Archive for the 'faith' Category

Fast-acting AND long-lasting

Published
by
Ken
on July 17, 2007
in belief, christianity, faith, jesus and mysticism
. 2 Comments

So I’m reading Thomas Merton and D.T. Suzuki on Christian and Buddhist mysticism. I am really feeling a connection with mysticism and how it allows for more than one answer even when the multiple answers appear contradictory. But I’m also feeling very frustrated and … hopeless. I don’t have time for mysticism! I’ve got too little time to deal with my normal, everyday life let alone work on attaining enlightenment. I’m lucky if I get an hour of meditation in a day. It’s especially difficult because the only time I can really meditate is when my daughter takes a nap — late night meditation has not been going well lately. So I’ve got to be ready when she goes to sleep because she sometimes sleeps an hour or less. So, unless I’m “on the cushion” toot sweet, I have to stop “in the middle.” Plus, an hour a day seems trivial and worthless compared to the Desert Fathers who left society to find God. Most of them still had issues years later so how the hell am I supposed to get anywhere still immersed in society and meditating an hour a day?

Where is the get-it-now answer to my problem? Where is the infomercial that promises results before I can finish giving my credit card number? It’s right here, all around us. It’s called mainstream Christianity! The fast-acting and long-lasting solution. Get saved right now and you’re saved forever — and they really mean forever! This is the greatest delusion that Christianity perpetrates on the “lost” but it’s also why it’s so popular — it’s easy.

In a way, it’s too easy. But it’s also the most difficult thing. (paradox — love it!) It’s easy because all you have to do is “believe in Him” and you “shall not perish but have eternal life.” But, at least for me, it’s the most difficult thing because what I have to believe is unbelievable and amazingly incomplete! They make it sound simple. “Accept Jesus Christ into your heart.” In Billy Graham’s column, his answer to every single problem was to accept Jesus into your life. But what the hell does that mean??? No one tells you that. And that’s the great delusion — this one time act, according to them, which can be done in a moment of weakness or desperation or terror, is enough to counterbalance a lifetime of doing the most rotten, despicable, awful, repugnant, evil, vile things imaginable. Salvation, to them, is not a life-long process. It’s one single, solitary, isolated, independent act.

Sure, you’re supposed to grow in your Christian life but how much can you really grow going to church a couple hours a week? At least my parents drug us to church twice on Sundays plus Wednesday nights! And if you don’t make any progress well that’s ok, too, because God’s grace is sufficient and as long as you confess all your shortcomings and you really promise to try harder then it’s all hunky dory. All you really have to do is read your Bible and pray. Well, and look the part. That’s the most important thing — nice suit and tie on Sunday morning to cover up all that you don’t want the rest of them to see.

And there’s sermons on the fruits of the Spirit and how to have the faith-filled life and all that jazz. But those are offset by sermons on eternal security and how Paul even had trouble doing what was right. A little coaxing to keep moving and grow but a lot of reassurance if you just can’t quite do it.

So, go ahead and buy into their delusion if you want to. Convince yourself that going to church on Sunday morning and reading the “feel-good” passages in the Bible are enough. Keep a stiff upper lip during the really bad times so no one knows you have doubts. But that’s not what I’m doing. And I may not get very far in this lifetime but at least I’m trying to do something that means something — to me, at least.

Sphere: Related Content

Christianity is like working for the government

Published
by
Ken
on June 21, 2007
in belief, christian fundamentalism, christianity, faith and mysticism
. 0 Comments

Well, it’s like what working for the government used to be. And it’s like what being a tenured professor used to be. In other words, you couldn’t get fired. The ultimate job security. You could sit around and do enough to just get by. And nobody cared a whole lot.

And that’s what Christianity is like. Once you “accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your own personal savior” you’re on easy street. Sure you should go to church and you should read your Bible and you should pray. But, hey, it’s not works that save you. It’s God’s grace. You don’t deserve anything at all from God so going to church or not going to church isn’t going to change anything. Yeah, yeah there’s all that talk about the Fruits of the Spirit and your faith is demonstrated by your works. But really, in the end, all you have to do is “accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your own personal savior.”

Most Christians who do go to church and read their Bibles just end up listening. They listen to the “feel good about yourself and your life” sermons and they listen to encouraging words and rationalizations for why they’re believe what they’re told to believe. How much do they really work at their salvation? How much do they really grow in their relationship with Jesus?

And this is what I was whining about in my last post. Mainstream and Fundamentalist Christianity is all about getting people to believe. What happens after that doesn’t matter because all you have to do is believe. It’s so freakin’ easy that anyone can do it! Which is the attraction. You don’t have to be a monk or in a convent or work at it full time. You don’t have to quit your day job and all your extra curricular activities. Go to church on Sunday morning and you’re good to go. A Wednesday evening prayer meeting (does anyone do that anymore?) once in a while for a little extra credit. From day one, you’re good to go. Accept Jesus Christ one minute, die the next, and you’re being ushered past the pearly gates into your own private mansion on your own private cul-de-sac of gold.

But what about the mystical versions of religions? The mystics have to work. And work hard! A lifetime of meditation, contemplation, introspection. And what happens if a mystic dies the day after she takes up mysticism? Well, she gets to start all over again next time around. Meditation — training the mind — is extremely difficult. But that’s how the mystic encounters God. It’s not an instant conversion type experience.

But there are those of us for whom the easy way out does not work. We desire a much more intimate relationship with God — more intimate than hearing about him while sitting in church on Sunday. More intimate than just reading what he’s said in the past. More intimate than talking to the wall and pretending he’s listening. And so, because we desire more, we must work more. And so, I’ll get back on “the cushion” tomorrow and meditate again. Take the good days with the bad. I’ll think about true mystics like Suzuki, Merton, Eckhart, Wilber, etc. who were/are much further along the path than I’ll ever be in this lifetime and I’ll be envious of them. I’ll even bitch and moan a little bit about it but I’ll still get back on the cushion tomorrow.

Sphere: Related Content

That’s just not freakin’ fair

Published
by
Ken
on June 18, 2007
in belief, christian fundamentalism, christianity, faith, jesus and mysticism
. 2 Comments

So, I’m trying to meditate again. And it’s hard work! Lately I’ve been fighting my body more than my mind. I get fidgety and I just can’t talk myself into staying still. I’m not giving up — no matter what — but it’s still frustrating some most days.

And then I start thinking about how I have a lifetime of meditation ahead of me. A lifetime of sitting and working on quieting my mind. A lifetime of working hard to focus and try and reach the next level, get past the next koan. A lifetime with no assurance of achieving kensho. I read what some of the Christian mystics write and they don’t see themselves very far along the path and that’s all they do! How can I, a non-monk regular working Dad, supposed to make any progress?

And then I start thinking about fundamentalist, evangelical, literalist Christians. Believe in Jesus and you get into heaven. Live a 100% sinful, evil life and repent at the last moment and get into heaven. Simply accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior and get into heaven. It just takes one act of simple belief and your problems are solved. Sure you need to live your life in a certain way but the act of believing seals your fate. It’s so simple a caveman could do it. After you “do it,” even if you fail and sin and stumble, a simple confession makes it all right as rain again. Read your Bible, pray, go to church and you maintain your status of “saved.”

It’s all so simple and all so unfair that I cannot “simply” believe.

Sphere: Related Content

44 acting like 4

Published
by
Ken
on June 16, 2007
in born again, christian apologetics, faith, jesus and logic
. 2 Comments

Ok, so we have to be as little children to believe in Jesus but then we grow in the word and move from milk to meat and learn to defend our faith to anyone who asks. The problem is that many of the people “defending” their faith sound like 44 year olds defending a 4 year old belief in something like Santa Claus. At least the people do who maintain a very rigid, literal view of the Bible and Jesus and God. Just look at my posts on Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacharias. Pick up and really read The Case for Christ. Strobel accepts things without questioning and without the probing questions one would expect from a journalist — exactly as a child would. Which is fine and dandy for new converts to Christianity but when you start holding that unquestioning faith up as a logical defense, it falls apart under its own inconsistencies. Defending your faith means you have to go above and beyond blind faith.

Sphere: Related Content

4 or 44 — which is it?

Published
by
Ken
on June 14, 2007
in born again, christian apologetics, faith and jesus
. 0 Comments

“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

or

“… always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks …”

 

and why is Jesus for the 4 year olds and Paul is for the 44 year olds?

Sphere: Related Content

What do you do with a rich young ruler?

Published
by
Ken
on June 12, 2007
in born again, christianity, faith, jesus, money and wealth
. 4 Comments

(No, this is not a post about drinking songs.)

Most of you, I’m sure, know the story of the rich young ruler who wanted eternal life and Jesus told him to sell all that he possessed. It was in his comments to his disciples after the young man left where he makes his camel and the eye of the needle remark. So, I’m sure most of you know the story but what do you do with it?

I was asking myself this very question while reading Wisdom of the Desert by Thomas Merton (it’s actually a translation by Merton of things ancient hermits said). These hermits gave up everything to go out into the desert and try to find God. What really got me thinking about this was reading how these hermits considered themselves unworthy sinners after years and years and years of searching and fasting and praying. The spiritual practice I do is absolutely nothing in comparison so is there any hope for me? Any at all?

So, I started asking myself: is Jesus really asking me — nay, telling me — to sell everything I own? How rich is “rich” — how rich must I be before it gets in the way? I think a sense of what Jesus was saying is found in the disciples’ reaction to his camel comment. “They were even more astonished and said to Him, ‘Then who can be saved?’ ” They didn’t breath a sigh of relief at this comment and thank their lucky stars they weren’t rich. They wondered who — including themselves — could be saved. I think this because Peter then starts defending the disciples by pointing out the painfully obvious fact that they had left everything for Jesus. Of course Jesus knew this so why did it need to be said?

So, again, I’m asking myself: Do I need to leave everything in order to follow Jesus? Of course, no self-respecting pastor is going to urge his congregation to leave everything for Jesus. No way, no how. If they did, who would pay for refinishing the hardwood floors in the sanctuary and the upkeep on the beautiful stained glass and the organ tuning and his salary! Don’t forget his salary! No. The pastor is going to talk about “attachment” to things or “letting money rule your life” or “tithing” or “coveting” or some other lousy rationalization.

The way I see it, owning something is no different than being attached to it or having it rule over you. I cannot own a car and not be attached to it. If I were not attached, I would not lock it. I would have the absolute minimum possible amount of insurance that still kept me in compliance with state laws. I’d let any of my friends drive it. I’d let my friends’ kids eat ice cream in the back seat. I’d offer to help all my friends use my car to move.

I cannot own a house and not be attached to it. If I were not attached, I would not lock it. I would not have an alarm system. I would have the absolute minimum possible amount of insurance that allowed me to get a mortgage. Scratch that. I would have a house that I could buy outright so that my mortgage payment never troubled me or kept me from tithing and giving the rest of what I owned to the poor and needy. So, I would basically be living in a shack which I probably would not be that attached to.

And what about my family? Jesus talks about leaving family to follow him. Surely he meant that I “leave” my daughter once she is grown and out of the house, right? He can’t possibly be talking about leaving her now when she is 14 months old!! Can he?

I just don’t know. What I do know is that you can think what you want about Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler but as for me, I know I’m attached to my family and to my things. I’ve got financial commitments and I make financial decisions that do not leave a whole lot left over for giving. I make decisions about what I do and when I do it that do not leave a whole lot of time for spiritual practice. And I’m not sure, yet, what it all means and what I’m supposed to do or what I will end up doing about it. But I am sure that these questions will be on my mind.

And as I write this, I feel that this is very inadequate — both my expression of my thoughts and what I’m going to do about it. “These questions will be on my mind.” What the hell does that mean? It’s meaningless. Less than meaningless. But the seed is there. I just need to let it grow. And that, itself, is trite and stupid but I cannot express it otherwise.

Sphere: Related Content

Does Not Play Well With Others (v0.1)

Published
by
Ken
on May 26, 2007
in christian fundamentalism, faith, judging others and tolerance
. 3 Comments

The following is a work-in-progress. It’s a draft I wrote for a Writers Group I go to once a month (more or less). I’ll be editing, revising, reworking, redoing it in the future and will post the new versions. Your comments will help me fine tune my thoughts. Thank you in advance.

Does Not Play Well With Others

In this age of diversity, tolerance is required. Tolerance of those diverse from ourselves and tolerance of those so much like ourselves that we can’t stand them. Yet, there are those who are not, and do not claim to be, and claim that they will never be religiously tolerant. The Christian Fundamentalist and Christian Evangelical come to mind. They want to dictate what others believe and how others act. Putting aside the issues of hypocrisy and assuming they are on the up and up, how do we deal with them? Is it possible to tolerate them and let them believe what they want to believe? If so, how do we go about doing this? If not, then what, exactly, do we do when you can’t live with someone and you can’t shoot them?

In other words, how do we tolerate those who do not play well with others?

So as to not “stoop” to their level, we cannot dictate to them what they can or cannot believe. This seems very reasonable because that is the major complaint we have of them. So, is that the answer? Do we let the Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals believe what they want and preach what they want and we do on with our lives and with our beliefs?

The answer appears to be “yes” but with a major caveat: Keep your beliefs to yourself and don’t let me catch wind of them. This is the same basic attitude we have grown into regarding smoking. Used to be that a smoker could smoke anywhere she liked as long as she didn’t force a cigarette on us. But now, we are bothered by the smell and fear for our lives and so we’ve told the smokers that they can’t smoke just anywhere. They must smoke outside. And then we started getting bothered by having to walk past the smokers congregated just outside the main doors on cold, rainy days and so we told them they had to move further away or couldn’t smoke anywhere on the premises.

This is the attitude that is brewing towards the Fundamentalist. Don’t bother me with your ideas. Don’t preach to me as I walk into my place of business. Don’t try to influence the government with your crazy ideas. Just go off by yourselves and believe what you want to believe.

The problem is that this is impossible. Not because of the person but because of the belief. Pretty much everyone believes that murder is wrong. We have enacted legislation to this effect and enforce it daily. There may be some discussion as to degree of guilt and appropriate punishment but there are clear-cut cases of murder. No one has an issue with the belief that murder is wrong being inflicted on everyone regardless of race, creed, etc. Even if someone does not believe that murder is wrong and wants to murder in private without bothering us about it, we generally do not accept their belief and still hold them accountable.

Now consider the stance that abortion is murder — cut and dried murder. Anyone holding that belief would be considered immoral if they let others committing or facilitating murder by abortion get away with it. Even if that person did so in private and didn’t bother us with it.

By condemning those who publicly and vehemently oppose abortion and those who try to get anti-abortion legislation passed are we not condemning their beliefs and telling them that they can’t believe whatever they want but must believe what we tell them to?

Separation of church and state seems to be a much discussed issue these days. The separation of moral ideals and religious ideals seems to be the crux. But what if your morality is a direct result of your religion? What if your religion dictates your morals? How can you separate them?

What would you say about a Christian who went to church and prayed piously and tithed and was a deacon or elder on Sunday but then cheated and lied and stole on Monday? A hypocrite, no doubt. If the Christian does not live his Christian life outside of church, then what kind of Christian is he? How can a truly Christian woman NOT shade all her decisions and actions by what she believes? We all do this; perhaps implicitly but we all do this. Some beliefs are not religious in nature but the principle, I think, is the same. Is it reasonable to expect, then, that a religious president not make decisions based on his religion?

The only real way to effect a separation of church and state is to have atheists running the country. I doubt that despite all the so-called, self-proclaimed liberals in this country that a Bertrand Russell or a Richard Dawkins could come close to winning an election. We may not want a president who is influenced by his religion but sure as hell don’t want a president who doesn’t go to some kind of church.

Sphere: Related Content

Someone’s not doing their job!

Published
by
Ken
on May 23, 2007
in belief, evil, faith, god and religion
. 1 Comment

Atomic bomb dropped on NagasakiWe experience tragedy. Whether it’s a hurricane, an earthquake, the early or unexpected death of a loved one, a mass shooting, or a terrorist attack which kills dozens or hundreds or thousands … we experience tragedy. And we have, as a race, experienced tragedy for thousands of years (or longer, depending on your viewpoint). So, I wonder why tragedy still takes us by surprise. Why are we always left reeling and searching for answers when bad things happen? Why do we not have the answers; or at least an inkling of an answer?

It seems that instead of seeking meaning in a tragic event we try to figure out who is to blame. It’s all God’s fault or the President’s or this agency’s or that company’s or that person’s or the Devil’s. As long as we can blame someone and focus on bringing that person to justice or bad-mouthing him or her long and hard enough we can get past the event and get on with our lives. But by doing this, we don’t learn a damn thing! Which is why, the next time something bad happens, we are dazed and confused all over again.

I think that it is religion’s place to give us reasons for tragedy. After all, religion lives with ideas about God and evil and morality and the after-life and the before-life. And religions have been trying to explaining the unknowable to us for as long as we can remember. So why, after thousands and thousands of years of religion, haven’t we gotten an answers that can be used in the real world? Why does tragedy still knock us off our feet?

Some of it, of course, is probably that we are not listening because we’re too busy blaming. But if our religious leaders have the answers, why are they not making us sit down and shut up and listen? And if they don’t have the answers, why not? Did the religious leaders of long ago have the answers but they were lost? If no one ever had the answers, then what good are the religions we have?

Maybe it’s time to be open to new religions or further evolve our current religions so that we can get the answers we need so desperately.

Sphere: Related Content

You call sitting for three days and nights under a tree being sincere???

Published
by
Ken
on January 31, 2007
in bible, christian fundamentalism, faith, god, hell, jesus, josh mcdowell and religion
. 0 Comments

Ok, where was I? Oh, that’s right … in the middle of a magic trick. How do you let God be 100% just and at the same time don’t let him condemn people who could never have heard about Jesus? Easy as pie. Simply say along with Josh McDowell: “No one will be condemned for not ever hearing of Jesus Christ” [Answers to Tough Questions, p. 121]. Cool! So, everyone who doesn’t hear will be in heaven, right? Uh … no. In the next sentence, McDowell says, “That person will be condemned for violating his own moral standard.” Hmmm. I have two problems with this.

First, “his own moral standard?” I thought everything depended on violating God’s Law. Or not believing in Jesus Christ. What does a person’s moral standard have to do with anything? Talk about a sliding scale. So, a totally immoral person will get into Heaven while a very moral — although not infallible — person won’t?

Second, even though this sounds like “they” have a chance this is really only another rationalization. If everyone is a sinner at birth then, by definition, no one will be able to live up to any moral standard worthy of being called a moral standard.

So far, “they” don’t have much of a chance. But, a few pages earlier McDowell says,

“Although the Scriptures never explicitly teach that someone who has never heard of Jesus can be saved, we do believe it infers this. We do believe that every person will have an opportunity to repent, and that God will not exclude anyone because he happened to be born at the wrong place and at the wrong time.” (Emphasis mine)

Ah, despite the inference status of this statement, this does sound a little more optimistic. If everyone has an opportunity to repent, then those in Hell really do make the choice. Does he quote chapter and verse to back up this belief? Well, the next sentence quotes John 7:17

If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.

I didn’t really get what the New American Standard Bible (quoted above) was trying to say so I looked at a couple other versions and here is the New International Version:

If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

All the other more “common language” versions seemed to agree that Jesus was talking about someone who is hearing or has heard the teachings of Jesus. And I don’t see how anyone could hear his teachings without hearing about Jesus. So, how does this back up the inference? It sounds to me like just another rationalization to make Christians feel good about their all-loving God.

Even though there is no teaching to back up this inference, there is an example in Acts 10 which may set some precedent for it. Cornelius was a very religious man who prayed to God and asked God to reveal himself to him. God sent an angel and told Cornelius to send for the Apostle Peter who came and preached Jesus Christ and Cornelius was saved. This is all very good, but if people were constantly knocking on Christians’ doors saying “God told so-and-so to send for you. Please come preach Jesus to him,” don’t you think we’d hear about it?

But this doesn’t stop some Christians from continuing to believe it. They are so sure that if anyone is sincere enough that God will reveal himself to her so she can be saved. This means that Siddhartha Gautama (aka The Buddha), for example, was not sincere enough in his search. The seven years he spent learning from every different type of teacher he could find was not sincere enough. Being close to death from starvation and sitting for three days and three nights (sound a little familiar??) under a bodhi tree was not sincere enough. Obviously not because God would have sent someone to preach to him if he was sincere.

Kind of makes you wonder if anyone has a chance.

But now I want to return to a thought I mentioned in the last post. If the fate of all the souls in the world depend on hearing about Jesus, doesn’t this put the fate of all these souls on the hands of every Christian? Obviously yes, but you’ll have to stay tuned to see what else I have to say about it …

Sphere: Related Content

Some Christian apologists do a grave disservice to the Christian faith

Published
by
Ken
on January 23, 2007
in bible, christian apologetics, faith, josh mcdowell and logic
. 0 Comments

Last week, I dusted off my copy of Josh McDowell’s book, Answers to Tough Questions about the Christian Faith. McDowell is a Christian apologist. Apologetics is the field of study involved with the systematic defense of a position using historical evidence, philosophical arguments, and scientific investigation. So McDowell, in his book, attempts to logically prove all kinds of things about Christianity: Does God exist? Did Jesus exist? Did Jesus really perform miracles?

I totally understand McDowell’s desire to write such a book and defend Christianity. I think he was basically trying to do exactly what I am trying to do with this blog-o-mine: articulate what he believes and why he believes it. And for this I do not fault him in the least. What I do fault is the extent to which he goes. He tries to prove every aspect of Christianity and leave no room for doubt. Or faith!

After all, what is faith? According to wikipedia, “faith is a belief, trust, or confidence, not based on logic, reason, or empirical data.” If I prove to you that the Christian God exists and is the only god out there and that the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus really existed and was the Son of God and yada yada yada, then where is there any room for faith? If I really, truly prove all this, then there is no way you can doubt and no way you can demonstrate any faith. After all, who needs any faith that electrons exist or that the earth revolves around the sun? It’s been proven.

So, McDowell is doing a grave disservice to the Christian Faith by trying to eliminate the need for faith. But the good news (for the Christian Faith, anyway) is that I think it totally impossible for him to succeed. Impossible for two reasons. First, I don’t think God will let him succeed because he, McDowell, is basically trying to ruin things for Him, God. Second, since faith is not based on logic, it is impossible to logically prove anything in which you have faith; if you could prove it, it wouldn’t be a matter of faith.

But that’s not all. McDowell is doing another, even more grave disservice to the Christian faith; more grave because he is succeeeding. He is succeeding in looking foolish because his “logical” arguments are anything but logical; his reasoning is anything but reasonable. But don’t take my word for it, read his book. But I’ll give a preview anyway …

Let’s examine the tough question: “Are Christians guilty of circular reasoning?” Here is a summary of his argument for proving that the Bible is God’s Word without the use of circular reasoning, i.e. without first assuming that the Bible is God’s Word:

  1. Demonstrate that the Scriptures are basically reliable and trustworthy historical documents by applying the ordinary test of historical criticism to the Scriptures.
  2. Realize that Jesus Christ claims to be the Son of God based on His forthcoming resurrection from the dead.
  3. Examine the evidence for the resurrection contained in the reliable historical document proved in #1, aka the Bible.
  4. Realize that since Jesus is God, He speaks with authority on all matters.
  5. Show that Jesus claimed the Old Testament to be the Word of God by quoting from the New Testament.
  6. Show that Jesus claimed the writers of the New Testament would be guided by the Holy Spirit in their writing the New Testament by quoting from the New Testament.
  7. Since both Old and New Testaments are from God, we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God’s Word.
  8. Q.E.D.

Whew! That’s quite the proof. Each step seems to follow logically from the previous ones and he does, indeed, end up with the right answer without assuming the answer to be true. Kudos!

There are several objections I take with this proof one of which is: what does he mean by “basically reliable and trustworthy”? But I’m going to focus on one that is only a little more subtle. And that is: what does he mean by applying the “ordinary test of historical criticism” to the Scriptures? This is rather important as it’s the basis for his entire proof! I did a Google search on this phrase and came up with two hits. One of them was a site that appears to reproduce McDowell’s argument verbatim and the other uses the same line of reasoning to prove that Jesus was the Son of God. Hmmm… not much help there.

McDowell does discuss archaeology and the Bible, so maybe that will help. What he says in the answer to that “tough question” is that the Bible mentions some places and people which archaeology has verified did exist. In other words, “many biblical pasages are historically accurate.” His examples:

  • The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in some of the 15,000 tablets uncovered at Tell Mardikh.
  • Archaeological proof that a ruler named Belshazzar existed; that the Hittites had a vast empire; that King Sargon ruled; that the “matters that touch upon history in the Book of Acts are demonstrably accurate.”

Again, we’ll ignore some potential problems such as how were the cities mentioned — the way we would mention New York City or the way we would mention Atlantis — and how many, exactly, is “some” tablets. Instead we’ll continue with his answer and see where it leads.

After citing these few examples, McDowell then concludes that “the findings of archaeology have verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.” From this starting point, McDowell starts a short narrative during which he continuously “ups the ante” and hopes no one notices:

  1. “the findings of archaeology have verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.”
  2. “[archaeology] is very helpful in illustrating that many biblical passages are historically accurate.”
  3. “One cannot stress too strongly the importance of the Bible giving an accurate historical picture.”
  4. “Putting it another way, if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their accounts of the things that transpired…”

In one page — five short paragraphs — McDowell starts with “verified historical points” and ends up making comments about “accounts of the things that transpired” with no intervening justification. Just because the Bible gets a few names of people and places right, we are to trust it as a historically accurate document. Does that make sense? But he’s not done. Oh no! There’s another unjustified escalation …

  1. “it then follows that [the authors of Scripture] cannot be ruled out of court because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary.”

Wow! That’s quite a leap! Let me see if I got this figured out. Because the Bible mentions Sodom and Gomorrah and a couple rulers by name, it should not be questioned when it talks about people rising from the dead and virgin births and other “things out of the ordinary“?

While I continue scratching my head over that one, where were we and how did we get here? Oh, that’s right. We were looking at McDowell’s first premise in his proof that the Bible is the Word of God. For lack of any other explanation for the “ordinary test of historical criticism,” we shall assume he is talking about the archaeological verification of historical points of biblical record. So, with that assumption, his “proof” that the Bible is the Word of God stems entirely from the fact that the Bible mentions some verifiable people and places. Hmmm … more head scratching on that one. I know a few other books which get some historical “points” correct. Wonder if God wrote them, too?

In any case, McDowell does succeed in presenting a proof which does not employ circular reasoning. His proof, however, is very weak and the starting premise — the very foundation upon which all the other premises rely — is questionable at best. In my opinion, McDowell should stick to faith and forget the logic. Just say, “I believe the Bible is the Word of God” and leave it at that. Put the faith back in the Christian Faith!

But there’s a disadvantage with taking that stance — a loss of power. Once you give up the right to quote the Bible as a historical document that also happens to be God’s Word — which you do when you believe this on faith and don’t try to prove it — you give up the right to use the “Because The Bible Says So” defense. This means conversations with people who don’t share your faith become very difficult. No longer can you stand there and hurl Bible verses at them, parrying all their objections and arguments with Scriptural snippets. You actually have to think and perhaps draw a logical conclusion or two. You may even have to listen to them and try to understand their point of view. Worse yet, you may even be shown to be wrong! God forbid!

Sphere: Related Content