Week Seven:  Oct 23, 2011

While this class follows the text very closely, there is no preset schedule, nor any particular number of verses that we need to cover each week.  Instead I encourage discussion and leave room for the Holy Spirit to take the class, where He needs to take it.  This was one of those week, were most of the class was taken up in the discussion and questions.   As a result we only covered one verse.   I will try to summarize at least the main points that were discussed in the question section below.

Study

I. Opening

b.      Greeting(3)

3 – Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus¹ the Messiah,² the Father’s Son, in truth and love.

–          Ancient letters followed the standard opening with a greeting, an example of which can be seen in Acts 15:23.

From:  The apostles and the elders, your brothers
To: Their gentile brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.
Greetings.

Paul’s letters show an expansion of the standard greeting with Christian elements in awordplay with the word Greeting (χαίρειν/chairein) changing it to Grace (χάρις/charis) and often adding peace, the standard Jewish greeting.  Thus in 1 Cor 1:3,

May grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, be yours!

This came to be a common patter among Christian letters and one that John follows here.

Grace, mercy and peace

–          Grace and peace were common among Paul’s letters and to this John adds mercy.

–          A member of the class mentioned that there was a progression in this verse, and there is a definite progression.  Working backwards, you cannot have true peace apart from God. But sin keeps us from God, and it is God’s mercy that allows us to be reconciled with him, and this mercy in grounded in grace.

will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus

–          This is an affirmation, not a request.  Note that John is making it clear that the source of our grace, mercy and peace are both the Father and Jesus.

–          This will be important has the letter develops, for the denial of Jesus as the Messiah forms a key part of the false teachings this letter warns against.

the Father’s Son

–          Jesus is further described as the Father’s Son.  This repletion is a form of emphasis that Jesus is the son. Again this was something the traveling missionaries discussed in this letter rejected.

in truth and love.

–          John again comes back to truth adding love.  This stresses their importance in grace, mercy and peace, without truth or love, there can be no grace, mercy or peace.  This is why truth and love will play such large role in the rest of the letter.  So John is not just greeting his readers, he is using the opening of this letter to prepare his readers for what follows.

Question/Discussion:

As mention above the question and discussion took up the majority of the class, and my memory is not sufficient to have captured it all. So you see there is a reason to come to the class and not just follow it online!  But I will do my best.

The discussion started with the theme of the class, living in truth and love.   These are both very important concepts, but they are often at odds with each other.  In addition, truth, itself is a very challenging concept.  This was brought home to me in the very first week of this current class.  Highland Community Church has a winter and summer schedule and does not have classes during the summer.  So when our class started up again, not too surprisingly, one of the members who has been in the class for several years asked me, how was my summer?

My first reaction was to say the standard, “fine,” but I realized this was not true.  For reason that are not important here, it had been a difficult summer with virtually no free time to actually enjoy it.  Here I was, about to start teaching on truth and love, and before class even started I was about to say something that was not true. So I was honest, it had been a difficult summer.

This started a discussion among the class as to what and how much to say, and how you can answer truthfully, without going into long and possibly unwanted explanations.  But before long, the discussion broadened onto how we are not always truthful with ourselves. Just as we tell others that we are Ok, or that everything is fine, we say the same things to ourselves.  We are fine; no problems with God; I have my life in order.  Yet if we were to ask God, would he say the same thing?

Before I had started this study, I thought I was doing pretty well on the truth front, and in a general sense this was probably true.  But it did not mean that I was up to God’s standards, or even that I viewed truth, or its importance, in quite the same way that He does.

Jesus is the truth in every sense of that word.  A commitment to Him is a commitment to truth, a key component of which is being honest with, and about, ourselves.  Letting God shine his light into our lives to reveal the things we need to work on.

A few weeks ago, we had some questions about Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so after the discussion above, before going into 2 John, I updated the class on something that had happened during the week. My neighbor has had some Jehovah’s Witnesses coming over to his house, and so he stopped by to ask some questions about what they were claiming.   One argument in particular stood out and I wanted to share it with the class.

A key difference between the historical Christian belief and the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is over the deity of Jesus Christ.  Christians have historically affirmed it, while Jehovah’s Witnesses deny it.  A key verse in this debate is John 1:1.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.

Verses 1:14, 15 and 30 clearly identify the Word in verse 1 as Jesus.   So when it says “The Word was God,”  it is not hard to see why historically Christians have believed that Jesus is God.

My neighbor said that in response to this passage, the Jehovah’s Witness had pulled out a Greek-English Interlinear and pointed out how the word translated God in the phase, “and the Word was with God” was different than the word translated God in the phrase “and the word was God.” My neighbor went on to explain that he had been told that the word ‘God’ in “the Word was with God”, refers to Jehovah, while ‘God’ in “the word was God” is not really god. Thus in the New World Bible, the Jehovah’s Witness’ translation, John 1:1 reads,

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.  (NWT)

While this argument may sound good in English, it falls completely apart with even the most preliminary understanding of Greek.

Here is the Greek of John 1:1

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Or transliterated

En arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en o logos.

Or as a word for word literal translation

In beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word.

From this we can see that it is true that two words translated “God” in this passage are spelled differently, the first one is θεόν (theon) and the other is θεὸς (theos).  But the difference in spelling has nothing at all to do with the basic meaning of the word, but rather the grammar of the sentence.   The spelling is different because Greek uses the ending of words to indicate their function.  Consider the following sentence:

Bill threw the ball to Joe.

English uses word order to indicate function, so we know that Bill is the subject (i.e., Nominative Case) and Joe is the indirect object (i.e. Dative Case) by where they appear in the sentence.  Greek however uses the ending of the word for this.   One place were English also uses word endings, is with the possessive (i.e. Genitive case).   Thus in the sentence

Joe threw Bill’s ball back.

The  -’s  ending is used to show that the ball belongs to Bill.   English also uses the –s ending to show plural.   So whereas English does this for the Genitive case and for plurals,  Greek does this for all cases and for both singular and plural.    It shows the Nominative singular (i.e, the subject) with the  -oς   ending and the Accusative singular (i.e. the object) with –oν.  This the reason for the difference in spelling between  θεόν (theon) and θεὸς  (theos).  The first is in the Accusative case, which is exactly what one would expect as it is the object of the phrase, and the second occurrence is in the Nominative case.

To see the fallacy of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument consider again the two sentences about Bill and the ball.

Bill threw the ball to Joe.
Joe threw Bill’s ball back.

Bill is spelled differently in these two sentences.  Does that mean that “Bill” in the first sentence is a different kind of Bill than “Bill’s” in the second sentence?  Clearly not! Bill is the same in both sentences and the spelling difference merely concerns how it is being used in the sentence.   The same is true for θεόν (theon)  and θεὸς (theos) in John 1:1.

At this point a question was asked about the translation of “a god” found in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation.   First off, it is not impossible.  Greek has no indefinite article (“a”) nor can one simply determine by the absence of the definite article (“the”)  that a noun is indefinite. Normally, this must be determined by the context.

A key issue in John 1:1 is that in the phrase “The Word was God” (lit:  God was the Word) both “God” and “Word” are in the nominative case.  A rule in Greek, Colwell’s Rule, does help us determine that “Word” is the subject, which is why it is translated as “The Word was God,” and not “God was the Word” because in English the subject normal appears first. It also suggests that God is definite (“was God”) instead of indefinite (“was a god”).  But it does to prove it.  I will not go into the details of the grammar here.  Those who are interested can find a more complete discussion of the grammar here.

In terms of the context, an extremely difficult problem arises with the translation of “a god” particularly in the way it is understood by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  If Jesus is “a god,” in what sense is he a god?  If he really is “a god,” separate and distinct from the father, then you have the teaching of polytheism, the belief in more than one God.  On the other hand, if you want hold on to monotheism, the belief in only one god, then John 1:1 cannot really be saying what it is saying.

Another point is that one of the ways Greek emphasizes something is by moving it to the front. (The other is, as we saw in the verse this week, by repetition)  Remember, because of the word endings, word order is not needed to determine the function of the word. In Greek you can put the words pretty much where you want them. While “Bill’s Joe ball threw” does not make much sense in English, that word order would not be a problem in Greek as the word endings would make it clear that the meaning was “Joe threw Bill’s ball.”   As mentioned above, the Greek literally reads “god was the word.”  So not only is the word being equated with God, but the “God” part is being emphasized.  Yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ understanding attempts to de-emphasize this out of existence.  It is not “God” but just “a god,” and then it was not really even “a god,” but something lesser than that, because according to their belief Jesus is not god.  In short it is pretty easy to see that their translation is trying to get around what the text says, because what it says does not match their beliefs.

From here the discussion turned to how average Christians can deal with such arguments. After all, few Christians know very much Greek, nor do they need to. God does not expect anyone to become a super-Christian, one who know all the answers and whose walk with God is perfect. This goes right back to the subject of this class.  When dealing with questions, the simplest thing is to be honest.   Answer those questions you know, and when you are not sure, or do not know the answer, or someone raises a point or objection you have never heard before, simply say “that is a good question, and I do not know the answer. Let me look into that and I will get back to you.”

Everyone has their role to play, and just as not everyone is called to be a pastor, not everyone is called to be an apologist.   So while you may not know the answer, there is probably someone in your church who does, or at least who knows how to get the answer. Your pastor is a great place to start.

In many ways truth is liberating.  It frees us to go wherever the truth leads us.  We do not have to live in fear that what we believe will be proven wrong. If a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon showed me an error in my understanding of the Bible, I would praise God, because that would remove an error from my understanding and move me one step closer to the truth.  Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.  Having said that, as with the example above, I have seen so much error and falsehood in their teachings that I know that they cannot represent the true teaching of the Bible, but I approach them in truth and in love seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Next week we will start in 2 John 4

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:
1 Other mss. read the Lord Jesus
2 Or Christ

With Romney as the front-runner, the question of his Mormon religion continues to be an issue and came to the forefront recently when a Perry supporter labeled Mormons a cult, which was then followed by calls for Perry to repudiate these comments.

This is an issue, which if not handled correctly, could blow up in a number of directions. Romney supporters are understandably nervous that if Romney’s Mormon beliefs become an issue, it could cost him the nomination or the election. However, if the defense of Romney is to label any criticism of Mormonism bigoted that could also easily backfire and alienate many Christians who make up a large portion of the conservative base that Romney will need to win.

One factor that makes this a huge minefield is the general ignorance of the mainstream media when it comes to religion. But the biggest problem in this whole debate concerns the word “cult.” “Cult” is one of those words that has a very large lexical domain (range of meaning) from academic/technical at one end of the spectrum to a derogatory label on the other. Those calling for Perry to repudiate the term clearly see the term in the latter sense. Because of this ambiguity in meaning I do not use the word, and have encouraged others to avoid it.

While there certainly are some Christians who use the term in a derogatory sense, for many Christians the term cult simply refers to groups who in some fashion claim to be Christian, but who reject one or more of the key doctrines that have defined Christianity. But this gets into a discussion of just what is Christianity. I discussed this issue in my book, Christianity and Secularism.

On these central beliefs there is very little dispute. In fact, it has been these doctrines that have defined Christianity as a religion. Groups that accept these doctrines are considered to be Christian groups. Those who do not accept these doctrines cannot be considered Christians, at least not in any historical sense.

Some may consider it to be judgmental and arrogant to say who is or is not a Christian simply because they do or do not accept a particular doctrine or belief. First, let it be clear that we are talking about classifying groups based on beliefs. After all, if there is a difference between being a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu, does it not mean that Christians must have some distinct beliefs that can be contrasted with these other religions? Second we are not talking about an individual’s relationship with God. This is a spiritual matter that only God can judge, for only He knows what is truly in a person’s heart. We may be able to get a good indication by the person’s actions or beliefs but we cannot judge the heart.

Groups do not have personal relationships with God. What defines a religious group is the beliefs of the group. If we were to be completely non-judgmental, then we would have to conclude that any group that claimed to be Christian was, regardless of what they believed. This would render the term “Christian” completely meaningless. Should we consider a group that believed in child sacrifice to be a Christian group? Would this make child sacrifice a legitimate expression of the teachings of Christ? Clearly not. So the question is not should a line be drawn that defines Christianity, but where do we draw that line.

If no line is drawn, Christianity becomes a completely meaningless term that could be applied to any group or any action from the most divine to the most depraved. If, on the other hand, we compose a long and extensive list of doctrines that must be accepted in order for a group to be considered Christian, then we would indeed be arrogant and judgmental, restricting Christianity only to those groups that agreed with us in every little detail. The doctrines that define Christianity should be limited to those expressly taught in the Bible as essential….

Philip Schaff, in his three volume work, Creeds of Christendom, surveyed the doctrinal statements and creeds of the various Christian churches down through the ages. He refers to their ecumenical creeds as those creeds which contain “the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, as necessary and sufficient for salvation.” As to the acceptance of these creeds, Schaff points out that they:

… are to this day either formally or tacitly acknowledged in the Greek, the Latin, and the Evangelical Protestant Churches, and form a bond of union between them.

The differences that divide denominations are mostly peripheral issues, such as whether or not some spiritual gifts are available to be used today. (pg 76-7;90-1)

How this applies to the current debate is that Mormons reject some of these key doctrines. For example, while both Christianity and Judaism believe that there is only one God, Mormons believe that that many gods exist. This does not make Mormons bad people, but it does mean that Mormons beliefs are different from those that have historically defined Christianity.

It is true that Mormons use a lot of the same terminology as Christians, such as referring to Jesus as the Son of God, but what they mean by this is often vastly different than what Christians have historically meant. Thus when a Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, to name just a few, talk about the nature of God, or say that Jesus is the Son of God, and they all mean the same thing. Mormons talking about these topics may sound similar, but they mean something significantly different.

This is not an unusual circumstance. Jews, Christians and Muslims all share a lot of beliefs. In fact they all believe that there is only one God. But they also have key differences. Thus we refer to them as different religious movements. While there are a large number of Christian groups with differing beliefs, they have historically shared a core of beliefs that has defined them as Christian. Mormons reject this core of beliefs, so the easiest thing to do is to likewise consider Mormons a different religious groups. This is not said in a derogatory sense, but merely an attempt to be accurate and precise.

So how does this apply to the election? The simple answer is that it doesn’t. The constitution is pretty clear that there should be no religious test for office. The office of the president has no religious function, and therefore the religion of the candidate should be largely irrelevant. It would only become relevant if the candidate chose to make it an important part of their campaign, but this would in and of itself raise red flags. But Romney has not done this, and nothing in his career would indicate that he would. So as a bottom line, when it comes to Romney, while I do not believe he is a Christian, I am looking for a President, not a pastor. Thus I will be much more interested in his polices than his religion.

I have been reading a new book that I find both challenging and exciting. No, it is not the latest spy thriller, and in fact is not even a novel. It is non-fiction and on a subject matter that has been dealt with many times in the past. Yet it does so by challenging cultural norms that most have simply taken for granted, and probably have not even thought much about. What is exciting is the potential it has to impact the church and thereby the world at large, which is huge.

The book is Rite of Passage for the Home and Church: Raising Christ-Centered Young Adults, by D. Kevin Brown (Energion Publications, 2011), and from its title one might question my claims of a huge impact. A huge impact can only come in the face of a huge problem. A book on study habits for those who are B+ or A- students only has a limited room for improvement. A book aimed at failing students that can transform them into A students would be huge, not only for their grades, but on what that would mean for their lives as well.

The problem addressed in Rite of Passage is larger than just grades. To put it bluntly, the church in America, as a whole, is failing its young people. This is a tough message and one that meets with tremendous resistance. I know because I have been talking in my speaking and teaching for nearly twenty years and have met with everything from skepticism and denial to, in few cases, hostility. People point to their youth programs and how many children are being reached, and how many accepted the Lord at their last vacation Bible school as evidence that I am wrong.

Yet the statistics I have been following for quite some time, and which Brown points to in his book tell a different story. As Brown points out, while attendance at youth programs may be strong, numerous studies reveal a problem. “These studies … show that between 70%-92% of ‘Christian’ teens were dropping out of church and abandoning their faith, most by their 20^th birthday.” (pg. 12)

What is really exciting is that Brown solution is both revolutionary, and yet not. It is revolutionary because it runs so counter to our cultural norms. In fact, many will find it just too radical and different. On the other hand, it is not revolutionary in that Brown is really doing nothing more than returning to scripture, and asking the question “What do the scriptures say about adolescents?” (pg. 21)

Considering all the books that discuss the scriptural approach to raising teens, the surprising answer is that the Bible is completely silent on the topic. The Biblical perspective is that you have two groups, children and adults, “with no stopovers at a place called ‘adolescence.’” (pg. 22)

Thus Brown argues for a revolutionary course of action, but one that should be music to every believer’s ears: That we treat our teenagers following the biblical pattern. Most of the book is aimed at defending this view and then laying out its implications which are many. This is revolutionary when compared to the culture at large, a culture that allows young adults to drift through their teen years with few expectations and no clear line of adulthood. The current view is neither biblical, nor even very old, only a 100 years or so. As you read through Brown’s book, the individual parts are not really very new or very revolutionary, except that they are rarely pulled together and applied to, or expected of, teens.

Another thing that is clear is that Brown is not proposing yet another youth program. In fact if applied in that fashion, it would probably fail. What Brown is proposing is a vast and long term change in perspective. Given the reluctance to even face the problem, Brown will certainly face opposition from some. That is just not the way we do it. That just will not work with today’s teens. The reasons will be many, but the conclusion will be the same. It just will not work.

To those who are concerned with the current 70%-92% loss among 18-20 year olds, Brown’s book will at a minimum be a welcome point of view and a must read. To those who are skeptical I would make the same challenge that I do in all my teaching on the Bible. You don’t have to believe me, or in this case Brown. Look at that biblical evidence he puts forth. Pray about the examples he cites. Look at how teens are treated in the Bible and what is expected of them. And reach your own conclusions as to what does the Bible say. Ask yourself, if your church’s youth program is patterned after the culture, or if it is patterned after the Bible?

In the end, agree or not with Brown, this is a book that should be read by anyone concerned with the church, and in particular with those in the teen years.

Note: Energion Publications is also the publisher of my books

Recently I finished teaching a study of the Gospel of John. This class took two year (with summers off) so we spent considerable time in John.  The class elected to study the letters of John next and so in preparation I have once again been reviewing the preliminary question of authorship, which for the letters is strongly intertwined with the Gospel.

Usually I deal with such questions at the start of a study, but coming back to them having just finished the Gospel really drove home how utterly basis were the claims that the apostle John was not the author.  The problems here are an example of what is wrong with so much of academia.

Without going into too much detail, there are several things one can look at when trying to determine authorship. One is external evidence, which in the case of the Gospel of John is very clear and strong, linking back to those who personally knew and worked with the apostle.   Then there are several types of internal evidence.   The first is what the Gospel claims for itself.  The Gospel of John says it was written by “disciple whom Jesus kept loving” (John 21:20-24 ISV) and when the statements about this disciple are examined, it turns out to be John.

From all of this it would seem pretty clear that the apostle John was the author.  And yet many, if not most, scholars not only reject the authorship of John, but claim instead John was the work of many authors.  Now if there were some clear changes in style or language, another type of internal evidence, which pointed to multiple authors, then one could understand such claims. But as D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris point out in their “An Introduction to the New Testament”,

The stylistic unity of the book has been demonstrated again and again as concrete evidence against this or that source theory.  Even the prologue (1:1-18) and the epilogue (chap 21) exhibit a style remarkably attuned to the rest of the book. (p 152)

Again, having just completed an in depth study of the Gospel, and having just recently looked in detail at all the evidence for chapter 21, it drove home how true this statement is.   So why then, given the solid external evidence, the claims of the book itself, and the internal consistency, is the authorship of the apostle John even an open question, but less rejected?

The answer seems to be that before a lot of this evidence was established, scholarly opinion dated this, and the other gospels, well into the second century, some dating it as late as  170, well beyond the lifetime of the apostles.   If the apostle did not write it, then someone else did, and this someone must have gotten the material they wrote from somewhere.   As a result, scholars spent considerable time trying to determine the sources of the Gospels and multiple sources have frequently been seen as multiple authors.   A real problem, however, is that unlike the other evidence, attempts of find sources is much more problematic, subjective, and thus error prone.

As a result, elaborate speculations were developed about a Johannine tradition, community or possibly even a school, which was responsible for the creation of the Gospel of John and the letters.  Over time these speculations became theories, which with succeeding generations of scholars came to be seen as established fact, based more on the reputation of the earlier scholars, than any actual evidence. Under close examination they remained little more than speculations, with very little if any actual evidence to support them.  The earlier speculations then came to be the foundation for even further speculations by succeeding scholars, until a large and elaborate framework of speculation was developed.

Since then, however, the late dating of the Gospels has run into serious problems, not the least of which have been that a fragment of the Gospel of John have been discovered that dates from around 125, well before the speculations about it authorship had claimed it was even written.

And yet, even though the evidence now show the Gospel was written within the lifetime of the apostle John, many scholars continue to reject his authorship, preferring instead the theories/speculations that it was written by Johannine community.   In short, they reject the actual objective evidence that points to the apostle John, and instead support what are really little more than speculations that depend mainly on scholarly inertia and group think.

This problem is not limited to Biblical Scholarship.  With the possible exception of the hard sciences, which have the ability/burden to actually objectively test their theories, it is found throughout academia.  Once the bastion of the exploration of new ideas grounded in reason and evidence, academia have become increasingly unified and closed mined, wedded to scholarly speculations and immune to the evidence.

As in, biblical scholarship, students in the various disciplines are discouraged from thinking critically about the prevailing views of the disciplines, but instead to accept them, in some cases as dogmatically as any medieval doctrine.   Slowly, any existing critical thinking and common sense are drummed out of the student, replaced instead by the new gospel of truth, the study.

There is nothing inherently wrong with studies, and the point here is not to attack them per se.  But like everything else, they have their strengths and their weaknesses.  Yet, I have actually heard professors claim that they will not believe anything unless there is a study to support it. This is an absurd claim, but the very fact that a supposedly learned person could make such a statement, and make it proudly, shows one of the problems with academia.  Pointing to studies is a way to avoid actually thinking.  If the study says X, then you don’t have to think about X any longer, you can just accept the study.

One only has to consider the problems of conflicting studies, to realize the problems with such a claim.  But the problems are much deeper.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s there were no studies that show men and women were different.   The common sense view that they were different was rejected as being based on common sense.  So men and women were declared the same.

As a result of advances in our knowledge of biochemistry and how the brain works,  we now know for a fact that men and women are not only different, but significantly different in the way they  think and react.  But as with the evidence for the authorship of John, this is largely ignored and the view that men and women are the same continues to shape much of society even today in everything from how we dress, to how the sexes interact,  to how we raise our children,  to marriage, and same-sex marriage.

Some might ask: So what? Where is the harm?  When pressed, such questions usually are little more than a demand for evidence from yet another study.  But, it is also a further problem with the group think-study based view of academia.    Most studies are so narrow that they only seek to answer the question the scholar asks.  If your knowledge is based on studies, then your knowledge will be limited to what is researched.  Thus if they don’t look for the problems, the studies will not find them.  The group-think that controls so much of scholarship passively, and sometimes even actively, limits what will be researched. Even when studies are done, that show problems, the group think mentality tend to relegate them to obscurity.

In short we live in a world increasingly under the sway of an academia that through the schools and in government are reshaping society to fit theories that are increasingly cut off from reality. This is a prescription for disaster.

I am continuing to answer the questions, posed to me on how Christians can be conservatives.  This time I will address the question, how can conservatives show such a lack of concern about the uninsured as seen in their objection to ObamaCare?

The question itself has some problems, the main one being that it confuses the lack of support for a particular governmental program, with a lack of concern for a problem.   This is something that I have addressed before (e.g., here, here, and on health care here). For many liberals the ideal of government activism is so strong and ingrained, it is hard for them to conceive of any other solution to a social problem.  In short, as a general rule, the solution to any social problem is to be found in government programs, and to oppose a government program is to show a disregard for the problem itself.

But however strong the view, it is still fallacious, and is in fact the fallacy of a false choice.  Not only are there other non-governmental options for addressing these problems, the simple fact is that, right or wrong, as a general rule conservatives believe that market based solutions grounded in choice and competition for consumers are better than government solutions.

The conservative view is often mischaracterized as an absolute position which would permit no role at all for government. This is not the case, nor is it correct to say that the conservative view is based on a trust of business or and corporations. It is also not the case. In fact, often conservatives share many of the same doubts and question about business as there liberal counter parts. This is why conservatives believe that choice and competition are so important, as they serve as the main check on businesses driven by the profit motive. This is also where conservatives see a significant role for government that of ensuring that the market place allow choice and competition.

So it is not that conservatives trust big businesses, it is that they mistrust government because choice and competition do not apply. If you don’t like a particular business, you are free go to another one.  If you don’t like government, you are stuck.

When it comes to health care in general, and ObamaCare in particular, the problems Conservatives see are many, and I have written about some of them (here, and here).  As I summarized this in another post,

Thus the Democratic Health care bill will increase regulation and reduce effective choice even if it doesn’t end in single payer.  While in theory it may be able to reduce cost and expand coverage, it cannot do this while improving health care.  In short, it is doomed. And this is best case. Given the past record of government programs, the actual likelihood is that it will not even be able to control costs and we will be left with worse health-care, even higher costs and a system that is even more difficult to change.

The reason for this is actually very simple. Improvements in Health care will come, as such improvements have always come, from innovation.  Yet government does not innovate, it regulates, and regulations kills innovation.

None of this should be taken as satisfaction with the current system.  Healthcare in the US is one of most highly regulated areas of the economy. It is far from a system where choice and competition are driving factors.  Conservatives see the problems and want to solve them.  The real problem here is not a lack of concern for “the least of these,” but rather a difference of opinion on how best to address the problems. The opposition to ObamaCare is rooted in the belief that it will not make things better, it will make them worse.

One final comment; while there certainly are absolutists, many conservatives acknowledge that market solutions will not solve all problems.  No matter how much market forces improve the health care system, you cannot purchase healthcare if you don’t have any money.   Here conservatives consider two additional mechanisms.

The first is charity. While liberals at time discount the viability of this option the fact is that here are hospitals across the country that deliver health care on an ability to pay basis or for free.  This focus on charity by conservatives and government by liberals is perhaps behind the difference in charitable giving between red state and blue states,  between liberals and conservatives,  and as revealed in Aruther C. Brooks’ book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatives. If conservatives truly were heartless and greedy, why is it that on average, they give more to charity than liberals?

Finally, surprising as it may seem to some liberals, conservatives to not reject a government option as a last resort, for those with no were else to turn. The difference would be, however, that it would be a last resort, not the first and only resort, pushed by so many liberals.

So again, it is not a lack of concern that leads conservatives to reject ObamaCare, it is in fact an abundance of concern that ObamaCare will only result in making matters worse.

As I mentioned on my other blog, the wife of a liberal friend of mine recently asked some sincere questions trying to understand Conservatives.  I answered her more political question there.  Here I will address the more religiously oriented questions, though they all still have a strong political component. In general she was basically asking, how a sincere Christian could be a Conservative.

Before answering that question, I want to be clear that I do not subscribe to the opposite position, i.e. I do not question how a Liberal can be a Christian.    While politics and religion do overlap in some areas, rarely are things so clear cut as to lead to a clearly “Christian” political view, be it on the Left or the Right. Also, I want to note that the Conservative movement is itself a broad spectrum of beliefs and not all Conservatives will agree with my answers, especially since not all Conservatives are Christians.

But back to her questions; as a background she referenced three major touch stones of the Christian faith, at least when it comes to social policy.  The first was the Sermon on the Mount; the second was Jesus’ statement in Matthew 25:40, “I tell you with certainty, since you did it for one of the least important of these brothers of mine, you did it for me.” (ISV)  Finally she mentioned Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters, because either he will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and riches!”

Against this background she asked three questions. How can conservative Christians oppose the workers right to collectively bargain?  How can they show a lack of concern about the uninsured as seen in their objection to Obamacare? Finally how come, since they are so against government intervention, they seek to use government to impose their view of morality on others, in particular with the Pro-Life movement? I will deal with the last two in future posts.

As for the first question, as it turns out, this is an issue that Christians are pretty evenly split on.  But I will address it from my view.  First, I have a problem with the whole notion of “workers rights” and see this as part of the general confusion that exists concerning the whole understanding of rights.  In brief, the concept of rights developed from the belief that we are special creations of God, created in his own image, and that God has given us abilities, such as the ability to think and reason.  The basic notion is that what God has given, no one, not even the King, as a right to take away.  Thus we see in the Declaration of Independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Given this view of rights, there is no such thing as a right to collectively bargain.  Unions, and the arrangements that they make with management, are just one of many potential financial arrangements that employees and employers could enter into.  Thus I would argue that collective bargaining is neither Christian nor Unchristian, and this may very well explain the divergence of views.

This of course does not meant that particular employers, or particular unions, have not acted in Christian and/or unchristian ways from time to time. This does not mean that employer or unions are always good. History is full of examples on both sides of greed, bad faith, and unconcern of the welfare of “the least of these.”

In terms of the recent attempt to restrict unions in Wisconsin, and in other states, I have a particular problem.  When dealing with a company driven by profit, there is always the possibility that management is greedy and simply trying to exploit the workers.   Yet when with comes to government employees, they are not unionizing against a greedy owner, but against the people.  In addition, there is the dichotomy, at least for those on the left, that government is supposed to be a benevolent force, not driven by profit, and looking out for our best interest, as opposed to corporations who are out for profit. Yet when it comes to unions, government is just another employer to be demonized.

Then there is the fact that it is hard to hold that state workers are in “the least of these” category when both the pay and benefits they receive are significantly better than those in the private sector who must pay the bill.  This is especially true where the public sector unions have become a significant political force, such that they have been able to elect politicians beholden to them into office.  These politicians then repay the favor by giving them pay and benefits that well exceed the private sector.

As a result, many states such as California are in serious financial problems and have huge unfunded liabilities resulting from these union contracts.  Unions can claim that the state made the contract, but they cannot ignore the fact that these contracts were made often under a threat of strike, and often by the very politicians the unions sought to elect.

Thus one could just as easily turn the whole question around.  Is the Christian position really to side with those workers who are the best off, at the expense of those who must pay the bills; many of whom are worse off, or who will suffer a loss of services, because the money is not there?  Is the Christian position, really to ask those struggling on fixed incomes to do will less even less, because their property taxes must rise to pay the wages of government workers making far more.

Bottom line: I believe this is a place where Christians of good heart can and do disagree. Not because of the principles of the Christian faith, but how they are applied and how they view the issue.

There is a direct correlation between spirituality and religious behavior and how we see and feel and react to the world around us.  Those who pray on a daily basis, and attend religious intuitions on a weekly basis,  are happier,  healthier,  more content, more satisfied in their job,  closer to their families, and have a better outlook towards the future. If you ever wanted evidence that spirituality and religiosity has a direct impact on how we regard life,  its  right there in the book for you.

Frank Luntz, discussing his book “What America Really Want … Really” with Dennis Prager Sept 15, 2009 Hour 2 on Prager’s paid site .

Listen to the MP3

In his new book.  The Jesus Paradigm.  Dr.  David Alan Black issues a bold challenge to the church.  His fundamental premise is that the Church lost its way around the time it became allied with the Roman Empire following the rise to power of Constantine.  and for the most part has been doing things wrong ever since. 

While the reformation was an important corrective.  it still retained many of the errors.  and thus was still locked into a pattern for the church that was based more on the world’s way of doing things rather than the biblical pattern.  For Dr.  Black.  what was needed was not a reformation but a restoration more in lines with the approach taken by the Anabaptists.  a restoration of the Church back to what it originally was and was meant to be.  A Church not based on the way the world works and views things.  but a church that follows the model found in the Bible.  a church truly centered on the teachings of Jesus.  not just in theology and morality.  but in its organization.  structure.  and practice as well. 

My view of The Jesus Paradigmis best summed up by Proverbs 27:17.  “As iron sharpens iron.  so one man sharpens another.” Calls for change are never easy.  and calls for changes so large as to constitute a paradigm shift are extremely difficult.  Dr.  Black’s challenge is no different.  In fact many will find much they disagree with.  I certainly did.  But the true value in Dr.  Blacks’ book is not the suggestion he makes.  but the effective way he calls.  and even challenges.  the reader to think deeply and seriously about the Church.  its structure.  and its role in both the world and the life of the believer. 

As Dr.  Black writes.  “Churches today have to make a choice to follow contemporary patterns of ecclesiology or use the early church as a model.” (p 40) He believe that the division between church leaders and members is far to stark.  Not only being unscriptural.  Dr.  Black argues that this has resulted in a “responsibility redistribution.”  For example.  the Bible is fairly clear that parents have the responsibility to bring up their children “by training and instructing them about the Lord.” (Eph 6:4 ISV) Yet the current church structure has encouraged parent to abdicate their responsibility turning it over to church leaders to deal with. 

Rather than the current structure that is so common and widespread as to be taken for granted.  Dr.  Black believes that churches should move towards an “every-member ministry” where “most jobs that are currently salaried positions will be filled by volunteer help”(p 2).  and where “new believers will be asked to specify a regular community involvement… in addition to their commitment to a ministry in the church.” (p 3)

Such suggestions are such a stark departure from the norm.  that many might be tempted to reject them out of hand.  But the way Dr.  Black lays out the biblical and historical evidence in support of his position will permit no such kneejerk rejection.  In some respects.  there is nothing new in Dr.  Black’s biblical evidence.  For the most part he simply quotes familiar verses.  But again this is one of the strengths of the book.  for often these verses are so common that we have passed over them without much thought as to what they are really saying. 

For example.  in 1 Thess 5:14 Paul writes “We encourage you.  brothers and sisters.  to admonish the unruly.  comfort the discouraged.  and uphold the weak.”  As Dr.  Black relates.  “I well recall how shocked I was when I first realized that Paul was exhorting.  not leaders.  but the brothers to ‘admonish the unruly.’… Every time Paul wrote to a church in order to deal with its problems.  he never appealed to the leaders.  Instead.  his constant request was for the whole church to deal with its trouble.” (p 70)

Perhaps the weakest part of the book is Dr.  Black’s comments on the relationship between politics and the church.  But this was not because I disagreed with Dr.  Blacks general position that “Christians today must maintain an ultimate commitment to Christ and eschew loyalty to a political party.” In many ways I agree there must be some sort of separation.  even if I do reject the recently developed constitutional concept of a strict separation of church and state.  This is why I do not write about political issues on my consider.org blog. 

Nor is it because I disagreed with some of the political positions he took.  which I do.  Rather it is because he did not remain consistent with his own position.  Thus if I were to attempt to rebut some of the positions he takes.  I would need to do it on my political blog (Hushbeck.com/blog) and not on my Christian blog (consider.org/blog). 

Still.  overall.  while I found much to disagree with in The Jesus Paradigm.  the process of working through the book.  of struggling with and considering the criticism Dr.  Black has concerning the state of the Church.  the corrective measures he suggests.  and most importantly the biblical and historical evidence he lays out.  helped clarify many of my lingering doubts and nagging problems I see in the modern church.  It moved my thinking.  and my understanding forward.  And what more could one ask for in a book other that the Bible?  In short.  it is an important book that should be not only read.  but seriously considered by anyone interested in the state and direction of the modern church.

This is Elgin Hushbeck.  asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Note: as a matter of full disclosure.  Dr.  Black was my professor of among other things NT Greek.  and The Jesus Paradigm was published by Energion.  which also published my three books.

Listen to the MP3

In his Christianity Today article “The Scandal of the Public Evangelical” Mark Galli gives a stark challenge to the evangelical movement.  Pointing to the many recent scandals that have involved evangelicals, he writes, “We assume that with sufficient exhortation and moral effort, our sins will become smaller than a widow’s mite and our righteousness larger than life. This is coupled with the long-standing evangelical myth that there should be something different about the Christian. A look. An attitude. A lifestyle.”

I found a number of things troubling about Galli’s argument.  The first was his starting point: the failing of a few public evangelicals, in particular Carrie Prejean, the Gosselins, and  Mark Sanford.

It seems to me that Galli has fallen victim to the celebrity based mentality so prevalent in our media driven culture, a culture that is normally very hostile to evangelicals, at least when they are not just ignoring them.    The sad story of Carrie Prejean, Miss California, demonstrates this very well.  She rockets to fame because she took a mild stance in favor of traditional marriage, and for that she becomes a star for evangelicals, and target for the media.

This brings me to one of Galli’s statements that I believe was exaggerated to the point of being a straw man. This was his claim that “our sins will become smaller than a widow’s mite and our righteousness larger than life.”   Now perhaps that is what he is hearing on Sunday mornings, but it has not been my experience.   In fact, I see almost the opposite; the stress on being just “sinners saved by grace” to the point of downplaying of sin; the increased stress on the praise portion of the service, and the downplaying of the actual study of the Bible; the growing idea among the young that church is a fun activity rather than a serious commitment to God.

But even if that were not the case, Prejean’s is to me more an example of the viciousness of the media than any weakness among evangelicals.  Even if we could all reach perfection in Christ, we would still all have a past, and given enough media animosity, a past that could be exposed.   After all just look how Jesus was attacked, and he was perfect.  So how much more can we, mere sinners, be attacked.

Neither the Gosselins nor Mark Sanford are representative of what I would consider “average” evangelical role models.  They are the “role models” the world chooses for us, but they should not be the role models we as the body of Christ look to.  Our role models are of little interest to the world but can be found in virtually every church should we care to look. They are those who live godly lives of service, with little or no fanfare, but a love for the Lord.

Galli’s argument has at its root an additional flaw.   If we seriously follow Christ I do believe, in Galli’s  words, “that there should be something different about the Christian. A look. An attitude. A lifestyle.”  Following Christ will have an impact on us, how we live, and how we interact with others.    This, in fact can be seen in the decline in things like honesty in the culture as it has moved away from Christianity and embraced a more secular view.

But there is a huge difference between better and perfect.   We are not, and I believe never will be, in this world at least, perfect followers of Christ.  We all still struggle with sin, and will continue do so while we live. But we are also indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and leading a spirit filled life will have a impact on how we live.  It will not make us perfect, but it will, if we seek to follow our Lord, make us better.   And this should be something we have to offer the world.  That so many Christians often resemble the world is, I believe, a failure of the Church.

That said, Galli does make a valid point that this is not the only thing we have to offer the world. It is not even the primary thing we have to offer.   As he points out toward the end of his article, “What we offer the world is not ourselves or our moral example or our spiritual integrity. What we offer the world is our broken lives, saying, ‘We are sinners saved by grace.’ What we offer the world is Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

That is, and always should be our primary message to a world that is lost; the message of Gospel.  The recent public failures should serve only to remind us that the world is hostile to the message of God and will use whatever it can to discredit it. This will not change, nor will Christians in the limelight cease to disappoint us from time to time.   But our goal is not to please a celebrity enthralled culture, it is to reach world with the Gospel, and to serve a risen Lord.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Listen to the MP3

As I have discussed previously all too often people dismiss rituals as meaningless and of little value. But is somewhat of a chicken and egg problem.  Are rituals dismissed because they are meaningless and of little value, or are they meaningless and of little value because they are dismissed?

Whether something does or does not have meaning depends largely on us.  The cross is meaningful because we see it as a symbol of Christ’s sacrifice.  We give it meaning by associating it with what Christ did.  In short, we choose whether or not we will see it as significant.

This phenomena is not simply limited to religion.  For example in 1971 Congress restructured federal holidays to give more three day weekends.  Before 1971 Memorial Day was May 30^th. Now it is the last Monday in May.  As a three day weekend every year Memorial day has for most completely lost its meaning. A Gallop Poll last year show that only 28% of Americans knew the actual reason for the three Day weekend they were celebrating.  Instead,  for many Memorial Day is nothing more than a time for barbeques and parties rather than what it was originally intended, a solemn day to honor those who gave their lives in the service of their country.

Yet when rituals are seen as meaningful, they can focus and magnified belief. They also serve a teaching function, as a way of transmitting important values to the next generation.  The casual anything goes attitude of society exists just as strongly in a church more eager to attract members than to make disciples.

Apart from older churches with a long history of tradition such as the Roman Catholic Church, Easter and Christmas are pretty much the last Christian rituals, and for many even these are in decline. The meaning slowly draining away year after year, and for increasing numbers of young people the meaning is never implanted.

This weekend most Western Churches will celebrate Easter which commemorates the resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  (Orthodox observe Easter on the 19th)  This is the most important date on the Christian Calendar.

Paul writing to the Corinthians said that “I passed on to you the most important points that  I received: The Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures-and is still alive!-” (1 Cor 15:3-4 ISV)

This is so important and central to the Christian faith that Paul later writes “if the Messiah has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your  faith means nothing… your faith is worthless and you are still imprisoned by your sins.” (1 Cor 15:14,17 ISV)

Given its centrality and importance it is not surprising that the resurrection is not only one of the most well documented events of the Bible , it is one of the most well documented events of the time period, and one which skeptics have attempted in vain to refute for 2000 years.  (See Christianity and Secularism Chapter 6)

The magnitude of the event is beyond comprehension.  Even the natural aspects are difficult to fully grasp,  a man was betrayed by one of his inner circle and deserted by the rest.  The crowds that had hailed him one week earlier now called for his death.  He was savagely beaten, scourged, condemned to death and then crucified.  Because of the coming Sabbath, his body was hurriedly placed in a borrowed tomb. Which was then guarded by those who had had him executed.

Yet starting early on the following Sunday morning, people began claiming to have seen him. And not just a few,  all of those close to him did, along with many of his followers. Even Paul who strongly tried to suppress the growing faith, saw him and converted as a results.   In fact Paul point out that one appearance was before a crowd of over 500 , and challenged skeptics to go and talk to those that were still alive about what they had seen.  In short a man who had died, had come back to life.

As amazing as this was, this was still just of secondary importance, serving mainly as a confirmation of what was really the most astounding part, a part that went completely unseen by those who witness Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection.

Jesus did not just die on the cross, he died for our sins. This is the truly astounding part and something that is beyond all comprehension. He died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), He died for me, and he died for you.  He did this that we may live.  “For as in Adam all die, so also in the Messiah will all be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:22 ISV)

This is the true meaning of Easter, that Jesus the Son of God,  “died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures-and is still alive!” (1 Cor 15:3-4 ISV)    This is the true meaning of Easter.   Will what you do this weekend be in accord with this?

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.