Without further ado, here is a snippet of the article, which you can read in its entirety here.

Is it possible that the writings of the “apostle to the atheists” actually smuggles in pantheism and Paganism? There are some who believe exactly that.

I submit that there is an answer to this and that the answer has important implications for the Church.

It is common today to hear skeptics argue that Christianity is just a “borrowed” religion, drawing its doctrines and miracles from other religions. In fact, Lewis was persuaded to Christianity just because of such similarities. Though most similarities are strained to make the skeptic’s argument, no one denies that there are at least some similarities. Do such similarities prove that there was “borrowing?” Lewis has a different take.

He writes in his famous essay “Myth Became Fact”:

“The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens – at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences…

Read the rest of my column defending CS Lewis against the charge of paganism.

Other entries on CS Lewis, Narnia, and Prince Caspian:

• My presentation connecting the Christian themes of Narnia with the life of the church- not just kids, but grownups too!
• A bulletin insert on Prince Caspian for churches.
• An outline of the Christian themes in Prince Caspian.
• My review of the movie version of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.

The spring session is nearly over but I just received this this morning and wanted to make it available. It ran on KCBI a couple of weeks ago. I discuss the purpose of the apologetics academy, the need for it (and apologetics in general) in the Church today, and the format of the courses.

The utter hypocrisy of this rankles my nostrils. Not that I in any way want to come across as justifying having sex with ‘underage’ individuals (though I’ll have my own arguments against it), but it is pretty apparent from the news in general that people are having sex with minors all over the place. Those are the ones that are reported. The sad humor of it all is that people act surprised. We have a society that is utterly saturated in sexuality.  It should surprise none of us when people act on the advertisements and billboards. Talk about mixed messages.

If we sort out the underage and coercion aspect of the affair and just looked at the prevalent sexual habits within our society, it is quite clear that many people are having sex with a lot of other people, and these are often as young as fourteen or fifteen years old. We know this- or so they say, otherwise distributing condoms to them would be a waste of money. We must appreciate the fact that without the distribution of birth control operations like Planned Parenthood would probably go out of business. “Kids are going to do it” and then we are surprised when they do it, and remain surprised when they grow up and keep doing it.

So the Mormon men have themselves four or five wives and you want to stand in judgment in them. Ok, how many sexual partners have you had? More than four? How are you superior again? How many of these partners do you remain firmly committed to?  At least the Mormons are sticking together with their sexual partners.  You might say, “Oh, well, but I just have sex with them. I don’t marry them. And I use birth control. And if anything ever goes wrong there is always abortion. See, I clean up my messes.”

Much better. A round of applause for the secularists and their continued cultivation of base hedonism at ever earlier and earlier ages. [Pause for clapping] Yes, you are much more sophisticated than them damn Mormons who have the audacity to have sex with more than one partner and actually keep the offspring. Yes, there still is that ‘underage’ issue but with the glut of incidents surrounding teachers and their students and even more that we don’t know about.  Perhaps the truth of the matter actually is that many would do the same if only they thought they could get away with it.

In the midst of the secularist hypocrisy, there is overwhelming scorn for the traditional Christian view that marriage properly consists of a union of just one man and one woman. Yea, what a bad idea. But I know the truth of the matter. It isn’t merely the one man and one woman thing that generates the scorn its the notion that it is derived from ‘religious’ principles and there is no place for such talk in secular society. In the same way high school seniors and above can have any kind of sexual activity that they like but that’s ok! That ain’t religious! That’s just ‘doing it like they do it on Discovery channel!’ But damn those sex-hungry Mormon fundamentalists!

Insatiable sexual addiction in a religious context: Bad… very bad. Insatiable sexual addition in sexular society… good, very good. Rampant teacher/student relationships and an increase in Pedophilia… we didn’t mean that!  [begin chest thumping]We wouldn’t do that, no, not us![/end chest thumping]

Yes, applaud them! These are our social engineers at work! They know best! Down with ancient societal norms and oppressive religious principles!  Hold the mayo, pass the condom! What’s the worst that can happen that a trip to the local abortion clinic can’t fix?

Much better.

For reference sake, he quoted this article by a presuppositionalist and for the purpose of this post if you want to know what a presupper believes that article is a good place to start.  The author refers interested folks to Van Til who also we can classify as a presupper.  But I am not a presuppositionalist.  I am an evidentialist.

It is often argued by Christians that atheists have their views because they have assumed that naturalism is ‘true by default.’  This will be packaged with such justifications such as “Well, Occam’s razor demands we prefer the system with one less explanation.”  They have other justifications as well, but they are not my target here.  It is a demonstrable fact that nearly all materialists begin with the assumption of materialism.  The presuppositionalist, however, does not fault them.  The evidentialist does, for it is clearly circular reasoning.  If you assume materialism is true then it is not a surprise when you come up with materialistic explanations for everything.  Nor is it settled that just because you’ve come up with a materialistic explanation you’ve arrived at the best explanation.

My point is simply this:  if our world view is not going to be decided upon the evidence, then what is it going to be decided upon?

Reading the article I cited above there are several statements like this one:

…there are many reasons why the evidentialist’s building a case for Christianity upon neutral ground with the unbeliever ought to be avoided.
The first is the Lordship of Christ over the whole of the Christian’s life, even his intellectual endeavors.

It’s probably tacky to demand an explanation from a dead man, but I should like to know how it is he came to believe that Christ was Lord in the first place, if not for the evidence.  I definitely agree that Christ is Lord over the whole of our lives and that includes the intellectual endeavors.  But on what basis have we decided to let Christ be Lord?  Are we really simply to presuppose it?

I will grant that I don’t have an extensive history with presuppositionalists, but in my readings and encounters it is not uncommon to read statements as in his opening statement.  It is worthy of quoting it in full:

It is indubitable that the resurrection of Jesus Christ has paramount significance for the history of redemption and for Christian theology (cf. Rom. 4:25; 1 Peter 1:3). It is also clear that this resurrection must be held by the Biblical Christian as one which took place in calendar time and involved Jesus’ empirical body (cf. Luke. 24:39; 1 Cor. 15:4). Moreover, a decisive refutation of the resurrection would shatter the validity of the Christian faith (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14, 17). Hence the Christian’s affirmation of Christ’s resurrection is not an empty assumption, dreamy speculation, or a timeless axiom. The Biblical faith is not indifferent to God’s acts in history, nor is it pessimistic about evidences. The dead bones of Jesus will never be found, and the believer need never fear investigation into the facts. All facts are created facts which can be properly understood only when given the interpretation the Creator intends; as such, all facts demonstrate the truth of Christianity. So any and all relevant evidence pertaining to Jesus Christ’s resurrection in history will be significant for the believer. And such evidence can have a role in his apologetical efforts.

I do not believe the phrase ‘for the believer’ is unintentional.  It is important for the believer to hold that Jesus death and resurrection took place in calendar time and involved Jesus’ empirical body.  But what of the non-believer?  Surely the pertinent question is whether or not it happened or not.  If it happened, the non-believer should non-believe no more.  If it didn’t, then believers should believe no more.  Granted, a thing may have been an actual event but the evidence does not exist today to know it.  Trillions of events of the past happened and we have no historical record of them.  Yet our presupper has come to the view that it has happened… and why?  Did he first presuppose the truth of scripture as the quote below says?

Is that really going to be our defense of Christianity?  Christianity is true and you know it bu presupposing it is?

When Jesus told those who demanded a sign that none would be given except the ’sign of Jonah’ or when the disciples wanted to see the Father and Jesus chastized them saying “Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves” (John 14:11) was Jesus calling them merely to accept a set of presuppositions?  I think not.  Apparently Jesus believes the ‘divine inference’ is justified.  Not Bahnsen:

Yet the very point which the evidentialist is trying to prove is that of miracle, i.e. discontinuity. So he is enmeshed in using a principle of continuity to establish the truth of discontinuity! When the evidentialist seeks to exhibit that the resurrection very probably occurred as a unique truth-attesting sign he is divided against himself. Furthermore, since inductive argumentation is dependent upon the premise of uniformity, and since this premise can only be established by a Christian presupposing the truth of scripture

It is hard to imagine how the disciples could come to accept that the miracles happened and were evidence of God’s interaction in the world if they had to presuppose the truth of scripture- which had not been written yet.

Presuppositionalists do make some points that I can agree with.  For one thing, if you hope to understand another viewpoint or world view it is important that you hold in your mind the propositions believed to be true within that world view when you evaluate statements made by adherents of that perspective.  For example, atheists constantly hold up statements that Christians make about prayer for ridicule without taking into account the framework in which the statements emerge.  Sure, the statements may seem ridiculous from within the atheistic world view.  They are not ridiculous from within the Christian framework.  Obviously, it works the other way, too.

I could say much much more about this subject but let me close with this observation:  it is a twisted irony that skeptics, atheists, and ‘free thinkers’ insist that the evidence is on their side yet in the same breath they will often not only admit but will positively defend the fact that they proceed from the assumption of naturalism as default.  For all their evidential saber rattling, the truth is that they are presuppositionalists.  Also true is that if Christians universally accepted a presuppositional approach they would probably be well received by the atheistic community.  None will be converted,* but at least they’ll tolerate you.  The thing that burns many skeptics up is that you aren’t content to just say you believe on ‘faith’** but actually think you’re right- on the evidence.

Yet it wasn’t a presupposition that drove the first Christians to be martyrs and the cross is not a stumbling block if it is merely a given within a particular system of thought.  It is only a stumbling block if it really appears to have happened.  Otherwise, its just an article of faith which you can condescendingly tolerate when it appears in the idiotic underclass of religionists.  Just don’t let them say it is true!

*I would be happy if anyone could show otherwise.  Where is the atheist that converted to Christianity because of a full blown presuppositional apologetic?  I would like to meet him.  Most presuppositionalists I’ve read started Christian and ended Christian.

** Within the skeptical world view, ‘faith’ is believing something without evidence or even in spite of the evidence, or even things you know aren’t true.  The fact that Christians mean something quite different is of little concern to many atheists.

If you’ve been following my blog on this matter you’ve read about the fact that a church and state issue has popped up right in the town that I live in.  A star which has been on private land for some 40 years and could be lit up as a cross during Easter was included in the purchase to obtain land for municipal services.  Naturally, it was only a matter of time before a hyper-sensitive atheist found himself offended.  The village believes they solved the matter by selling the portion of property that holds the star back to the original owner.  This, I am afraid is not the case.

The general outlines of the forthcoming lawsuit can be discerned in this newspaper article that was published today.  That there almost certainly is a lawsuit coming can be seen by reading between the lines of this press release by the American Humanists on the matter.  Consider this quote:

Edwords said further: “This isn’t the first time government has made a maneuver such as this to keep a religious symbol on public property. Humanists have been fighting the same tactic at Mount Soledad in San Diego, California, for nearly two decades. And there are other communities with crosses on public land. These crosses are maintained at taxpayer expense. So now there is a risk that, if this gambit proves successful in the end, communities all over America will duplicate this same faith-based trick. This is why we have taken action to stop it here.”

Edwords, of course, lets slip the same ugly truth that Eric Barnes (the original complainant)… couldn’t hide:   that it was on public property is what supposedly caused the offense yet when the move is made to put it onto private property they aren’t pleased.   With such reasoning on display, can we suppose that after they’ve purged the country of religious symbols on public property that private property might be next?  Clearly what is offensive is the symbol itself, where ever it is.  But note to Mr. Edwords, the whole point of this is that it would not be on public property.  See?

So, the village of Holmen tried to avoid conflict and controversy and a lawsuit but its looking like they’re going to find themselves knee deep in one, anyway.   Instead of a lawsuit that could have achieved something of merit to the whole nation, it looks instead like it will be over mundane questions of fair process.  Nothing like running from a fight so that others can keep getting clobbered by thin-skinned secularists.

It will be very interesting to see how this pans out.

I recently discussed the issue in this entry about the Holmen Cross and the most recent developments so I will just briefly comment now.

This whole move was done in order to mimic the route that La Crosse took.  In that incident, the FFRF sued on account of a 10 Commandment monument, and the town of La Crosse sold the piece of property it was on to a local private group.

The problem with that approach, as with Holmen adopting it, is that the residual issue still remains:  is it constitutional or not for a city to have on its property religious symbols or monuments?  Does it or does it not constitute an ‘establishment of religion’?  Is the most important thing really merely retaining the displays?  It may be a legal avenue to preserve the display to sell off 50 square sections of city parks and property but do we really want thousands of ‘free expression’ zones like tiny islands?

Here is the thing:  The FFRF and the AHA have both suggested that they might yet sue.  Perhaps the village of Holmen will win that suit.  Yet by dodging the issue, atheistic activists will continue to be able to harass cities and towns across the country.  If you’re going to get sued anyway, you may as well have taken a route which would have really achieved something substantial.  Will we continue to be a nation where atheists say ‘jump!’ and small governments reply, ‘How high?’

So now we shall see what comes of things.  Such irony it would be if the FFRF sues Holmen (on the grounds that declining the higher bid was poor stewardship of public resources, or something like that) and wins!  The star would come down after all on perfectly mundane legal grounds, with no precedent at all to show for it!  We shall see.

All my entries on the Holmen Star issue.

Now, to me the most telling thing about such lines of argumentation is that they seem geared to perfectly insulate atheism from any kind of refutation.   If the resurrection happened, that still wouldn’t warrant believing that God was at work, they say, but very quickly they add, but there is no evidence of it happening, either!  It should be self-evident that the one who objects that an actual resurrection ought to be construed in naturalistic terms ought to drop all objections to the occurrence of miracle.  Consider this article by Jeffrey Jay Lowder, for example, which says:

Thus, virtually every naturalistic scenario, no matter how far-fetched, must seem a priori more plausible to the atheist, than something as miraculous as the resurrection.

This is a refreshingly honest analysis.   This is indeed the perspective of most atheistic objections to the resurrection.    But can such an approach be reconciled with the assertion that even in the face of an actual miracle, that is, granting that the miracle really happened, it still does not justify the inference to the supernatural?  It would seem that musings about ‘background probabilities’ are irrelevant if the events were insignificant even if granted.  But that is the beauty of modern atheism:  they wish to have their cake and eat it too.  Not only are the events insufficient demonstrations of the supernatural but also there is no evidence that they happened, either!  “What luck!”

It seems to me that if the events are of little consequence then there is little reason to object to them on the grounds of evidence.    If they actually happened, at most they would simply call for a revision of what is believed to be the laws of nature.  Since then there is no threat to the naturalistic world view by an actual miracle or resurrection, then surely we should be able to find some atheists who believe the resurrection and the miracles really happened on simple historical grounds.

After all, the resurrection is much better substantiated than many if not most other historical claims.  Even if we took the latest possible dates for the writing of the New Testament books, they would still be much earlier and more numerous than most secular accounts and histories.   Why not then simply concede that on historical grounds it would appear that the events really happened but deny the import?

Since the events would be naturalistic events then they would not longer be ‘extraordinary claims’ and so would not require ‘extraordinary evidence.’

When I find an atheist who does in fact accept the resurrection and perhaps the miracles as actual events in mankind’s history and yet remains an atheist, I will take so called challenges to the ‘divine inference’ seriously.  I would settle at this point for the production of even one atheist who firmly believes that the resurrection happened.

Until then it looks like an exercise in C.Y.A. to me.  The intellectual battle is not faring as well as they like so they are reduced to denying even the import of the event, even if we assumed it actually happened.  I don’t think I am far off in welcoming such an approach.  Seekers will be surprised, I think, to learn where atheism is headed these days.

As a brief response both to the commenter on the thread I already mentioned and to Jeffrey Jay Lowder’s essay… such considerations still miss the critical point:  did the events actually happen?  Our best way of knowing about whether events actually happened before the days of video and photos (that was just a shade past a hundred years ago, in case you didn’t know) is to study the historical record.  But if Lowder’s atheistic comrades are right, it wouldn’t matter if it did, and if the divine inference is to be rejected, its only worth talking about if confronted with an instance we mutually agreed actually occurred.  So did the resurrection happen or not?

Oh, if only that would work.

A recent Holmen Courier article reports that several national atheistic organizations have taken an interest in the affair.

According to the article, the piece of property was appraised at $100.00 and the American Humanist Association and the Freedom From Religion Foundation have both placed bids higher than a $1,000.  The basic idea is to shame the village of Holmen if they consider offering the land to the Lions Club at its appraised value.  Additionally, the Lions Club might be forced to decide the cost is too high in order to avoid that shame.  But probably the real reason is legal.  The article reports that “Both Ritter [AHA] and Gaylor [FFRF] said litigation is a possibility if the Lions Club wins possession of the land with a lower bid.”

Indeed.

The Holmen village council had hoped to avoid controversy and turmoil by following in the footsteps of La Crosse, who after a bitter legal process successfully defeated the FFRF and managed to sell of a 10 Commandment monument in a La Crosse park to a private entity.   That was their hope, but it was misguided.  In seeking to avoid a lawsuit they will probably still end up in a lawsuit.  The only way to avoid a confrontation is to submit to the demands and remove the cross.  With Eric Barnes bringing to bear two national anti-religious organizations it is clear to me that the town of Holmen had better move quick to produce some allies of their own.

Now, some of my own thoughts.

That the AHA and FFRF would become involved in this controversy was completely predictable.  The FFRF lives to sue.  That is why it exists.  The La Crosse area detests controversy and if someone raised their voice in an argument they’d bend over backwards to make the problem go away.  In this instance you have the basic equivalent except the problem is not going to go away unless you decide to cow to the demands presented to it.

It boggles the minds of many to believe that the lighting of a cross for a week during Easter could be constituted an ‘establishment of religion.’  The fallaciousness of the argument is exposed by the fact that Eric Barnes didn’t look at the lighted Star and believe that Holmen was endorsing astrology.  Of course it isn’t.  The thought never crossed his mind.  Such thoughts don’t cross the minds of impartial and objective people.

We may be able to credit the FFRF with a certain measure of consistency:  they at least would bring the star down, too.  We are not told in the article why that is.  We can suppose that they at least do believe the star constitutes some sort of ‘endorsement of religion.’  Is this the nation we want to live in?  Where symbol after symbol must be taken down because it might resonate with the religious beliefs of some person some where?

My advice:  Holmen Village Council- DO NOT SELL THE PROPERTY AT ALL.  If you’re going to get sued anyway, you may as well take a stand in such a way that prevents organizations like the AHA and the FFRF from being able to bully numerous other towns for years to come.  If it goes to the Supreme Court, so be it.  Let us finally have the Supreme Court offer a clear ruling that remembers that the full statement does not stop at prohibiting the Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of religion, but continues on and says: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I say put the matter to a vote of the entire Holmen community.  Give us all the opportunity to decide what we want to do.  If we collectively decide to take it down, or to sell it, well at least the democratic process played out.  But if we decide to keep it… then let the ‘non-religious’ FFRF and AHA know that they may successfully purge yet another symbol, but it will be at the expense of the majority of Holmenites.  Their precious little offended consciences will be appeased… at the expense of democracy itself.  I don’t suppose they’ll have trouble sleeping.

For some of my other posts on this matter, including a letter I submitted to the editor, follow this link.

For myself, I have decided to explore legal options of my own.  There seems to me to be no reason to let national organizations array against the will of the people of Holmen without a fight.  We’ll see.

A short story by Anthony Horvath

COPYRIGHT, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The sign on the door read “Bureau for Decommissioned Facts.” I pushed the door open gingerly, almost sheepishly. My quest to find this heretofore unknown department of the Universal University was not merely a recent one, but one that was given to me and not one that I had initiated. The department chair had taken me aside in the cafeteria, and in a tone that wavered between fatherly affection and patronizing condescension, insisted that I take a trip to Building 51023414, use the elevator to go down to the lowest sub-floor, and learn what could be learned in the BDF.

Naturally, I found the suggestion extremely curious, if only because I had never heard of the BDF and had never noticed a building marked 51023414 before. From some of the remarks made by the department chair I had some inclination to think that this quest was bestowed upon me in relation to a paper that I had recently submitted for publication. It was a paper that I was particularly proud of: bold, ambitious, counter-intuitive, and well-substantiated. Yet here I was, descending into the bowels of an ungodly numbered building as though I were back in high school and being sent to the principal’s office.

I beheld a nondescript sterile-white room. A black desk was in the middle of it, standing in stark contrast to the rest of the décor. A woman I instantly dubbed in my mind the ‘Prune Woman’ stared at me behind thick black-rimmed glasses. An older lady, to put it nicely. She glared at me. “How can I help you, sir?”

“My department chair sent me here,” I offered, not really knowing what else I could say. One of her eyebrows raised in an inquisitive manner.

“Which department?” she inquired.

“History,” I replied.

“Of course,” she said. “It usually is. Right this way.”

I followed her to the back of the room where, to my surprise, a door opened up for us out of the white wall where a moment before there hadn’t even appeared to be a seam for one. There was a long hallway ahead of me that seemed to stretch out of sight. There were bare outlines of other doors that I managed to discern only as I went by them and knew now what to look for. Little placards with numbers were on them but they were too small to read. We went a little ways where a sudden turn greeted us. She led me down this new hallway for a dozen steps but not more: she threw open another door. I stepped inside the door warily, expecting more of the same. My expectations were not completely off.

There was still the sense that it was a surgical environment, but in here there were several old desks. They were stacked with manuscripts, scrolls, books, and artifacts. On one of the walls was a series of lights that were marked with more unreadable markings. In fact, upon further scrutiny, the wall was filled with little indicator lights. It had the appearance of what one might expect to find in the control room for a space shuttle. Some of the lights were a faint green, others a mild yellow, and still others a glaring red. Every moment or so one of the green lights would go to yellow, or a yellow one would go to red. However, nothing red ever went yellow, although I thought I saw a few yellows turn green. Standing next to one of the desks, poring over a book, was a scruffy, middle-aged man. He greeted me.

“Welcome to the BDF, friend. Old Martins retired did he? I’ve been expecting to see the new blood down here for quite a ways now. I’m Chronos. Not my real name, of course, but that’s what they call me,” the man said, looking at him through reading glasses. ‘Prune Woman’ turned without a word and returned to her station at the front desk.

“What’s this all about?” I asked, unable to bring myself to call him by his alleged name.

“Well, obviously it looks like you need an orientation about how things work here,” Chronos told me. It wasn’t a completely patronizing tone of voice.

“Does this have anything to do with my paper? I thought it just the right thing! The current was going the other way but I showed using a variety of primary sources that the current was very likely going the wrong way,” I objected.

“Ah yes. Primary sources. That’s fine material to use, normally. But not always. That’s why you’re here. You have got to learn when it’s scholarly to use it and when it is scholarly not to use it,” Chronos said, continuing to peer at him through his glasses.

“What on earth are you talking about?” I replied incredulously. Chronos merely sighed.

“Well, obviously I don’t know what you’re paper was about, but it doesn’t really matter. Come here and look. Let me see if I can explain,” he said, leading me to the wall of lights. For the first time I noticed an old computer near the wall of lights. Clearly the computer was interfaced with the lights, but I couldn’t quite make out how.

He scanned the wall for a few minutes and finally settled on one particular yellow light. He pointed to it. “Ok, see this? This light represents the authenticity of a certain document dated at around 529 AD. It’s the Rule of St. Benedict. Ok, now watch.” We waited for a few minutes, but Chronos kept his eye on the dim yellow light the entire time. Suddenly it flashed to red. “See?” he exclaimed. “Now this light represents the alleged authenticity of a document believed to be dated at around 529 AD.”

“You just said the same thing twice,” said I.

“Some scholar you are,” he retorted. “I did not say the same thing twice. The second time I said ‘alleged’ and ‘believed.’ Did you not notice?”

“But there is hardly a difference!” I rejoined.

“There is absolutely a difference. In my first statement, I was decisive. In the second statement, I introduced ambiguities. Surely you see that, now?” he asked me, carefully studying my reaction. I thought about it for a minute, and as I thought, Chronos sat down at the computer and did a little typing. Shortly after, a little number appeared below the light representing St. Benedict’s Rule. I strained my eyes to see what the number was, and with a startled jump I realized that the number was not merely today’s date, but also the exact time when the light went from yellow to red.

“Do you mean to tell me that up until that particular time it was known when Benedict wrote his Rule but after that time it was not known?” I demanded incredulously.

“Well, no, not exactly. Actually, it would be more precise to say that while that light was still yellow, scholars were permitted to consider the document reliable, but once it turned red, it was not to be considered reliable any more.”

“But why?” I protested. “Surely you are not saying that when it was written changed?”

“When it was written is no longer of any consequence,” he replied, “Because since it is now classified as unreliable, scholars will be free to make hay out of any particular date that they choose. That is not my business. My business is to facilitate the decommissioning of ‘facts.’ Historical facts, in particular. That’s why you are here in my office and not down the hall in one of the scientific facts offices,” Chronos patiently explained.

“But what changed?” I insisted.

“What do you mean ‘what changed’?” Chronos asked.

“One second the document was reliable and the next it wasn’t! What new evidence emerged to justify this new classification?” I wanted to know. But Chronos laughed.

“Evidence?” You’re in the Universal University, now. Don’t you know by now?” he guffawed. Apparently he could tell by my face that I was not at all humored by this, so he adopted a sterner look and opened his mouth again to try to explain things. “No evidence was required at all! It simply became an ‘old book,’ and everyone knows that old books can’t be true. Old manuscripts can’t be trusted. That’s why we have the BDF. We want to have an objective way of deciding how much time has to pass in certain instances when a thing that was considered reliable in one second is no longer reliable the next second.”

“That is absurd,” I declared. “There must be more to it.” Chronos gave a grumpy sigh and sat down at his computer. He typed into it for a little while. After a few minutes he laughed as though he had found the solution.

“I think I have it, now,” Chronos said. “Professor Tiwmid is set to publish a book in a week attacking the views of certain conservative scholars. Oh, this is a fine example. The scholar that Tiwmid is going after is no doubt pinning a great deal on the authenticity of Benedict’s Rule. Well, now that the Rule is no longer authentic, Tiwmid can discredit that scholar’s argument. I see the notation here where Tiwmid put the Rule on the fast track. It wasn’t supposed to be decommissioned for another hundred years, but he needs to make his money now, while the opinion is still controversial.”

“I thought you said that this was an objective process?” I snarled. Chronos looked hurt.

“Of course it’s objective. He had to submit a form, just like the rest of us,” Chronos said.

“I’m sorry for being obtuse, here, but do I really take it to mean that prior to this particular moment here…” and here I pointed at the date and time I saw Benedict’s reliability go from yellow to red… “Benedict’s rule was a historically reliable manuscript, but after that moment, it was not reliable, anymore?”

“Yes, that’s about right,” Chronos seemed please with my progress.

“And there was no underlying evidence to support this?” I clarified.

“That’s not exactly true. Tiwmid says it is no longer reliable, and he’s a scholar, and not one of those sort of scholars, if you know what I mean,” Chronos winked. “That’s evidence. Plus he submitted the proper forms…” Here Chronos tapped away at the computer once again, suddenly worried that protocol hadn’t been followed. Apparently, it had been followed, because Chronos looked up at me again with relief in his eyes. I decided to play along. Something had clicked in my head that had never really made sense before. I decided to press it.

“So, let’s take Josephus as an example,” I started. Chronos was ready.

“Josephus’s material became unfactual two or three hundred years ago. Officially decommissioned by one of my ancient predecessors. I saw the forms myself,” he rattled off.

“Right,” I replied. “So, when we look at the passage called the Testimonium Flavium, where Josephus appears to talk about Jesus, one day the passage was a legitimate reference, and the next day it was not.”

“Exactly,” Chronos replied.

“Right,” I continued. “So, the fact that Eusebius cites the passage nearly verbatim-”

“Eusebius was also decommissioned!” Chronos interjected, but I waved him off, because of course that was what I was getting to.

“The fact that the passage was repeated nearly verbatim only two or three hundred years later by Eusebius and there is no other textual manuscript evidence to support any other reading until 1,000 AD, is of no consequence, because Eusebius’s light went from yellow to red a long time ago, and of course, Josephus was right along with him. But what about the manuscript evidence from 1,000 AD?” I wondered to Chronos.

“Yes, you mean the Arabic text showing a different version of the passage?” Chronos asked.

“That’s the one,” I said.

“That hasn’t been decommissioned yet,” Chronos explained. “So, it’s still authentic. Let’s remember, too, that scholars can’t possibly imagine how Josephus could have ever said what he is purported to say, so it had to have been twisted-”

It was my turn to interject. “Even though there is no actual textual evidence of that.”

But Chronos continued his thought, “It had to be twisted because of course Josephus would not have said such a thing and naturally it would have been in the interest of Christians, and Eusebius in particular, to twist it in their favor. Plus, remember that there is textual evidence. The Arabic text.”

“So, the Christians, and Eusebius in particular, would have had motive to twist it but the Muslim Arabs of 1,000 AD, would not have had their own motive to twist a passage that would have been damaging to their system?” I squinted at Chronos.

“Ah, I see where you’re going. But you’re missing some critical points. First of all, you forget that the textual tradition doesn’t matter much in the case of Josephus or even Eusebius. You might say that they now belong to the public domain of scholarly imagination. Scholars can’t imagine how Josephus could have said such a thing and they can imagine how Christians would have wanted to contort the passage, but the Arabic texts don’t belong to the ‘public domain’ per se, so is still considered an incontrovertible piece of evidence. In summary, the Testimonium Flavium must be some piece of forgery because scholars say it must be, and they are supported by evidence that has not yet been decommissioned.” Chronos glowered at me.

“So, as I understand it, then,” I said thoughtfully, “I used primary source material that was decommissioned. It was simply too old to be believable. Once a fact becomes a certain age, it can no longer be true.”

“Well, that’s a bit too far,” Chronos tried to correct me. “It depends on a lot of things. Remember, people still have to submit their paperwork. That’s one thing. And not every request is granted. For example, if one scholar is looking to make a load of money off of some hot and controversial claim that requires decommissioning of a particular fact but another scholar has his own books to sell that requires that fact to remain authentic, many times we’ll just slap it into the yellow category. Then we send a memo to both scholars so that they know when the fact is no longer a fact. That way we can coordinate the effort of both scholars so that both make a load of money.”

I could see that here I was faced with a choice. If I continued to sound disgusted by the concept, my own career as a scholar would be in jeopardy. It sounded too absurd to believe, but when I thought about some of the scholarly research that I had read I had noticed that there was quite a bit of outright dismissal for various pieces of evidence that seemed to be based mainly on the scholars’ credulity or incredulity, and not because of some other concrete piece of evidence. When attempting to persuade them of my view, upon failing I had mistakenly thought I needed to construct my argument better. I didn’t realize that what was actually going on was a mercenary application of chronological snobbery. I needed to craft my questions carefully for Chronos. No sense in burning a bridge before it was necessary, and this was especially the case while I was still standing on it.

“I don’t know. Maybe I’m just not bright enough to pick up the logic in it all. It just seems to me that the validity of a fact should not have an expiration date. Just because a fact is fifteen hundred years old doesn’t seem to me to be less a fact. How can that be?” I played dumb.

“I said that you went too far in saying that. Let me give you an example from a different field of inquiry. See, in the history department, we decommission facts when they get into a certain age range, usually at the request of this professor or that. But if you went down to the science department, it’s a slightly different story. Some of us purists think that they’ll eventually step into line, but they’ve only just opened up an office in the BDF in the last few decades, so they’re just learning the ropes. It used to be that in science you needed to have empirical evidence of something occurring, and it had to be occurring all the time and observable to everyone, more or less on demand, in order to be considered ‘science.’ History, of course, is filled with all sorts of examples of supernatural accounts (decommissioned on sight, of course, without further scrutiny), so science has little use for history or much historical data. So what they do is affirm as true anything that they see with their own eyes today and then skip ten to twenty thousand years, again, mainly as scholars think is appropriate, and then a fact is a fact again. Like I said, we purists insist that that ‘fact’ belongs in the category of history as much as it does ‘science’ but they make the curious exception. At any rate, as an example, even though there are no earth rocks 4.5 billion years old, scientists believe that it is a fact that the solar system was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and since they have found meteors-”

“Meteors. So, not earth rocks.”

“Since they have found on the earth meteors that are 4.5 billion years old and they think that the solar system is 4.5 billion years old, it follows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And see, that is a valid fact, even though it is very old, and very much older than, say, a witness account to the first sack of Rome- a fact that is due for decommissioning in the next century, likely. No one saw the solar system form, no one saw the earth form, or the meteor, or saw the meteor fall; no one has even a half a mind that any kind of empirical reconstruction is necessary, but it remains a valid scientific fact. The basic philosophy is at work in both fields.”

“So what kinds of facts do they decommission in the science department if not simply old facts?” I wondered.

“Obvious facts, mainly. For example, normally if a scholar says something like ‘Most scholars think’ that instantly makes the next thing out of their mouth credible. However, there are scholars who might look at a piece of evidence and say, ‘This is obviously evidence for design.’ In that case, the science department will have to look at that new instance (and I hear that the instances multiply exponentially) and devise a way in which something that is obviously perceived as having design can be imagined not to be. All they need to do is find a way to imagine how it might not be designed at all, and then they can officially decommission it,” Chronos patiently explained to me.

“You said something about the basic philosophy. What did you mean by that?” I asked him.

Chronos did not appear to be happy that I still didn’t get it. He sighed deeply and explained, “Don’t you see that there is no money to be made confirming and corroborating what has already been figured out? In order to stand out in a way that gets people to pay attention to you, you have to go against the grain. For example, no one is happy if yet one more piece of evidence surfaces to show that Jesus existed. That would never make the news. That would never get you on camera. After all, most people already think that. But if you could show that Jesus was a homosexual! Now, that would be something. To continue using Jesus as an example, it so happens that right now scholars are laying the ground work for being able to convincingly show that Jesus did not exist and simultaneously that he was a homosexual, or a revolutionary, or whatever else. It takes a real scholar to pull that off!” Chronos finished in a flourish.

Interesting, I thought. “So, what about that wall of lights? Won’t the fact of its existence one day be decommissioned?” I asked. Chronos laughed.

“Yes, exactly. First, the historical fact that the wall existed, or was designed, will be decommissioned. In a million years- I presume that’s how long it will take for them to figure out how to do it- they’ll come up with a naturalistic explanation for it,” Chronos said.

“But you know when the wall was created,” I pointed out.

“Yes, of course. But in fifteen hundred years, if the documents still exist then, the records giving us that information couldn’t be considered true. That isn’t quite enough, probably, for the scientists to decommission it as being obviously designed, as I said, they typically need to posit millions of years, but then they just need a scholar to say that it is millions of years old, and then that opens up the way for them to reasonably imagine a process by which the wall of lights could arise without being designed. Naturally, we’ll all be dead, but there will come a day when scholars a million years off will know without a doubt that we are in fact all wrong in thinking whatever it is that we have been thinking is right.”

“In the case of the history department, that only needs a dozen centuries or so, right?” I said to Chronos.

“That’s right. In a thousand years, in the twinkling of an eye, despite our own awareness that we exist, in fact, scholars will know that we did not exist,” Chronos replied.

“Now, it seems to me that the average person on the street would never buy this,” I said innocently.

“Oh ho! The average person on the street is an idiot. Even if he is not an idiot, if he’s not a scholar, all we have to do is point out the fact that he is not a scholar, and that is usually enough right there to cow them. You have to be brilliantly intelligent to get a PhD, as any PhD will tell you. Plus, you have got to understand that if we use lots of big words and specialized language, the average citizen will not ever be in a position to understand what we’re talking about, anyway. Ask one to hand you a pen and he might do well. Get some pen experts together talking and have one of them ask the average citizen to hand over an individualized opaque chemical dispersing instrument (or whatever a pen expert would call it)” Chronos laughed “and the average citizen will just stare. Big words and snobby dismissal. That’s all that is needed to sell lots of books. It’s all about challenging the status quo. The BDF is a critical component for furthering the careers of generation after generation of scholars. If the scholarly community ever made up its mind about a fact and held that fact as genuine in perpetuity, you’d say the fact once and that would be all you need. That’s not a recipe for making big bucks, or if you aren’t into that sort of thing,” here, he must have seen my disgusted look, “gaining the respect of your peers. Each generation needs to have its set of established facts thrown out the window and new facts ushered in, or else everyone is poorer. Well, scholars are, anyway.”

“So, tell me why you think my department head sent me here, exactly,” I offered.

“Clearly he didn’t want you to embarrass yourself by publishing a paper that used sources that had been decommissioned! That is one thing. Now that you know about all this and have been orientated, we’ll see to it that you are kept abreast of all recent decommissionings in the BDF journal. Yes, yes, I know the subscription costs $10,000 a year, but we have to make our money somehow, too. Another thing might be that you used simple language that would be intelligible to average folks. You’ll want to gussy that up some more and remember that you’re not out there to convince anyone of any fact, or be convinced by anyone else of any fact, but rather flash them around as it suits you. If you can’t complicate the language any better, include a bunch of references to this person, or that, like to ‘Guthrie’ or to ‘Sabmud’ or whomever and you can say any stupid thing you want and your argument will not be stupid. Then, you get the average person to buy your books and then they feel intelligent because they walk around feeling like they are ‘up to date.’ They never need to know the difference,” Chronos answered me.

“This is all a little bit more than I can handle,” I said to him. Chronos suddenly looked at me fiercely.

“You’ve got to handle it! You’ve got no choice. If you don’t play be these rules, we’ll ostracize you faster than evidence of the slowing down of the speed of light was decommissioned.” Chronos gathered up steam. “We’ll make you a walking decommissioned fact, my friend. Toe the line. It’s the best for everyone, and that includes you.”

Really, I had already made up my mind. I didn’t feel like giving Chronos my verdict, though. It became obvious to me in the course of the conversation that he himself was merely a bureaucrat, and he felt puffed up to be processing objective ‘paperwork’ by scholars, just like he alleged that the ‘average citizen’ felt puffed up using big words and flashing names around. That’s why he was down here and not up there making the big bucks. Of course, $10,000 for an annual subscription… I let him walk me to the door. He had really become quite cordial with me and made a few comments suggesting he wanted me to put in some words about him with the department chair and I made it sound as though I would. I turned to look behind me as he opened the door for me to exit. The Prune Lady was glaring at me. I was going to offer a witty rejoinder to put them both in their place and suddenly just felt pity for them. I shook the man’s hand and stepped out the door. The door shut behind me, and I was alone in the hallway, and alone with the decision that I had made.

I exited Building 51023414, left the campus, and never went back.

Below I have the first couple paragraphs and then from there you’ll need to click through to read the rest of it, at least for now.

When they appeared in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, it was easy to look the other way in the face of the undeniable Christian imagery of Aslan dying and rising and conquering the White Witch.  Bacchus and Silenus, ancient pagan gods, dance with nymphs and dryads.  With Jesus so clearly figured, it was easy to ignore such things, but what to do when Bacchus and Silenus appear not once, but twice, in Prince Caspian, where such Christological imagery is not so obvious?

Prince Caspian is the next book of Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia to be released as a movie.  It is due out in May.  Some Christians may raise the same concerns with CS Lewis as they did with the Harry Potter series.  With pagan gods prancing about in Prince Caspian, their warnings will generate attention.

Are we talking about the same CS Lewis whose writings were instrumental in the conversion of men such as Chuck Colson and Francis Collins and so many others?  If in fact Lewis is a closet Pagan we are confronted with the prospect that Paganism, witchcraft, Gnosticism, and more, likely infect every area of Christendom, as nearly all of Christendom claims Lewis as trustworthy.

Is it possible that the writings of the ‘apostle to the atheists’ actually smuggles in pantheism and Paganism?  There are some who believe exactly that.

Read the Rest of the Article

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Buy Pomo Timmy on Amazon

• Publisher: Pleasant Word-A Division of WinePress Publishing (February 18, 2008)
• Paperback: 136 pages
• ISBN-10: 1414110405
• ISBN-13: 978-1414110400
• Website: http://pomotimmy.com/

Book Description:
Who decides what’s right or wrong? Imagine a world where right and wrong or good and evil are determined by society–the majority dictates what is acceptable or unacceptable without regard to morality as spelled out in the Bible or any other religious text. Such a world could be closer than you think, because whether or not we understand postmodernism, it is upon us in this country and in the church, and it brings both opportunities and dangers. If you are concerned about the direction of contemporary western society and the current state of the church, this book is for you. In it, author Michael Ferber provides a thoughtful approach to evaluating our worldview and how it is impacted by our culture. In a compelling comparison with the first century church at Ephesus, he uses the book of 1st Timothy to offer insights into our current situation and provide hope to those willing to engage in an honest evaluation of themselves and their faith.

Here begins my Review…

It is worth mentioning that Pomo Timmy will make a useful succinct commentary to accompany the other commentaries on your shelf. On some issues, Ferber surveys what others have written before performing his own analysis, but in other issues he simply applies 1 Timothy to our day and age. Such application is very much needed, and not just of 1 Timothy.

The chapter headings of Pomo Timmy are Doctrine, Love, Godliness, Intercession, Leadership, Health, Wealth, Gender, Family, The Tongue, and Hope. A long introduction lays out the inspiration, scope, and intent of the book.

If I had to complain about something, it would be that given his scope and intent, a good idea would have been to provide a separate chapter explaining in more detail precisely what postmodernism is and offer more corroboration. If you have had exposure to postmodernism before then what he says is more than sufficient. Since his introduction does provide some discussion, this must be chalked up as a minor complaint.

Ferber aims to take the best of postmodernism and give it voice while maintaining that not every aspect of postmodernism is consistent with the Christian world view. He says, “While the church needs to pay attention to the times in order to effectively reach postmoderns for Christ, it must be careful to not fall into a full-blown postmodern mindset, as it did with modernism.”

I resonate with that and a number of other sections. One point he makes in his section on love was something that many nonChristians have simply not been able to grasp. It is worthy of an extended quote:

The final component of love is described as a “sincere faith.” [1 Tim 1:3-5] When I first read this verse I began to consider my own faith. The same Greek verb “faith” also means “trust,” and so I recognized the relational implications in this. If I have faith in Christ I trust him. It goes beyond the mere idea of believing in him. I can believe in the existence of something without trusting it at all. When I step onto an airplane I do not simply believe it exists. I am taking a risk based on my trust that it will fly and bring me to my destination even though I might not completely understand all of the issues surrounding aerodynamics. I don’t need to.

The term “faith” should not be reserved simply for that which we do not understand. In other words, many people use the word faith for circumstances where they cannot figure something out through reasoning. When they give up, it becomes a matter of “faith”. For many, religion is a matter of “faith” for the very reason that they do not understand it. Instead it should be a matter of trust.

This entire discussion is interesting and helps us recognize once again the relational implications of the component of love.

While there certainly are some Christians who believe that faith is blind and ignorant, nearly all of the well-informed ones I’ve ever met understand this relational component that Ferber mentions here. Nonetheless, the caricature among many nonbelievers is that faith is ‘believing what you know isn’t true’ or ‘believing something without evidence, or even in spite of the evidence.’

This relational element that Ferber emphasizes ties into his discussion about doctrine. Doctrine is important, he insists. However, doctrine outside the relationship is worthless. Right doctrine about God is not identical with faith in God. Doctrine must be lived out in the context of real life relationally. He says, “Love is rooted in a sincere understanding of how God has worked in the world. Without an understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, we cannot grasp love.”

Many Christians, I’m afraid, spend an inordinate amount of time dissecting precisely what is meant by ‘Jesus sacrificing on the cross’ and much less applying that knowledge in love. This is one reason why I appreciated Ferber’s book. For all the things that Christians over the years have systematized in terms of doctrine, that central doctrine, love, has escaped the same level of scrutiny. This needs to change.

The relational elements are precisely the ones that postmodernism over-emphasizes, going so far as to indicate that reality hinges on what the community thinks is real. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that community, real, genuine community, is a powerful thing. That is why I found myself nodding vigorously when he wondered why it is that for hundreds of years “the climax of many church services has been preaching.” Though he acknowledges exceptions, and does not denigrate the importance of preaching, he notes that the sermon is not described in the Bible as the center, the ‘climax,’ of Christian community. The Corinthians seemed to have the ‘love feast’ as the climax of their meetings, for example.

He concludes this section with some provocative observations and suggestions. In relation to what I just mentioned, he points out that churches which emphasize the Eucharist are beginning to grow “after years of decline.” Ferber suggests it is because of the relational aspects of the Eucharist.

I will take it one further: our services have virtually distilled the Eucharist to its most minimal components- the bread, the wine, taken together with the words of institution. With the ‘minimum requirements’ present, much of the Church seems to be content to run people through the sacrament as though it were an assembly line, as though there was nothing more to the event than receiving the elements. And that includes churches which emphasize the Eucharist. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn’t just go all the way and put a drive through window on the side of the church. Why not? They receive the elements. The Words of Institution was there.

But what if the power of the Lord’s Supper was never meant to be simply distilled into the elements, but also manifested in an extended fellowship event, where the community acting in love actually is one of the ‘minimum requirements’ for the sacrament? I propose that we could go even further than Ferber takes it and really incorporate the relational truths of Christianity into our communities. I have a strong belief that the Church would become more attractive to unbelievers in the face of genuine, committed communities. For that matter, many Christians would find it more attractive, too.

That was a bit of a tangent, I suppose, but it is indicative of the thought provoking nature of Ferber’s book. I suppose others might find their thoughts provoked in different ways.

Probably the most controversial chapter will be his chapter on ‘Gender,’ seeing as 1 Timothy has provided fuel for the debate about women in the church for generations. But I would like to comment instead on the aptness of his comments on Family instead. It ties back into the conversation about community.

It is not very often that Christians talk very much about the importance of the Biblical model of the Family, especially in relation to how the church conducts itself, so I was very glad he tackled it. (I suppose he had to if it was a commentary on 1 Timothy). With divorce rates as high in the Church as outside it, it cannot be disputed that we have much to do in this area. One of the things that concerns me is that the Christian community tends to be activists regarding the Family as expressed in society. I mean, for example, that we have strong feelings about something like gay marriage. I’d feel better about our efforts in that regards if we were actually modeling healthy families within the Christian community. In theory, you’d want to do both, I suppose. The reality is that we aren’t.

It is hard to imagine how persuasive we’re going to be in the public sphere regarding ideal family structures when families are crumbling all around us within the Christian community.

It seems to me that the approach we might want to consider taking today is first getting our act together. Then we’ll be in a position to advocate for our positions because then it will be self-evident how much healthier they really are. This is all again beyond Ferber’s recommendations but thoughts inspired by his comments. My feeling is that we need more talk about this subject. In my ministry experience relational issues were always prominent, and mine wasn’t even as a pastor. I can’t imagine how tough it is for pastors themselves.

In conclusion, I suspect that Pomo Timmy will be something that many readers find to be thought provoking, even if they don’t agree with his conclusions and suggestions. At the very least, watching as a letter that was written two thousand years ago is shown to be directly relevant to the life of the Church today is something worth seeing. On the back of the book it reads: “If you are concerned about the direction of contemporary western society and the current state of the church, this is the book for you.”

And that is the truth.

Christian or non-Christian, pro-life or not, I would like to hear your thoughts.  Here are some questions you could answer:

• Have you ever changed your mind about abortion?  What caused it?
• Did your beliefs drive your views on abortion?
• Do you agree that there is a connection between one’s belief system and their position on abortion?  Why or why not, and how does your story show that?

Please email me your answers to sntjohnny@sntjohnny.com.   Though I may talk about the results, I will be sure not to ever include any names.  Please spread the word about my little poll if you think the matter important.

Here is the link to the audio of the presentation and you’ll note that he has made his power point available as well.  (Sntjohnny.com is slide 43 but it ain’t like you haven’t seen my page ;)  )

He mentions the Tuskegee Study, where people in the US were exposed to Syphillis and intentionally left untreated.  I would add the government sponsorship of Planned Parenthood beginning with its founder, Margaret Sanger is another example.  The Wiki article I just cited there says:  “Sanger was a progressive force ahead of her time. However, her racist ideology and advocacy for eugenics are positions which have not survived her.”  Nonsense.  Consider the recent ’sting’ operation where callers to Planned Parenthood wanted to donate money, but only if the money went to abort black babies “because we have too many black people.”  Planned Parenthood accepted the money.  Of course they would.  Our government gives this organization millions of dollars.

These examples relate to the black community itself, but we could mention the interning of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War 2, or Watergate, or J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI.  These examples will serve for those on the Liberal Democrat side.  If Christians are right, then the extermination of some 40,000,000 unborn infants tops the list of calamities derived from government abuse.  I’m sure we could all come up with our own examples.

Here is the point:  the government is capable of such things but knowing that you should NOT BE A DEMOCRAT.  Literally the only hope for minimizing such abuses is to limit the size and scope of government.  The more powers you give to the government to help you, the more they have to hurt you.  When the government is as big and massive as our own it is easy enough to hide things if you want, at least for a little while.  So, it is ironic that the very community which has suffered at the hands of the government the most (excepting the millions of aborted children, of course.  We could guess their political affiliation now if they could speak from the grave) is also largely loyal to the Democrat party that will continue to make such abuses plausible and possible.

Here is the deal:  the Christian doctrine of original sin is not a mere doctrine.  It is a fact of reality.  Deny it at your peril.  Wright is correct when he argues that the government is capable of horror.  We’re left scratching our heads, then, as to why he’d be backing the party which perpetuates the conditions that allow those same horrors to continue.

A limited government with checks and balances is what we need.  If you’re a Christian and you wish to retort something to the effect that “We Christians should care about the poor, the down trodden, the orphans!” I reply you’re certainly right.  WE should care.  We shouldn’t be handing over to the government the duties that rightfully belong to the Christian community.   If you’re a Democrat Christian out of such commendable motivations then I urge you to go to your next church meeting and raise holy hell… not that people be more supportive of Big Government but that people get off their frickin butts and stop behaving as though the Church is a social club.

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?  Are you not to judge those inside?  God will judge those outside.”  1 Corinthians 5:12-13

That is a message that Reverend Wright certainly needs to hear.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

As promised, I have completed a bulletin insert for the upcoming release of CS Lewis’s Prince Caspian. It is available for download in PDF right above.

Prince Caspian is due out in middle of May, so I do realize that I’m pushing things just a little late. There are perhaps only 2-4 Sundays that the insert could go in but I think (hope) that will work out.

Here are other bulletin inserts produced by this ministry.

I am available to do presentations on the Chronicles of Narnia. That page has information about a presentation for the entire Narnia series. This page has information on the Christian themes in Prince Caspian.

Why should anyone care? Why should Christians care? Trends in atheism are as discernible as trends in anything else and many agree (even ‘moderate’ atheists will sometimes agree) that the current trends are ominous. Moreover, if Christians want to reach out to their atheistic or agnostic friends, they will need to know what their friends are reading.

The “Studies in Atheism” course allows atheists to speak for themselves. Some response is given but it is primarily about understanding the forces and influences driving the ‘New Atheists’ along with systematically describing the views which atheists tend to have in common.

Beginning two days before the Atheism course, AOA will be offering courses on “Basic Christianity,” the “Reliability of the New Testament Documents,” and the “Formation of the New Testament.” These courses begin on April 28th.

If “Studies in Atheism” let’s atheists speak for themselves, Basic Christianity is offers an objective presentation on ‘mere Christianity,’ allowing Christians through the centuries to speak for themselves. What do the billions of Christians have in common in their beliefs? Why do they believe what they believe? How are those beliefs derived? This three week course is a broad overview and introduction to the foundations of the Christian faith and will help anyone who aims to understand what Christianity really is, rather than a caricature.

The “Reliability of the New Testament Documents” and “Formation of the New Testament” course make use of the books by the high powered Biblical scholar FF Bruce. For those who do not have the books, as much information from the Internet that can be used will be made available, as well. (this is true for all the courses). Anyone who wants to go beyond Sunday School explanations for why Christians worth their salt trust the Bible and the New Testament in particular will find these courses useful.

Many of the courses make use of Youtube presentations of important voices in Christian scholarship and in some cases video lessons by yours truly are used, as well.

To participate in the courses,

• Go to the Academy: www.academyofapologetics.com
• Enroll. (Don’t forget to confirm your email address before going on to the next step.)
• Sign up for a course.

Then get ready to learn!

If he did, that is a prima facie case for the existence of God, and not just any God, the Christian God, and it also undermines naturalism.

The Athanatos Online Academy’s course on the historical evidence of the resurrection seeks to expose the fact that virtually every and all argument against the resurrection boils down to the assumption that philosophical naturalism is the true account of the world, or if it is not the true one, it is the one we must prefer.  It is all well and good to adopt a methodological naturalism in some areas of inquiry, but if the very question is whether or not naturalism is the true account, or whether or not non-naturalistic or even super-naturalistic realities offer the true account, then assuming naturalism is clearly circular reasoning and begging the question.

Everyone knows this.  I have only just now recapitulated the arguments of Christian apologists ranging from CS Lewis to William Lane Craig.  Atheists know this is true.  They just don’t think it is unreasonable.  For those of us who wish to build our view of the world based on what is real without deciding in advance what is real, I submit that the Academy’s course on the matter is just the ticket.

It begins Friday, April 25th and lasts for just two weeks.  William Lane Craig’s book “The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus” is the ‘text’ book.  Alternative materials are provided from the Internet but participants in the course are strongly advised to pick up the book.

Positive arguments for the resurrection form the core of the course but objections to those arguments are introduced as well, as one would certainly expect.

The Academy portal page is:  http://www.athanatosministries.org/academy/

In order to sign up and pay for the course you will have to enroll in the apologetics academy.

Here is the direct link to the course on the Historicity of the Resurrection.

by Chris Skates and Dan Tankersley

• Paperback: 272 pages
• Publisher: Xulon Press (September 25, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 160477049X
• ISBN-13: 978-1604770490
• Website: www.bereadyministries.com

Book Description
Noah was in shock. It had been nearly one hundred twenty years since God told him this flood would come. Now that it was here, he couldn’t bear it. Noah understood quite well what was taking place outside and why God had determined it had to be that way. Still, the reality was agonizing. Why, oh why, did they not listen? Noah thought. He shed no tears. He had cried so much and so often in these recent days that his body could produce no more. He continued to stare into his lap. Noah wished the screams outside were not real. He wished to awaken from this nightmare. But he could only endure it. As the rain pounded the roof and the people outside suffered, minutes were like hours. Familiar voices were begging him to open the door. Noah knotted his fists into his cloak and tried to hold on.

A review by Anthony Horvath, All Rights Reserved

There are some definite strengths to the story. For example, if the Biblical account is to be trusted, it is almost certain that when the waters began to rise, people would recognize that Noah hadn’t been insane after all. Their desperate pleas would have haunted the occupants of the ark. It is hard enough for people to believe that so many people deserved to be wiped out that the acknowledgment of the real effect this would have had on Noah and his family would have had helps reveal the magnitude of the event.

Another strength of the book is in its description of the kind of evil things that may have been going on in the world. It is easy to imagine that everyone was innocent in the world and so shake our fists at God, but what if it really was the case that they weren’t innocent and that they really had it coming? If they were involved in human sacrifice, or in more recent terms, frying Jews by the hundreds of thousands in prison ovens, wouldn’t you want God to take action?

The Rain discusses such possibilities so vividly that one of the authors, Chris Skates, feels compelled to offer an explanation for what some might think is ‘overly graphic or offensive.’ Skeptics are quick to scorn the justice of wiping out the whole world, but I suppose the skeptics would want God to intervene in something like, say, the Holocaust. The Genesis text does not explicitly tell us what people were doing but it isn’t fair to assume they were actually all on their best behavior, their only ‘crime’ choosing not to believe in Yahweh.

The Rain must be commended for the hard look at pain and suffering and evil and the deep unease any decent person might feel if such measures were taken.

Another strength of the book is laying out some of the possibilities for why the story is reported the way it is. In other words, skeptics like to try to think of ways in which certain features of the ark are ridiculous on their face. Though not a huge emphasis of the book, it does provide statements here and there that would undermine such preconceptions. If one wanted to consider Genesis innocent until proven guilty The Rain might help in its defense. If one insists on considering it guilty until proven innocent probably no evidence or narrative explanation will vindicate it.

I have to feel, though, that most skeptics are not going to be able to handle this book. Despite the fact that it addresses many of their common objections head on, since the book unashamedly respects the Genesis account it will immediately be dismissed. For a more objective reader who might be interested in what three scant chapters of Genesis might look like if played out into a longer story, some valuable insight will be had.

Christians who accept the Genesis account as actually happening might still find some surprises. I have to say that the authors raised issues that I can’t say I’d ever even thought of myself. For example, I’d failed to realize that Noah’s family were sexual creatures and hundreds of days on a boat in tight quarters- with no privacy- would take a toll.

My thinking is that Christian readers ages 17 and up will be the ones who most enjoy The Rain. It deals with difficult issues which need to be dealt with and makes the Gospel connection clear and plain. One is reminded of Jesus’ warnings about the end: two will be in a field… God keeps his promises. His promises to be merciful… and his promises to be just.

A fine quote, if I might say so myself.

http://www.christianpost.com/Expelled_Explodes_into_Top_10_Box_Office.htm

We are using William Lane Craig’s book, “The Son Rises:  The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus” as the textbook and scouring resources on the Internet for corroborative materials, in particular corroborations of claims and evidences that Craig makes.  In addition to presenting the positive arguments for the Resurrection, the course will also cover the main objections that have been raised by skeptics over the centuries.  In particular, students will be invited to document how the presupposition that the supernatural isn’t real, or, supernatural claims are more suspect than others (like, off the charts more suspect).

The course begins April 25th.  The Academy Portal is http://www.athanatosministries.org/academy/

In order to enroll, you’ll need to proceed to the actual ‘classroom’ area, sign up for a user account, and then after you confirm your email, enroll in the course.  Other courses are available as well, of course.

For that matter, “Christ Promised in the Old Testament” begins tomorrow.  If you moved fast, you could still enroll in it.

The premise of that