with whatever he sees lying around that looks interesting.

The bottom line is that I think Christianity is the best historic, philosophical, scientific, and intuitive fit for the world I find myself to inhabit. The fact that some of what it teaches does not fit my preferences is no strike against it, since I also understand that truth can sometimes be inconvenient and painful, but it generally works out for the best in the long run.

10 Questions for the Seeker

There is much talk about the proverbial "spiritual seeker," which many religions zealously court and who is alleged to be on a journey toward truth. But who are these seekers? What are they looking for and what are they willing to accept as truth? And what roadmap are they willing to use to guide their paths? Here are some questions designed to stir the mind of the seeker, and to give touchstones for dialog to Christians seeking to reach them.

1. What is it that you are searching for? Are you looking for Truth with a capital "T" — an objective truth — or are you just looking for something that "works" for you? Will any old path do so long as it suits your taste? Are you just enjoying the "journey" or are you looking to a destination?
    
2. Are you prepared to accept a truth that causes you inconvenience, or that asserts that you are in the wrong on some of your ideas and behaviors? Do you think that it is possible to enjoy doing things that are actually wrong?
    
3. Is the truth something that can be contradicted? Do you think that other seekers who have settled on different and conflicting truths could be wrong, or that you may be wrong and they right? What role do you think reason, logic, and evidence play in determining truth? Do feelings trump these? If so, what do you do with people who believe contradictory things but "feel" the same as you about their beliefs?
    
4. If there is a true religion, do you think that it would be possible for any of its followers to be pretenders and hypocrites? Must truth be perfectly practiced in order to qualify as truth? Do we judge a religion by those who most consistently follow it or by those who violate its principles?
    
5. Do you see problems in this world? Do you think people do bad things and have bad motives? Is it possible that many people are not really looking to surrender to a higher truth?
    
6. How do you think morality and your conscience fits into this? Do your moral intuitions tell you anything about truth and the maker of this cosmos? Do you think you've ever committed any moral crimes? What is to be done with these and what do you do with your guilt?
    
7. Do you just prefer to be "spiritual" and not "religious?" Do you dislike "organized religion?" If there really is an objective truth, and others can come to know it too, is it sensible that common followers of that truth would seek out each other's company, deliberately organize, and even have spiritual elders and administrative leaders where the numbers warranted?
    
8. Have you considered that this truth could have intruded upon history? Do you think that if Truth is personal that it might have spoken and you can look for evidence of that revelation? Do you think that such a revelation would be authoritative and trustworthy, or do you suppose that it could be hopelessly muddled by human involvement?
    
9. The Judeo-Christian tradition is one of the most well-documented, historical, and ancient. Have you considered that this could be the actual point at which God has intervened in this world — is it not a prime candidate? Have you actually read the Bible (perhaps the New Testament, or just the Gospels), or even just heard an exposition of the core beliefs of historic Christianity (rather than having a narrow church experience or taking the secular stereotypes at face-value)? Have you honestly sought to have your questions or objections addressed by Christians who are best equipped to do so, such as theologians and apologists? Have you read anything near the number of books on Christianity that you have on other beliefs that you are entertaining? Did you know that there is a whole historical body of literature devoted to explaining Christianity and answering the tough questions?
    
10. Are you serious about your search or is it more of a hobby? Would you be willing to pray to this divine entity that you are seeking to help you come to the truth, whatever the cost?

Only Two Religions: Meditations on Religious Pluralism

It has often been said that all religions teach basically the same thing, or are just different paths to the same God. This idea of religious pluralism comes both from the mouths of those who have made a career of "religious studies" and from those who simply mean to brush aside the whole question of truth in religion. The claim itself can be answered in several ways, but I think that behind this idea stands a common presumption about the nature of God and what He expects from us.

For most, this claim is simply a matter of ignorance about what the various religions actually teach, or consider to be essential truths, but when the most foundational doctrines are taken into account, irreconcilable differences immediately surface. For example, Islam says that Muhammad was the final and greatest prophet of God and that Jesus was a mere human prophet, while Christianity says that Muhammad was not speaking for God and that Jesus was actually God incarnate. Islam claims that the Christian's divine view of Jesus is a mortal sin (the sin of "shirk"), while Christians say that you must accept His deity for salvation – there is no harmonizing these views. Other examples that could be cited would be the Buddhist idea of a non-personal God (in fact, Theravada Buddhism is essentially atheistic) vs. the eminently personal God of Christianity; or the Hindu/New-Age idea of reincarnation vs. the one-life model of Christianity.

Another thing pluralists are often guilty of is being selective about what religions to include in order to make this alleged harmonization. The religions that most modern people are aware of are relatively tame (especially from a distance), but there are many diverse and eccentric religions out there, and many more that could be added if we took historical inventory. Does the pluralist mean to say that the child sacrifices of the Canaanite priests were simply an earnest effort to reach out to the same God that Christians worship with offerings of praise and thanksgiving? Is the pluralist willing to accept all religions and all sincere expressions of those religions, or are they willing to admit that God is not likely to be impressed when a "sincere" believer flies a hijacked jet into a skyscraper?

In reality, the case for pluralism is most forcefully made by those who deny the orthodoxy of any particular religion (i.e., theological liberals), and often are not, themselves, devout people. It is an outsider's claim; they do not believe that God has clearly spoken through any of these religious systems. These are the people who are not so hostile to religion that they would brazenly claim it all a fiction to be discarded. There is a somewhat commendable (though misguided) spirit of mediation at work here. Unfortunately, in the attempt to reconcile the individual faiths they only succeed in misunderstanding each, and alienating those who take them seriously and would be unwilling to yield their distinctive doctrines. The pluralist is actually proposing a new vanilla religion to which he expects the world to convert. In practice, he is simply adding yet another one into the mix.

Religious pluralism is a bit like saying that all sports are basically the same because they use a ball. But this neglects the puck, the pool, the track, and the mat. Perhaps they might be tempted to say that it is all about prevailing over competition, but that would be both too narrow (many participate for the sheer love of the game) and too broad (capitalism then becomes a "sport" as well). So, again, we come back to the idea that details and distinctions matter.

Yet, pluralism rests on the idea that there is some common element or point of unity between the various religions. So, what is the "ball" for the religious pluralist? When all the world's religions are surveyed, the common denominator of choice always seems to relate to "morality."

I think at the deepest level the pluralist's conclusion is its own theological claim about what God is like, or what He wants (assuming He exists at all). I don't think the conclusion is merely based on observed similarities in the religions being sampled. If this were so then one could claim that God just wants us all to congregate in large halls, or sing songs to Him, or chant prayers – all things found in diverse religions. I think that certain assumptions guide the selective process in what is considered to be a relevant similarity.

It is instructive both that all religions do have something to say about morality, and that the pluralist would pick this out as the key ingredient. In our postmodern age there is much debate over the existence of objective morality, but here we see affirmed the fact that the peoples of the world are all preoccupied with the idea that morality is real and essential. It is both an irony and a further testament that so many moral relativists also happen to be religious pluralists. Even atheists reveal their appreciation of morality when they – as they often do – object to the idea that you need to believe in God to live a moral life. There is something worth exploring here.

So, what do the religions of the world have to say about morality?

Buddha says to "be lamps unto yourselves; work out your salvation with diligence." The path to salvation, according to Buddhism, is through the personal pursuit of "enlightenment" facilitated by such moral guidelines as the Five Precepts and the Eightfold Path. Hindu (and New Age) salvation depends on the idea that one advances upward to the Godhead through cycles of incarnations, where one is rewarded or punished in the next life according to the good or bad deeds in this one. Islam teaches that one's good deeds must outweigh the bad ones, and credits are earned through obedient living, especially by application of the Five Pillars of Islam. The ancient Greeks believed that the dead were judged in the underworld, and the good could ascend to the Elysian Fields while the evil descended to fiery Tartarus. In ancient Egypt, eternal life was achieved if the burden of sin and evil in one's heart weighed less than the feather of Ma'at. And the list goes on and on.

The common theme seems to be one of personal striving for self-righteousness or a level of virtue acceptable to the divine judge. While there may be differences in where that striving lands you, or who/what does the judging, there is still the hope and expectation that the goal is yours to achieve. And the religious pluralist joins them in spirit: he says that if there is a God, then surely all He wants is for us to be "good" people. But there is one religion that is not a good team player, and is often bypassed because of it.

Christianity teaches that it is true in principle that we are justified by our works, but that it is a losing proposition. If there is one thing that is clear from the testimony of history, our social experiences, and our own hearts, it is that humans are fundamentally and deeply flawed creatures. To deny this one would first have to declassify a host of sins. Additionally, even our "good" deeds are suspect when we consider factors such as motives and standards of comparison. But even assuming we have managed some righteousness pleasing to the Judge, how good is good enough? Does He grade on a curve? Maybe just 51% goodness is enough? Yet even that would be found optimistic if we examine ourselves and meditate long on the idea of perfection.

In what sense can we call the Judge "just" if He winks at so much sin? There is certainly nothing in our experience that reflects this sort of attitude toward law and crime. We are not entitled to knock off a bank for our retirement fund even if we've been law abiding for the balance of our lives. Anyone who is looking for a God of unconditional loving tolerance has not been a parent, or has neglected all lessons of child rearing. If absolute holiness is not required, or imparted to us, then heaven will be filled with a great many persons with marginal credentials, and that is no heaven at all.
Christianity is absolutely unique among the religions of the world. It turns these ideas of morality and merit on their head: salvation comes before works. It teaches that it is the height of arrogance to think that our goodness can match God's holy standard, or that He owes us anything for our petty deeds. Christianity demands that you repent not only of your sin, but of all your labors to bury it, and your presumption that you can impress God.

God has already provided the perfect righteousness in Jesus Christ; we have merely to put our trust in this provision. It is both the hardest and easiest religion to follow. Hard, in that one must first yield up the ego. Easy, in that one has but to "enter the Sabbath rest." And those moral motions, which every other religion is so keen to affirm, spring inevitably from a genuine faith.

At the end of our days when we stand before God and He asks why He should receive us, the answers will fall into two categories. On the one hand the proud will say, "I performed the rituals and festivals and prayers," or "I was basically a good person." On the other hand the humble will say, "I am unworthy and filled with sin. Even my good deeds are as filthy rags before your Holiness. I throw myself solely on your mercy." One seeks to be judged on his own merits; the other throws himself on the mercy of the court. Scripture tells us how this will play out. For those not covered by the atonement of Jesus, the books will be thrown open and everyone judged according to his works. The results leave no room for optimism.

Ultimately, there are only two religions: man's religion of self-righteousness vs. God's righteousness and His provision for sinful man. One must be surrendered to the other, and the religious pluralist says it must be the latter. This is why classical Christianity is implicitly excluded in talk of pluralism. It is the black sheep (or I should say, the spotless white lamb) in this pasture. If the distinctive doctrine of the atonement of Christ is removed from play, as liberal theology seeks to do, then Christianity becomes just another moral system founded by just another man telling us how to get to God. We may just as well recall the missionaries; there is already enough "religion" in the world.

Role Your Own Jesus

Jesus was a really great guy. He said a lot of things with which it's hard to take exception, and He's got a lot of clout in spiritual circles. Everyone wants Jesus playing for their team; every religion seems to find some niche for Him in its theology. For Islam, He is a great prophet. For Buddhists, he is a Bodhisattva. For Hindus, He is a great swami or avatar. For the cults, He is "a god" or a special creation of God. And for liberal Christians, He is a great spiritual teacher and moral example.

If you can employ a biblical quote from Jesus to make your point in a religious debate, then you can imagine you've scored big points — especially against someone who holds to a more traditional view of Christianity. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work the other way around; a classical Christian can't get much leverage for their view by appeal to Scripture.

In a dialog with liberals and non-Christians you will often hear them say things like, "Jesus just wanted us all to love and accept each other" or, "I think Jesus was just an enlightened human, like Buddha." And then they will appeal to some snippet of the Bible in support of their case. But how is it that they know anything about Jesus from which to form such opinions?

Our only source of any detailed knowledge about Jesus is in the Scriptures. However, the very thing that unites liberals and those of alternative religions against historical Christianity is the rejection of the reliability of these Scriptures. In order to reject doctrines such as the bodily resurrection, the deity of Jesus, and the final judgment, they must first have convinced themselves that it is all just an allegory or that myth and error have invaded the texts. Unfortunately, this leaves them with a problem.

If you've rejected the reliability and historicity of the biblical documents, then how do you know which parts are corrupted and which parts hold the truth? What good are they to your portrait of Jesus if you can't count on them as a credible witness? But the antagonists of orthodoxy do quote certain texts to support their theology, as though such passages had escaped corruption and were to be taken literally. However, if you present clarifying or "competing" verses to them they will brush them aside as so much litter.

So, have these people with the "real" portrait of Jesus found the magic key for sorting the good verses from the bad? In a sense, yes: The "key" turns out to be their own personal opinions on the matter. They may have picked up their notions about Jesus from some imaginative books or religious leaders, but in the end it is their own thoughts and winnowing of these ideas which drives them. When approaching the biblical texts, it is those passages that support their original thesis which survive their credibility filter.

Unfortunately, short of divine revelation, there is no reasonable way of getting at what Jesus really said and thought if the primary witnesses — the Gospel writers — have made a mess of the job. At least Mormons and Muslims, with their supposed divine texts about Jesus, have some hope of playing in this field of competing claims. Most people, however, are leaning on nothing more substantial than their own feelings to justify their interpretive approach.

Could something like the Gnostic texts help us to get at the "real" Jesus? Well, I suppose they could, in theory, but how would you be able to know that? If one has issues with the canonical texts, which even many liberal scholars place in the First Century, then one has even worse problems making the Gnostic texts authoritative. That is because they didn't even begin appearing until the mid-Second Century.

But it's not as though those who appeal to such documents are seeking to be orthodox Gnostics; they don't really believe that this is "authentic" Christianity. If you were to start ascribing specific Gnostic beliefs to someone appealing to the Gnostic texts for their alternative Jesus, they would most probably be insulted by your presumption. In practice, such persons do nothing more than add these additional writings to the buffet from which they fill their spiritual plates. There is no divine and authoritative canon to which someone like a New Ager or liberal Christian may look in order to set boundaries upon their wild speculations.

So, the next time you hear someone making a claim like, "Jesus was all about loving people, not judging them," you could respond with something like the following.

How do you know what Jesus was like? You can have no clue, since you reject the reliability of the Bible and you have no authoritative and accurate revelation about Him to which you may appeal. Your view is simply based upon your own imagination and desire for what you want Him to be like. By that measure, my imagination is as good as your own. And since the earliest writings of the Christian community and the consensus of the historical church is on my side, then I feel quite comfortable sticking with my own "opinion," thank you.

The Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant: Does it Work?

Whenever I dialog with religious pluralists, like Wiccans and liberal Christians, the parable of the blind men and the elephant is almost sure to come up. Its intent is to illustrate that each religion (or denomination) may actually contain truth, but perhaps it is merely an incomplete and vague understanding of the whole. It is a clever and even compelling analogy, but it ultimately fails on several counts.

First, if we are all stuck with only our piece of the truth due to our "blindness," then who is it that has managed to see the whole elephant to know that we each only have a piece? The author of this parable seems to think he has seen the big picture, but that everyone else is bound to their provincial views. But if one can escape their own "blindness," then so can we all. And if no one can, then neither can he, and he is merely speculating that the true and complete thing is an elephant. Those who offer up this parable are usually reacting to the supposed arrogance of persons who claim to have a "monopoly on the truth." Unfortunately, they themselves are exhibiting arrogance in the implication of this parable, which is that they know the elephant to be something more than what those narrow, dogmatic religionists believe it to be.

Second, the parable works only within its own context, but not as a true analogy of what is actually going on in the world of religious claims. It is true that each blind man had a piece of the truth, and that piece was true in isolation, e.g., the tail really was like a rope. However, in the case of religious claims, the various parties are making diverse observations about the same part of the elephant. Some are saying the tail is like a rope and others that it is like a cantaloupe, and therein lies the problem. For example, some are saying that when you die there is no judgment, others that when you die there is a judgment, and yet others that when you die you are reincarnated. Any one may be wrong, but it's not simply a matter of each seeing a different part of the whole. The analogy of the elephant parable could only hope to succeed if each religion were making unique, non-overlapping claims about spiritual matters, but that is not the case.

Third, Christians believe that the "elephant" has actually spoken and thus has allowed us to get past the shortcomings that our "blindness" might impose. If God has indeed spoken, then this settles the matter and we can consequently reject any alternative impressions or speculations to the contrary. Of course, it is true that several religions have their own speaking "elephant," but this doesn't help to salvage the parable. It only means that the real point is to determine which of the contradictory revelations, if any, is more consistent with the beast we find ourselves groping at (this would consist of the natural world, history, philosophy, and human nature). I propose that the Christian Scriptures succeed in doing so and stand head-and-shoulders above all other contenders.

What Mormon Archaeologists and Maytag Repairmen Have in Common

One of the advantages of working on the apologetics section of LifeWay.com is that interesting related material, produced by our Broadman & Holman publishing division, often makes it into my hands. I recently obtained a copy of the Holman QuickSource Bible Atlas, and I was looking through it with my son when a thought occurred to me.

This colorful book is loaded with images of maps, charts, archaeological ruins, geographical points of interest, artifacts, and stone inscriptions. It is a graphic testimony to the historical grounding of the biblical narratives. Much to the embarrassment of various skeptics over the centuries, archaeology has been very kind to biblical Christianity. However, the same cannot be said for one of the cults of Christianity — Mormonism — which claims to be the true and "restored" church of Jesus Christ.

The Book of Mormon (BOM) is billed as "another testimony of Jesus Christ." In it are elaborate stories of Semitic tribes making their way to the New World. It includes descriptions of their peoples, cultures, and exploits, along with an alleged post-resurrection appearance of Jesus among them. The BOM includes enough description of these things that we ought to know what to look for (and where, in some cases) in order to validate its tales. The problem is, nobody can seem to find any evidence that any of these things has actually occurred.

Is the BOM just talking about an isolated region of the Americas? I'll let it speak for itself:

And it came to pass that [the Nephites in America] did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south, to the sea north, from the sea west, to the sea east. (Helaman 3:8)

The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea. (Mormon 1:7)

Unfortunately for them, none of the cities or battlefield sites has been found. No ancient documents or stone inscriptions in either Hebrew or "Reformed Egyptian" (the supposed language of the original BOM) have been found. No artifacts or coins found and none of the metals allegedly forged by these people. But it's not as though we have found nothing in the Americas. Indeed, the archaeological record is quite rich and we know quite a bit about the various people-groups across the two continents. It's just that we have not found any remains that match the BOM description of early American history (although some feeble attempts have been made).

And there are things mentioned in the BOM that ought to have still been around when westerners first hit this continent. According to the book of Mosiah (7:22, 9:9, 10:5) crops like wheat, barley, and flax were cultivated by these people. Unfortunately, these are unknown in the Americas until their introduction by Europeans. And in the book of Ether (9:18-19) there is mention of animals like cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, horses, and even elephants — none of which had been on the continents for many thousands of years, if ever. Even the American Indian races themselves show no trace of their alleged Hebrew ancestry, which has been reconfirmed in modern times by DNA studies.

The bottom line is that a book like the Bible Atlas remains an unrealized fantasy for the Mormon. At best, an equivalent book would be filled with artistic conceptions. I think that we Christians are so used to making pilgrimages to holy lands, reading magazines graced by archaeological photos, and seeing biblical content echoed in secular histories that we are in danger of becoming desensitized to our rich historical legacy. When skeptics charge the Bible with being filled with mythology, it may prove difficult to confirm some of the miraculous events that they are really exercised about, but of those evidences that historical analysis can yield, we have more than enough to fill our books.

Writing in the secular publication Biblical Archaeology Review, Prof. William G. Dever of the University of Arizona concluded that the Bible's status as an authentic record of the ancient people it chronicles must be considered uncontested:

The Bible is no longer an isolated relic from antiquity, without provenance and thus without credibility. Archaeology may not have proven the specific historical existence of certain biblical personalities such as Abraham or Moses, but it has for all time demolished the notion that the Bible is pure mythology. The Bible is about real, flesh-and-blood people, in a particular time and place.

The Universist Movement: Lost in the Fog and Lovin' It

When one rejects the idea that there is a God who is concerned with the beliefs and behaviors of humans, and who has certainly not granted any knowledge of Himself via Special Revelation, then one is free to go about one's business as though He did not even exist. But what is one then to do about that nagging feeling in the "soul" that finds awe in the creation and cries out for meaning, value, purpose, and answers to life's great mysteries? How do we foster hope, peace, and ethical standards for all mankind? Well, according to the founders of the Universist Movement, you make up your own religion. All Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Pantheists, and Transcendentalists welcome. Those with knowledge or convictions about God need not apply.

For those not yet familiar with this new and growing religion, formed by a group of medical students out of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, here are some choice excerpts from their official website along with some of my comments.

The Universist Alternative can be summarized in one statement:

Universists apply personal reason and experience to the fundamental questions of human existence, derive inspiration from the natural uncertainty of the human state, and deny the validity of revelation, faith and dogma.

My "reason" informs me that the case for Christianity is solid and that all attempted counter-arguments against the resurrection testimonies fall short unless one first presupposes that miracles cannot occur. My "experience" tells me that Christianity resonates with my deepest intuitions about the world and human nature. I could be wrong, but you'd have to give me good "reasons" to change my mind.

Universism is the world's first rational religion. Reaching to the heart of humanity's religious impulse, we have uncovered not faith, but mystery. Not complacency, but awe. We have found an essential element of the human experience in harmony with reason - not in spite of it. Universists know the fuller our understanding of the universe, the greater our appreciation for a reality beyond our imagination. We celebrate individual reason, inspiration in nature, and hope in progress.

For many, Universism is a way for atheists to pine for something beyond ourselves, to celebrate the wonder of the Universe... but still be atheist.

Of course, it would be "unreasonable" to assume that this "religious impulse" has anything to do with the possibility that a God actually exists and has seeded us with the desire to seek after Him. No, this must be an evolutionary vestige. A most unfortunate mutation in that there is no selective advantage in whiling away your time shaping idols and attending to endless rituals while your competition gathers their food and sharpens their flint.

Universists share the following five principles:

I. The most important thing is the search for meaning and purpose, as in relationships and love, understanding and knowledge, experiences and emotions, or elsewhere.

"Searching" is good, but finding is prohibited (more on this later).

II. There is no absolute Truth that applies to all people; ultimate knowledge of the nature of existence cannot be communicated, it can only be reasoned or experienced personally. The natural state of most individuals is uncertainty, motivating curiosity, openmindedness and appreciation for the experiences and thought of other beings.

This has the unmistakable smell of a truth claim. In fact, there's quite a bit of metaphysical groundwork lain by them in order to define what is and is not a Universist — "doctrine," if you will. Additionally, this claim of the "natural state" of individuals being "uncertainty" seems to fly in the face of their concession that humanity has a "religious impulse." This impulse seems to express itself globally in religions that are incorrigibly dogmatic, which is the very thing they are seeking to flee with their own dogma.

III. Morality depends on individual circumstances and relationships. Any action's ultimate rightness or wrongness can only be determined by those involved in the action. Good and Evil are ideas that can be useful, but are inaccurate if used to describe the nature of the universe.

Of course they are moral relativists; they must be without either a God to ground morality or without revelation to assist in determining what the standards might be. I wonder, though, do they believe that when I disagree with them about their ethical standards or seek to impose mine upon society that I am "wrong" or doing something "bad?" Their materials are filled with moral judgments against the intolerance of traditional religions and the perceived harms that it has done to society. They are certainly free to propose whatever organization or story that they like, but they overstep their philosophy if they propose that it is a "better" way than mine. Better according to what measure?

IV. Social structures such as governments and institutions are useful insofar as they help individuals to flourish - that is, become and remain healthy, happy and able to work toward their goals that do not interfere with the rights of other individuals to work toward their goals.

"Rights?" What the heck are rights and where did they get them? According to their ideology, rights can be only what the state grants you, since there is no Author of rights or no rights gene. But this makes no sense, because they are suggesting that government's role should be to foster the preservation of these rights. This implies that they believe that rights are objective entities that transcend temporal governments. Unfortunately, this smacks of a theistic worldview, which is tacitly rejected by this group (Deism is the nearest thing they will countenance according to their literature). This means that "rights" are merely those things which they have predetermined that they desire to possess. More power to them in lobbying the state for whatever rights they deem desirable, but they are certainly not rationally justified in claiming to have a "right" to such "rights."

V. All life is free in the universe, limited in potential only by the physical laws of nature.

If not for those pesky physical laws then our selves would be free to ascend to the very heavens (a godless one, of course). In reality, though, the entire concept of "freedom" is problematic for most of those who would be drawn to this religion. If we are merely citizens and material of the universe, then we are subject to the laws and forces which drive that universe. This article of faith, according to their model, might justifiably then read, "All life is determined, driven and limited by our biology and environment." But that wouldn't make a very "inspirational" creed, now would it?

We wanted to fix what was wrong with [traditional religion] by determining why it failed, in order to make a satisfying replacement for faith. Our conclusion was that the opposite of faith, Uncertainty itself, is the only satisfying antidote, and only when it is fully embraced and celebrated for its contribution to our daily lives and human progress as a whole.

Universism is the method, the primacy of the Search, and the solidarity in Uncertainty.

"Uncertainty" is the chief article of faith, and the act of capitalizing it is to "enshrine" it (as they admit elsewhere). But it is one thing to admit one's ignorance; it is an entirely different thing to celebrate and make a creed of ignorance and indecision. Were any Universist to come to an actual conclusion he must necessarily be branded a heretic and excommunicated from their "church" ("Meetups," I believe they call them).

It is not uncertainty which has been the contributor to humanity, it is curiosity and the desire to transcend our ignorance — to find Truth. And these things are fueled by our belief that there is real truth and knowledge to be acquired. To even claim that there could be such a thing as "human progress" implies an objective standard, and admits that we have made some movement toward that end.

A faith-based worldview means there are people who know the Truth and others who do not; this leads to division and often hate. In a Universist worldview, no one can claim knowledge to certain Truth, this means each person's efforts at the Search are respected.

But if they cannot claim certain knowledge then they cannot claim that no one has found the Truth. They have no grounds for their rejection of other religions that are based on revelation. Also, it is naïve to think that the solution to the issue of tolerance is to simply deny Truth. It seems more reasonable to say that the solution is the proper application of the concept of tolerance itself, which is the idea that we may all be civil and gracious toward one another even while we may have disagreements. The Universists are in reality just adding one more belief system into the mix of what must be tolerated within society.

It's not what you believe, it's how you believe it! The future of religion is faithless.

It's an exclusive inclusive party! BYOB (Bring Your Own Belief), so long as it's not labeled, "God Says." We'll pour 'em all in to the Hairy Buffalo barrel and drink ourselves silly to the promise of a gloriously uncertain future.

The entire creed of Universism turns out to be logically self-refuting. Might I suggest the following for their consideration:

We absolutely believe that there are no absolutes.
We are certain that uncertainty is the way.
We believe it is right to reject right and wrong.
We have faith that all other faiths are in error.
We assert our right to the enjoyment and preservation of our rights.
We practice tolerance for those who share our vision of tolerance.
We are committed to the journey without a destination, and the search without an object.
Glory be to the Mystery, the Uncertainty, and the Openmind. Amen.

Answering the Cults: A Common Defense

Is it really necessary to understand the cults of Christianity in order to refute them? Do we need to have an exhaustive knowledge of their books and doctrines before we are qualified to offer a critique? I submit that it is not. There are certain claims and issues common to most of them that allow a categorical response to be made.

There is at least one thing common to the derivative religions of Christianity, like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, the Shakers, and even Islam. Each of them similarly claim that the historic church has gotten things mucked up, and that they, through the illumination of their own founder, have recovered the true teachings of Christ. What this means is that a successful response to this charge would serve equally well against any of these groups, and would undermine their most foundational claim to legitimacy.

I propose a two-stage approach that might look something like the following.

1) Jesus' immediate followers should be considered the highest authority for what Jesus actually taught and meant by His teachings. If this were not so, then Jesus was in reality a poor teacher and a failure in His mission. And if that were the case, I'm not sure why we should be impressed enough with Him to waste our lives serving His cause. This first-generation group authored documents (the New Testament) and mentored the subsequent apostolic fathers, many of whose writings we have access to. The bottom line is that we have adequate materials to consult in order to arbitrate disputes over historical and theological matters regarding Jesus.

2) Unless one has a grudge against the contents of the Bible, there is no good reason to believe that it has been corrupted. The historical and manuscript evidence is on the side of orthodoxy, and support for any conspiracy theories that skeptics might have is so scant that most non-Christian scholars are willing to concede many of the church's claims, e.g., Jesus was really crucified and the tomb was empty, Paul really wrote most of the letters attributed to him, the 4 Gospels are from the first century, the followers of Jesus were dying for their supernatural beliefs in the generation of Jesus, etc. For a more detailed exploration of this point you can refer to one of my recent blog posts: On The Defense of Scripture

If these premises hold, then any group that is based on a challenge to these facts is automatically discredited — we don't really even need to get into the detailed theology of the group. The only thing relevant to the discussion would be any new data that the cult may have to contribute that might shed light on how the early church went wrong in their theology or at what point some corruption of the manuscripts was introduced. But in the absence of that (which is generally the case), we are forced to take the word of a human who arrives on the scene hundreds of years after the fact — someone not trained by Christ (the Author) and whose credentials for making such divine revisionist claims is far inferior to His. For example, Jesus backed his claims with the bullion of a perfect life, miracles, and a resurrection. There is no one else who has held a candle to this, and who should shake our confidence that Jesus' words were authoritative, and that He had the power to get them clearly transmitted for posterity.

Of course, a religious group can bypass these issues by declaring themselves a separate religion from Christianity (i.e., that Jesus, Himself, was off base), but, curiously, this is almost never done. The preferred route is to hijack Christianity and repurpose the name of Jesus. But if a religion chooses to affiliate itself with Christ, then it must be judged by the standard of what is best known about Him. And if it can be established that we do have clear knowledge about what He taught and meant by His teachings, then any group that takes issue with that record is ipso facto disqualified.

For this reason, and others, it is far more important to have a good knowledge of things like scriptural authority, the making of the canon, textual transmission, and Bible translations than it is to have a detailed knowledge of the many cults that you may chance to encounter. With this knowledge in hand, if you encounter a radical group claiming to be the "true" or "restored" church, then you will have a good starting point in your discussion.

Here are some books that may be useful to any who are interested in equipping themselves in this area.

---

Note: feel free to post any recommendations for books that are worthy of being included in this list. Assuming they are available through LifeWaystores.com, I can have the list modified.

Regarding Devout People From Other Religions

Question:
A big point of confusion for me, maybe especially 'cos my mother's Indian, is the question about saints from other countries. I've read many books about eastern religion and spirituality and about their saints and yogis. These people were amazingly dedicated pursuers of God. They spent their lives dedicated to God/the spiritual path, and have all sorts of stories about actual communion and visions and all. Should I not believe them? Were they sent to hell? What about the Buddha? I'd find it hard to believe that: a) there have been no true followers of God from non-Christian areas, and b) that all of those people were lying or deluded. Also, some of them have had visions of Christ and quote heavily from the Bible too. Hmm.

Answer:
Here's where you have your chance at some "scientific" thinking about religious matters, as I mentioned in question one. You've already got a start in the way you imply that if these other devout persons are in good with God, then something must be wrong with Christianity and its exclusivism. Jesus can't be the only path and Hinduism (et al.) be "a way" too. Something's got to give if you want to think rationally, and I think you do. But this brings up one of the first problems with the eastern religions. It is common to characterize this present world as "illusion" and to include rational thought as part of that clinging world that is to be escaped. If you will join those mystics that believe we must rise "above" logic and rational though, then there are no contradictions to be raised against Christianity or any other belief systems for that matter. But if you will stay the path of reason, then you must be skeptical of any religion or worldview that would seek to destroy it.

If we can use logic to sort through the religions, then we might say that if one religion were true, and it taught specific truths about God, then any religion that taught contradictory things must be false (at least regarding those particular teachings). For example, if religion A teaches reincarnation and religion B says we live just one life, then if A is true, B is necessarily false. Or if religion A says that God is a single, personal being that transcends the created world, and religion B says that God is impersonal and IS the world, then whichever idea is true rules out the other one. Of course, in each of these cases both A and B could be false, but with certain opposing truth claims (like the examples given) they cannot both coexist in a rational universe.

I think you'd like to preserve both the eastern religions and Christianity in your spiritual model. It's so hard to think of "nice" and "devout" people as being deluded or condemned, and "who are we to judge" such things anyway. But if thinking is profitable and logic is a valid tool, then there is some sifting we can do among the world religions without being "judgmental" or "bigoted." And if there is a God who has made us and wants to be known, then it makes perfect sense for us to do so and to be equipped by Him for the task.

From an earlier email you said this: "I believe that God takes on many different forms in order to communicate with people, because who can just stare into infinity?" I don't think it is warranted to say that God IS many different contradictory things. If He is something at all, then He is something particular. (Note: I use "He" for God for lack of a better pronoun, and because the Bible indicates this as His own pronoun of choice.) There may be many layers of depth and many characteristics about Him, but these things can surely be known if He wills them to be, however incompletely. For example, God might reveal that He is personal or that He is the creator of the universe. Now, we may not fully understand the depths of His "personhood" or the scope of the creation (and what lies beyond it), but for Him to also reveal that He is impersonal and IS THE creation would be confounding and would essentially mean that He has revealed nothing at all about these things. How would it be helpful to us to communicate Himself in contradictory ways?

The problem with these other religions is that if we tried to put these different understandings together to get a picture of God, then we get nothing but chaos. If God were an elephant and each religion were describing a separate part of Him (as in the Hindu parable), then perhaps we could get an overall picture of Him. The problem is, each religion is not describing a different part; they are differently describing many of the same parts! If we adopt religious pluralism, we must imagine God to be an amorphous monster. And if the "elephant" talks (as Christianity claims) and it says that it has two tusks of bone, then any blind men feeling about it who say they are "spears," or that there is only one tusk, are necessarily mistaken, and they compound their error by refusing to heed the words of the elephant.

When you say that all these people are serving and experiencing "God" we must consider the possibility that it is not God at all that they are focused upon. God is not simply a word for which we are free to supply any definition we want. If someone claims to be devoted to God, but then they give a description of Him that is complete nonsense, then what is it that they are worshipping? Is God just looking for "sincere" people and doesn't care about what they throw their sincerity at? Even "devotion" and "worship" are specific attitudes and activities that can be misdefined. Do you suppose that God was pleased with the child sacrifices of the Canaanites simply because they were sincerely dedicated to their religion?

I know, I know, it's got to be "good" and sincere. But what if God would rather have people participate in the good of their neighbor and a "devout" person just wasted all his time privately meditating? Does that qualify as "good?" What if God would rather be treated in a personal manner and a "devout" person just spent all his time babbling repetitive prayers and performing mechanical rituals? Is that "good?" Was it "good" for Buddha to abandon his wife and son if God expects us to be responsible to our family? Is it "good" for Hindus to ignore the misery of the untouchable caste, because of their alleged karmic debt, if reincarnation and the law of karma is actually a fiction?

Worst of all, what if people know deep down in their minds and hearts (because it has been put there) that there is a creator to whom they are indebted for absolutely everything they are, have, and enjoy, yet they refuse to give Him honor and thanksgiving in favor of worshipping the creation or some "god" of their own design? And what if they constantly violate His moral law, which is also "written on their hearts," yet they minimize this fact or try to bury their misdeeds under rituals or good works according to their own standard of "goodness?" If there really is a God who is worthy of worship and obedience, then how "dedicated" to Him was the Buddha, who fled the life and reality that God had prescribed, went on a vision quest, and dredged up a new metaphysical model from his own imagination that ultimately denied the world, moral reality, heaven, and God Himself? Just how is one following a true spiritual path to the true God if one's path is claiming to lead to no God at all but, instead, soul extinction, as Theravada Buddhism (the oldest, most orthodox form) claims to believe?

Regarding the "communion and visions" of these people from eastern religions, I would say that subjective experiences are a problematic basis for defining spiritual truth for two reasons.

1) Every religion claims "experiences" of one kind or another, from the Mormon "burning in the bosom," to the New Age psychic encounter, to the "kundalini awakening" of the transcendentalist, to the Marian visions of the Catholic, to the visions of the gods for the Hindu. The problem is that each of the religions interprets these to their own ends, and the experiences always seem to dovetail with whatever path the person already happens to be on. If they are meant to validate the religion, then we have the problem I address above: each religion makes unique and irreconcilable claims about God and the creation. How, then, can they all confirm their host's religion? The best they could do is to evidence that there is some spiritual aspect to the cosmos, or at least to human imagination.

2) Where these experiences and visions do give specific information, beyond simple "feelings," it does not follow that it is always true information. For example, if the Hindu believes he sees a vision of Shiva, or the New Ager thinks he is channeling an "ascended master," it may be that these things are not really what they are imagined to be. These may happen to be authentic experiences, but there still could be some mistake about their source or intent. Furthermore, if these are truly "beings" that they are seeing or communicating with, there is no reason to think that all such beings are any more honest than human beings. And if there are intelligent and powerful spiritual beings of evil intent, we could expect them to be at least as effective at deception as the most successful human con artist.

All these experiences found in the world's religions do not succeed in invalidating Christianity. The only way this would be so is if the Bible claimed that spirits and visions only appeared to the authentic Christian. On the contrary, our scriptures are quick to make the point that the spirit world is exceedingly active in the affairs of humanity, but that we happen to now reside in enemy territory. The Truth and Light revealed to us by God is brought forth by a conquering army led by its invincible yet patient champion. The diverse and often contradictory spiritual manifestations from all these religious traditions are easily explained within the Christian worldview, which says that "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." And he and his minions are not so much interested in weaving one, unified and comprehensive truth-substitute as they are in using any means at their disposal to deflect attention from THE Truth. It is not God who "takes on many different forms in order to communicate"; it is the one who does not want us to communicate with the One form.

You say that some of these have had visions of Christ and quote from the Bible. It is interesting how all the world's religions attempt to get Jesus playing for their team. I've not known a religion or cult yet that tries to make Jesus out to be a hack or a charlatan. Christianity itself doesn't try to appeal to any other spiritual leaders; it suffers no peers, which I'm sure seems arrogant to many, but is at least consistent with its claim to be sponsored by the one true God, who does not take kindly to pretenders or muddled-headed thinking about Himself. The only reasons I can see for another religion to appeal to Jesus is if they are trying to gain credibility for themselves or simply to win converts away from Christianity. Christianity doesn't take well to being re-purposed to these other religions, unless you first tear it down and rebuild it to suit your purposes.

It is really meaningless to say that someone quotes the Bible. I've heard atheists quote the Bible and claim that it contains good moral teachings. The Bible is a big book and it says many things that are peripheral to the core Christian doctrines that may be leveraged for any number of uses. The main questions are, what these people think they are quoting (God's word or man's musings about God), and how much of the Bible they would actually be comfortable quoting? It is one thing to quote a verse like, "blessed are the peace-makers"; it is entirely different to quote verses like the following:

• "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
• "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
• "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God."
• "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

For those having visions of Christ I must ask what difference it made. Have they then sought out the Bible, which is the primary historical documentation about this Being, or do they simply shrug it off as an affirmation that Jesus is giving them the thumbs up in their present non-Christian faith? And, according to my comments above, I must ask how they know that it is Jesus in the first place? If He is not there to scold them for chasing after false Gods and to call them to follow His path, then it is surely not the Jesus of the Bible!

Letter to a Disgruntled Wiccan

Here's a reply I recently sent to a lady who emailed us some rather scathing criticism. Her complaints were in regards to this brief article on Wicca by Susie Shellenberger, editor of Brio magazine.

~~~~~~~~~

Dear (name withheld),

My name is Scott and I am the editor for the apologetics area of LifeWay.com. "Apologetics" is the branch of Christianity that is devoted to such things as defending it from criticism, showing evidences for its truth claims, and interacting with competing non-Christian beliefs and worldviews. Your emails have been forwarded to me, and, as you can imagine, I deal with many such questions and complaints as this -- it is right up my alley.

I hope you don't mind if I classify your original email as a "rant," and you'll forgive us if we are disinclined to answer these kinds of responses (though we often do anyway). It is my experience that such things are meant to vent steam, and little productive dialog is birthed from such a thing. However, you have won me through your second email by your self-analysis (seeing the irony in "judging" us for being "judgmental") and your willingness to admit your mistake.

I do not think there is any sin in "judging" in the sense of being discerning and sifting good ideas from bad, but when we condemn others for doing so we cast ourselves into a mire of contradiction. A truly "tolerant" and "non-judgmental" person must remain silent in all things if he is to be consistent. As it turns out, in order to practice "tolerance" one must first disagree with a person; we don't "tolerate" someone that we agree with.

My Christian worldview permits me to believe that other ideas can actually be mistaken (or closer to and farther from the truth). It also allows me to expect and understand that other people disagree with me and will challenge my beliefs. I can sympathize with you taking issue with my religion and any truth claims I may make, but I could not be sympathetic if you held to such ideas as, "we ought not judge others" or "all religions are equally true." If you wish to step into the battleground of ideas it does no good to first throw away your weapons.

The particular article that provoked your response is not one that happens to fall within my area of control (www.lifeway.com/apologetics). It was not specifically designed as a formal or detailed response to the Wiccan religion; it is more of an in-house Christian article, i.e., for those already persuaded of the truthfulness of Christianity. For this reason, it did not take great pains to frame itself in a way that would be acceptable to someone sympathetic to Wicca. But no matter how polite and affirming any article might be, from a Christian perspective there would always be the assumption that Wicca is a mistaken belief system. That in itself will be offense enough for some people. It seems that the mere idea that one thinks their beliefs are true is an affront in this postmodern age. But even the average Wiccan holds most of the key doctrines of Christianity (among other religions) to be false. As one high-profile Wiccan recently stated in an email exchange with me: "I have to admit that some claims within religions may be inaccurate. Christians believe that non-Christians are doomed to eternity in Hell. I'm pretty sure that's just wrong."

The most unfortunate thing that I see in this article is its mention of Satan in conjunction with Wicca. I understand that Wiccans despise and reject the Satan connection, and this article does indeed mention that "witches claim they don't even believe in Satan - let alone worship him." In my view, the primary mistake is making satanic connections to this religion over and above any other religion. In the world of non-Christian religions, paganism (if you'll allow me to use that in relation to Wicca) might be said to get a "bad rap." It is as though paganism is inferior to the other more populous world religions, which Christians, by the way, hold to be equally mistaken.

Please understand, it is not that we believe Wiccans to be consciously seeking "evil" (in the popular sense of the word), or intentionally serving Satan; it is that we believe all non-Christian religions are in some sense tools and products of satanic deception. Satan is not so much concerned about people consciously worshipping him (I'm sure that many who do so only bring him bad publicity); priority-one for him is any lie that will draw people away from the Truth. There are many ways to fall, but only one way to stand straight. We happen to believe Christianity to be that Truth. We believe that Jesus is Lord and that His sayings were accurately captured in Scripture, and Jesus made as many statements about such things as Satan, demons, judgment, and hell as He did about love, peace, and heaven. Now, we may theoretically be wrong, but our reactions to, and assessments of, such things as Wicca are at least consistent with our overall religion. The ultimate question is whether or not classical Christianity is indeed true, and if that is the case, then Wicca is a deception by logical necessity.

For you to defend Wicca you must first be willing to condemn the Bible and historic Christianity as a systematic whole. This is something that few are willing to directly do even if they believe it in their heart, since it disarms them of their ability to take the role of the inclusive and tolerant alternative to the narrow-mindedness and dogma of Christianity. In fact, your own comments did not address the truth claims of Christianity, only this particular article and the alleged behavior of some "Christians."

Very few of your comments were even relevant as a defense of the Wiccan religion, but were more in the nature of slander and stereotyping of Christian individuals. Claiming that Christians kill people who disagree with them, invoke wars and hate crimes, and throw bombs into mosques and Hindu temples is a bit excessive, and not at all relevant to the accuracy of the article in question. Since your implied purpose was to set the record straight regarding Wicca and not to take Christianity to task, I'll address only your relevant comments now.

You said: "You make cruel and unjust claims without any actual research"

I haven't discussed this with Susie to know how much exposure she's had to Wicca or how much time she's put into investigating it, but I think it is safe to say it is greater than zero effort, which is what your statement implies. The fact that she successfully relates it to goddess worship, earth reverence, witchcraft, and spell usage indicates that she is not just making blind and random claims.

You said: "All I saw were closed minded lies"

I think you must admit that she got a few things right, even by your own standards. If Susie claimed Wiccans were a retirement club for lawyers who liked to torture gerbils you would probably just react with a good laugh at our expense. It is the fact that the article comes within target range that gives you cause for concern.

As to "lies," I don't think Susie is intending to deliberately mislead her readers about Wicca. I'm sure she would like to address the genuine beliefs and their genuine problems. You might contend that she is off base in her assessment, but most of your case would be dependent on demonstrating that the Bible is a hopeless muddle from top to bottom; for it has much to say against pagan religion in every chapter. Unfortunately, this would leave you without any basis for attempting to clarify for us what Jesus really "wanted" or what He really "died for."

As to "closed minded," I wonder if your mind is made up (i.e., "closed") that Wicca is a valid religion and represents the way the spiritual world really is. I wonder if you are "open" to the possibility that God is a personal and triune being that has created the world and stands outside of space and time, and was uniquely incarnate into the person, Jesus of Nazareth. Imagine for a moment that biblical Christianity is true, as Susie does, and then consider what things cease to be error in her article from that framework of understanding.

You accused her of "Calling Wiccans devil lovers"

There was no explicit mention of "devil lovers" in her article. She, in fact, admits that Wiccans do not even acknowledge Satan. I think what she was really saying is that Wiccans are unwittingly pawns of Satan, but as I clarified earlier this could also be said of any number of other religions, or particular beliefs, that are opposed to the knowledge of God (Ephesians 6:12 & 2Corinthians 10:5).

You said: "Wicca is an open minded religion, in fact their one rule is 'an if it harm none, do what ye will'"

Ah yes, the "Wiccan Rede." I'll not descend into a discussion of the problematic nature of this minimalistic ethic. Your point is to show that Wiccans are not the evil pointy-hatted witches of fairy-tale fame. Point noted, but there's a lot more to virtue than simply not bashing others in the head, and when you ultimately get to define "harm" for yourself you can do no wrong by definition. No matter how benign you may take the rituals and beliefs of Wicca to be, if they run contrary to the nature and knowledge of the true God of the universe then they are of immeasurable "harm." Additionally, peacefulness or minding one's own business is an inadequate measure of the truth of a religion. If this were so then I'd be inclined to give the Amish the seat of honor.

I hope this letter has given you some understanding of where Susie is coming from. I'm sure you still take issue with the Christian assessment of Wicca, but I hope that you can at least appreciate that if we believe our Scriptures to be inspired by God, that we are logically justified in believing what it says about pagan beliefs and practices. Perhaps there is then room for a principled dispute between our opposing belief systems, practicing a view of "tolerance" in its classical sense, i.e., disagreement in a civil and respectful manner. Perhaps you might also be interested to see this article on Wicca, from our apologetics area, that is more precise and technical in nature.

Sincerely,
Scott Pruett

Jane Fonda's Gnostic Feminist Christianity

Awhile back I had heard rumors that Jane Fonda had become a Christian and was even attending Bible Studies at a Baptist church in Atlanta. By all available accounts, it seemed to be the real deal. However, you can imagine my confusion over hearing such reports while at the same time witnessing her anti-Americanism (even giving a nod to Michael Moore), feminist advocacy, and safe-sex campaigning. Well, I think that her recent interview with Beliefnet clears up a lot of the confusion. (Note: Beliefnet, itself, is no bastion of classical Christianity. Observe this vacuous article regarding the new Pope: The Pope's [astrological] Chart: A Willful Ram With a Spiritual Side)

Things seem to start out, for her and this article, promising enough:

Things began to change for me—as I think they do for many people—when I was in crisis. I think that the reason that that happens is because pain can break you open.

I was, utterly fascinated because [some of the Christians I was meeting] were smart people.

It was a somatic feeling that I was being beckoned, and I often felt that there was a light drawing me.

What I realized writing my book was that I had been empty since adolescence. I was learning to be satisfied by spirit, [whereas before] I had been trying to satisfy the hunger with other things.

And we even see a near brush with Biblical Christianity (though I've no guarantee that the Missionary Baptist Church that she was drawn in to was feeding her a protein-rich, balanced diet):

You know, I wasn't attracted to Buddhism although I really respect it. I wasn't attracted to Islam although I really respect it. Or Judaism. I'm attracted to Jesus.

I asked a friend of mine what did [being "saved"] mean, to her? And she said, "Well, to me, it meant going the next step." Well, boy, I mean, I'm a going-the-next-stepper! If there's a next step that can be taken, I'll take it. And so she had me read the Book of John and I was—I was experiencing grace at that time.

And then I began to go to Bible study class, and it didn't take long for me to think, "Uh oh, I've made a terrible mistake, this is not for me." I started going to churches and I fled. I just fled.

But then it all seems to sadly go down hill from there:

It wasn't a man in the sky! It was, it was: Come on! When we talk about—depending on how you talk about it—God, the Almighty, Sophia, a greater power, whatever—can't you understand that this is beyond gender? This is beyond anything that we can imagine. I mean, we can't even describe it. I understand why people latch onto gender things, but this is not a man. But because people have taken it so literally, it becomes gender and hence, hierarchal. And it just made my teeth grate. The more I studied, in the very kind of linear, fundamentalist way, the more I felt reverence leaking away from me.

And I read Elaine Pagels. I had read "The Gnostic Gospels" years before and it had really impressed me. In fact, I read it when I was first feeling God. And then I read "Beyond Belief," which is a book she came out with recently, and it had a lot of references to early Christians and Gnostic Gospels, and so I read the originals. In fact, I got the whole Nag Hammadi library and through that reading, I began to realize that I am on the right path. That Christianity is my spiritual home. This is where I'm meant to be. And that I have to discover for myself what that means.

I started venturing out when I finished the book last fall and discovered that there's a whole community nationwide of feminist Christians. I finished the book and then I heard about this book "Faith and Feminism" by Helen LaKelly Hunt, and now I've gotten to know her and through her, discovered that there's a lot of us out there. And it's like, "O.K., this was waiting. I needed to finish [the book] and this was waiting for me." And it's very exciting.

But perhaps there is yet hope:

And this is very new and so you know, it's hard for me to go into it in great detail because I'm only a few years into this journey. But I am riveted, I am fascinated with religious history, with Biblical history, with the early Gospels, with Robert Graves, King Jesus, I'm just, I can't get enough. This is a very real journey for me.

Could it be that she is on a journey toward authentic Christianity? Could it be that she is there, but is just so loaded with baggage and negative influences, and perhaps has received only a meager portion of the real thing thus far? Is this just another passing fad in her chameleon existence?

In all of my observations, I have failed to see even a hint of the idea that she understands the concepts of sin, repentance, and Jesus' person and work. And as long as she continues to flirt with major heresies, such as Gnosticism, and champion clearly un-Biblical moral causes, then I do not think I am simply being narrow or ungracious in assuming that she is outside of the camp. But who knows what lies ahead for her.

Regarding Gnosticism

Question:
Can you recommend resources that directly refute Gnosticism?

Answer:
A timely and relevant question in light of the revived interest in the Gnostic "gospels," due to the work of figures like Elaine Pagels ("Beyond Belief") and Dan Brown ("The DaVinci Code").

Let me first start with a brief summary of Gnosticism. Here's one I've found that will do nicely:

"A combination of the philosophy of Plato and Eastern mystery religions, Gnostics believe salvation comes from knowing (gnosis), especially knowledge of secret, hidden teachings. The early Christian Gnostics claimed their secret information gave them great insight to true Christianity. Some claimed to have wisdom that Christ gave in secret. There were (and are) multiple groups of Gnostics, some denying the divinity of Christ, others the humanity. Most identified the God of the Old Testament with the evil diety who they believed created the material world in which souls were trapped; they tended to revere those who opposed him."

Unfortunately, Gnosticism tends to be a rather broad camp, so if someone is attempting to advocate for this religious perspective they are obligated to first give an account of which particular flavor of Gnosticism they are advancing and why that one.

The authority of Gnosticism is grounded in its claim to be the true expression of the teachings of Jesus. That is to say, Gnosticism is allegedly the true Christian heir and what we know of as "orthodox" Christianity is simply the muddleheaded usurper and historical victor. Probably the best approach to answering Gnostic advocates is to make the case for the superior reliability and authority of the Biblical documents, which are most unfriendly to the doctrines of Gnosticism. Let me offer some helpful points to be made in this discussion.

Most scholars (even skeptical ones) now admit that the New Testament documents were authored in the First Century and come out of the heart of the Christian community at that time. There is zero evidence that the Gnostic documents are equally early works. Most scholars (Christian and non-Christian) have traditionally dated them to the 2nd - 4th Centuries. They do not have the same pedigree as the canonical texts, i.e., there is no line of descent from the Apostles to these texts like there is for the canonical works (we have extra-biblical writings discussing authorship in fact).

The Gnostics themselves referenced the canonical Gospels and seemed to have no problems with them. It was just their mystical interpretations of them and their added theology that led them down the path of heresy. Since both classical Christianity and Gnosticism have these texts "in common," it seems only logical to look at these established texts to begin arbitrating the dispute. Unfortunately, when we compare these with the Gnostic "gospels" the discrepancies quickly become apparent.

Gnosticism is an absolute break with the Jewish tradition of the time of Jesus, while classical Christianity is a complement to it. If no theological ties can be established to Judaism, then we are essentially talking about the introduction of a brand new religion. The Gnostics were keen to avoid this, and for this reason they engaged in extensive historical and theological gymnastics to attempt to discredit or symbologize the Old Testament.

Christianity is often accused of plagiarizing its theology and stories from the ideas and mythology of the surrounding culture, but in reality it is Gnosticism that is far more in line with the mythology and philosophies of the Greco-Roman culture.

It is interesting to point out that Gnostic beliefs are even more incredible than those of classical Christianity. Someone opposed to classical Christianity may find, upon investigation, that ancient Gnosticism is not as palatable as they first imagined. For example, Gnosticism rejects the Christian idea of one good creator God in favor of a complex cascading series of heavens and gods (the Pleroma), with the creator of the material world being imperfect and even, perhaps, evil. Gnosticism asserts that matter is actually inferior and corrupt, and so they tended to be more or less ascetic (i.e., they denied the pleasures of the flesh). They had some rather strange views of Jesus. Most skeptics would like to merely humanize Jesus, but the Gnostics merely tamper with the nature of His divinity (e.g., He's some lower-order being in the Pleroma) or suggest rather arcane things about His humanity (e.g., His body was really just a ghost). The Gnostics were not very egalitarian. Not all had, or were capable of receiving, the hidden knowledge (gnosis). Even that knowledge which was required to attain "heaven" was rather tedious and cryptic -- far less encouraging and accessible than the simple Gospel of Grace found in classical Christianity. Additionally, feminist theology seems to be rather fond of Gnosticism, but this only makes sense if one is ignorant of, or intentionally suppresses, the anti-feminine tendencies of the Gnostics. Take, for example, this passage from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas: "Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

And for one more example of the questionable character of the non-canonical texts, let me quote something from the "Gospel of Peter":

"And early in the morning as the Sabbath dawned, there came a multitude from Jerusalem and the region roundabout to see the sepulchre that had been sealed. Now in the night whereon the Lord's day dawned, as the soldiers were keeping guard two by two in every watch, there came a great sound in the heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend thence, shining with a great light, and drawing near unto the sepulchre. And that stone which had been set on the door rolled away of itself and went back to the side, and the sepulchre was opened and both of the young men entered in. When therefore those soldiers saw that, they waked up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping watch); and while they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw again three men come out of the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following, after them. And of the two they saw that their heads reached unto heaven, but of him that was led by them that it overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying: Hast thou preached unto them that sleep? And an answer was heard from the cross, saying: Yea"

These kinds of accounts make the Biblical Gospels seem almost mundane by comparison. It is easier to see the Gnostic texts as being corrupted or mythologized versions of the canonical texts than vise versa.

Here are some worthy articles for further study on the issue of Gnosticism:

This one is a "short" article from one of our partner ministries:
http://www.probe.org/docs/gnostic.html

Here is a more exhaustive treatment of the subject in a two-part series from the Christian Research Journal:
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-2.htm

And if you are looking for more extensive materials I could recommend numerous books, but that would depend on what angle you are coming from on this issue. For example, if you need to defend the canon of Scripture over/against the Gnostic texts, I'd recommend books on the reliability of the Bible and the making of the canon by people like F.F. Bruce, Craig Blomberg, or Norman Geisler. If you simply wanted to defend against charges made in a book like The DaVinci Code, I'd recommend something like Richard Abanes', The Truth Behind the DaVinci Code.