Posts
The media has exploded with coverage of the shocking murder of Dr. George Tiller. Dr. Tiller was known as one of only three doctors in the country who would perform "late term abortions" (defined as an abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy). Reportedly, he performed an estimated 60,000 late term abortions which made him a multi-millionaire. He contributed to Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius's campaign (a fact which Governor Sebelius dutifully tried to hide).
The result of the shooting has fanned the flames of the abortion debate in America and has set off a war between media outlets (particularly Fox News and MSNBC).
The shooting of Dr. Tiller is appalling. Vigilante justice is not justified in our society because we have the due process of law which allows us to rally to change laws through the electoral process. I have always understood the pro-life movement as a peaceful movement. Those of us involved in the pro-life movement are against, what we believe to be, a "violent act" committed against an unborn human being. We hold a high view of human life which should include respecting not only unborn children but the lives and well-being of those whom we disagree. This includes those who we would deem "political enemies".
David N. O’Steen, director the National Right to Life Committee released this statement on May 31, 2009: "National Right to Life extends its sympathies to Dr. Tiller’s family over this loss of life. Further, the National Right to Life Committee unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation. The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal." Indeed, everyone should express their thoughts and prayers toward the Tiller family during this time.
Going in a different direction, I'm not only offended by the murder of Dr. Tiller but am concerned about how some in the media are presenting this situation in light of the larger debate of partial-birth abortion (late term abortions).
I was watching Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC (his June 1st show). Throughout his program, Mr. Olbermann blamed personalities at Fox News and seemingly outspoken pro-life people in general for inciting violence against Dr. Tiller. He specifically mentioned Glenn Beck's name as well as Bill O'Reilly because both Mr. Beck and Mr. O'Reilly have apparently reported on their programs on the actions of Dr. Tiller and have repeatedly condemned his actions over the years.
I don't often listen to Glenn Beck or watch his show and I'm not a huge fan of Bill O'Reilly but I find the point that Mr. Olbermann was making deeply offensive. Has Mr. Beck or Mr. O'Reilly EVER advocated violence toward Dr. Tiller or any abortion doctor on their respective programs? Mr. Olbermann cited a whopping ZERO examples of them doing so. He played lots of clips of Mr. O'Reilly talking about how horrible the fact is that Dr. Tiller was killing thousands of unborn fetuses. Mr. O'Reilly was then blamed on this MSNBC show for inspiring the murder of Dr. Tiller.
Here is Mr. Olbermann's logic on this point:
1) Bill O'Reilly is deeply offended and against partial birth abortion. He repeatedly spoke out against this on his show.
2) Dr. Tiller was murdered by a right wing extremist (who belonged to an anti-government group).
Therefore, Mr. O'Reilly is responsible for inciting Dr. Tiller's death.
By this line of reasoning, any person who found Dr. Tiller's actions evil or reprehensible is apparently a co-conspirator in the death of Dr. Tiller. Especially if these people have verbally spoken out against such actions.
I personally have heard of Dr. Tiller long before his shooting. I have been deeply troubled and offended by this man's actions from the moment I heard about him. His actions were evil, they were immoral...this man ended the lives of an estimated 60,000 human beings. That is 60,000 potential United States citizens. Since the fetus is viable at this point of late term abortion and can live outside of the womb, I personally would call this infanticide.
Some in the media would argue that by writing this, I am condoning violence and wishing for people to hurt abortion doctors. I AM NOT! I am stating what I believe to be true about a person's actions. I would never and have never wished Dr. Tiller or any abortion doctor to be dead. Never! At the same time, I am offended by their actions.
With all of this, I hope that all of those in the pro-life movement would absolutely condemn violent actions against abortion doctors or pro-choice people. I pray that the movement would be peaceful and would work within the confines of the law of our government to debate and further our cause.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Inspiration and Biblical Difficulties (Ehrman Part 2)
Oh, this blog will be long. Just a warning. There are a lot of issues to deal with in regard to this topic.
First and foremost, as a Christian, I believe that the Holy Scriptures (from Genesis to Revelation) are inspired by God and they are His very Word. "...and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." (Paul to Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:15-16, NIV) Furthermore, 2 Peter 1:21 says, "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (NIV)
These passages clearly communicate the status of "Scripture" as being "God-breathed" by the Holy Spirit. The interesting fact regarding these two passages, as they were written by Paul and Peter, is that the New Testament canon was not formed when these letters were written. The earliest listing of the New Testament books being recognized as Scripture (altogether) is by Athanasius in 367 AD with one of his festival letters. He records all of the books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament in regards to them being Scripture. When Paul and Peter wrote their respective letters, what did they regard as Scripture when they wrote? They may not have realized that they were writing God's Word, which would be canonized over time, but they set forth the precedent that Scripture (what would become Scripture) is given by God as inspired and truthful.
Of course, Bart Ehrman challenges the very ideas of inspiration and inerrancy (as I commented about in my first post on this topic). He claims that what he perceives as discrepancies or Biblical difficulties call into question this doctrine. While he certainly raises some fascinating points that should be wrestled with by anyone, I will argue that the points that he brings up do not really change any essential doctrine of Christianity. I will bring up some of the challenges that he makes to the New Testament (no space to bring up all of them) and then will comment on them myself:
JESUS' BIRTH
Ehrman accuses the Bible of historical inaccuracy in the accounts of Jesus' birth (which are only in Matthew and Luke). He claims that in the historical record, there is no evidence or another ancient source mentioning that King Herod was slaughtering children in or around Bethlehem at this time. In fact, this is only mentioned in Matthew's gospel. Not in any others.
Furthermore, he challenges Luke's records of Caesar Augustus, "For one thing, we have relatively good records from the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home." (pg. 32)
He also cites what he thinks are discrepancies between the two gospels. "Virtually everything said in Matthew is missing from Luke, and all the stories of Luke are missing from Matthew. Matthew mentions dreams that came to Joseph that are absent in Luke; Luke mentions angelic visitations to Elizabeth and Mary that are absent in Matthew. Matthew has the wise men, the slaughter of children by Herod, the flight to Egypt, the Holy Family bypassing Judea to return to Nazareth- all missing from Luke. Luke has the birth of John the Baptist, the census of Caesar, the trip to Bethlehem, the manger and the inn, the shepherds, the circumcision, the presentation in the Temple, and the return home immediately afterward- all of them missing from Matthew." (pg. 33)
These arguments by Ehrman are not particularly strong, in my opinion. Just because archeologists have not uncovered evidence of a census or Herod slaughtering children does not mean that these respective events did not happen. People have ridiculed Biblical accounts through the centuries about there being no evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah existing or that the city of Tyre did not exist. This past century, we now have evidence that both of these cities did in fact exist in ancient times. I know I'm making an argument from silence but perhaps, we may find other evidence one day besides the Biblical account.
Furthermore, differing accounts in Matthew and Luke should surprise no one. All scholars agree that Matthew and Luke wrote independently of one another and used Mark (the earliest gospel) as a common source. Just because these two books emphasize accounts that differ (and I might add, do not necessarily contradict) does not mean that there are discrepancies between the two gospels.
MATTHEW'S GOSPEL QUOTES THE WRONG PROPHET
A minor but interesting issue:
"When Matthew indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, he notes (as by now we expect of him) that this was in fulfillment of Scripture: 'Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver...and they gave them for the potter's field.'' (Matthew 27:9-10). The problem is that this prophecy is not found in Jeremiah. It appears to be a loose quotation of Zechariah 11:3" (Ehrman, pg. 51)
Matthew apparently whiffed at quoting the right Old Testament book. What is ironic is Ehrman actually quoted the wrong verse as well! The passage is actually Zechariah 11:12,13 (I guess Ehrman was close enough). His point still stands, however, that the prophecy that Matthew quotes is not in Jeremiah- it is found in a loose paraphrase in Zechariah.
Zechariah 11:12-13 reads, "Then I said to them, 'If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.' So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me: 'Throw it to the 'potter'- that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter." (NKJV)
John MacArthur's study Bible has an interesting note on this issue: "...the Hebrew canon was divided into 3 sections. Law, Writings and Prophets. Jeremiah came first in the order of prophetic books, so the Prophets were sometimes collectively referred to by his name." (MacArthur Study Bible, pg. 1447)
The problem with MacArthur's perspective is that I can't think of any Jewish source that referred to the "Prophets" as Jeremiah collectively. Is there a source out there? I'm unaware of it.
WHEN DID JESUS DIE?
Ehrman discusses next what he alleges is a discrepancy about the exact day that Christ died. He says this discrepancy occurs between Mark and John. The alleged discrepancy is between Mark 15:25 when Christ was crucified in this gospel and John 19:14 which has the account that Jesus was on trial during the same time that He was crucified in Mark's account.
Ehrman writes: "After the meal they go out. Jesus is betrayed by Judas, appears before the Jewish authorities, spends the night in jail, and is put on trial before Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him to be crucified. And we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the sentence: 'It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover, and it was about noon.' (John 19:14)
Noon? On the Day of Preparation for the Passover? The day the lambs are slaughtered? How can that be? In Mark's Gospel, Jesus lived through that day, had his disciples prepare the Passover meal, and ate it with them before being arrested, taken to jail for the night, tried the next morning, and executed at nine o'clock A.M on the Passover day. But not in John. In John, Jesus dies a day earlier, on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon. I do not think this is a difference that can be reconciled." (pg. 26-27)
This is an interesting challenge by Ehrman. I consulted the book, "When Critics Ask", by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe who respond to this challenge with a rebuttal that Ehrman does not acknowledge in his book: "Both Gospel writers are correct in their assertions. The difficulty is answered when we realize that each Gospel writer used a different time system. John follows the Roman time system while Mark follows the Jewish time system. According to Roman time, the day ran from midnight to midnight. The Jewish 24 hour period began in the evening at 6pm and the morning of that day began at 6am. Therefore, when Mark asserts that at the third hour Christ was crucified, this was about 9am. John stated that Christ's trial was about the sixth hour. This would place the trial before the crucifixion and this would not negate any testimony of the Gospel writers." (pg. 376)
I would add that this point by Geisler and Howe makes perfect sense. Mark was the first gospel and may have been written when the early Christian church was largely Jewish. The gospel of John is universally accepted as being written later (possibly in the 80s or 90s) when there would have been more Gentile converts.
JESUS' RESURRECTION
"Who actually went to the tomb? Was it Mary alone (John 20:1)? Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? Or women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem- possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and 'other women' (Luke 24:1; see 23:55)? Had the stone already been rolled away from the tomb (as in Mark 16:4) or was it rolled away by an angel while the women were there (Matthew 28:2)? Whom or what did they see there? An angel (Matthew 28:5)? A young man (Mark 16:5)? Two men (Luke 24:4)? Or nothing and no one (John)? And what were they told? To tell the disciples to 'go to Galilee', where Jesus will meet them (Mark 16:7)? Or to remember what Jesus had told them 'while He was in Galilee', that he had to die and rise again (Luke 24:7)? Then, do the women tell the disciples what they saw and heard (Matthew 28:8), or do they not tell anyone (Mark 16:8)? If they tell someone, whom do they tell? The eleven disciples (Matthew 28:8)? The eleven disciples and other people (Luke 24:8)? Simon Peter and another unnamed disciple (John 20:2)? What do the disciples do in response? Do they have no response because Jesus himself immediately appeared to them (Matthew 20:9)? Do they not believe the women because it seems to be 'an idle tale' (Luke 24:11)? Or do they go to the tomb to see for themselves (John 20:3)?" (Ehrman, pg 48-49)
Again, while these are some interesting issues that Ehrman raises, there are certainly ways that they can be addressed. There could have been multiple trips to the tomb by women or there could have been different groups of women going to the tomb who were there at different times and left at different times.
Furthermore, even if a critic wants to see these issues as "discrepancies", the fact remains that all four gospels speak that Jesus was crucified and rose again. Those major elements of Christianity are accounted for in each gospel account (and they are even accounted for in extra Biblical materials).
CONCLUSION
Finally, I think it is important for believers to be aware of these issues in the Scripture. These issues are a part of having a comprehensive knowledge of the Bible, which I don't possess, but hope to continue striving to learn more. These issues are now appearing in popular books, on the history channel and even on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart". Christians need to be aware of Biblical scholarship and the current issues that scholars wrestle with.
Throughout his book, Ehrman simply encourages people to study the Bible more...and how can I disagree with him on this point. His book, "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the hidden contradictions in the Bible and why we don't know about them" has caused me to recently study the gospels intensely yet again.
First and foremost, as a Christian, I believe that the Holy Scriptures (from Genesis to Revelation) are inspired by God and they are His very Word. "...and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." (Paul to Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:15-16, NIV) Furthermore, 2 Peter 1:21 says, "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (NIV)
These passages clearly communicate the status of "Scripture" as being "God-breathed" by the Holy Spirit. The interesting fact regarding these two passages, as they were written by Paul and Peter, is that the New Testament canon was not formed when these letters were written. The earliest listing of the New Testament books being recognized as Scripture (altogether) is by Athanasius in 367 AD with one of his festival letters. He records all of the books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament in regards to them being Scripture. When Paul and Peter wrote their respective letters, what did they regard as Scripture when they wrote? They may not have realized that they were writing God's Word, which would be canonized over time, but they set forth the precedent that Scripture (what would become Scripture) is given by God as inspired and truthful.
Of course, Bart Ehrman challenges the very ideas of inspiration and inerrancy (as I commented about in my first post on this topic). He claims that what he perceives as discrepancies or Biblical difficulties call into question this doctrine. While he certainly raises some fascinating points that should be wrestled with by anyone, I will argue that the points that he brings up do not really change any essential doctrine of Christianity. I will bring up some of the challenges that he makes to the New Testament (no space to bring up all of them) and then will comment on them myself:
JESUS' BIRTH
Ehrman accuses the Bible of historical inaccuracy in the accounts of Jesus' birth (which are only in Matthew and Luke). He claims that in the historical record, there is no evidence or another ancient source mentioning that King Herod was slaughtering children in or around Bethlehem at this time. In fact, this is only mentioned in Matthew's gospel. Not in any others.
Furthermore, he challenges Luke's records of Caesar Augustus, "For one thing, we have relatively good records from the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home." (pg. 32)
He also cites what he thinks are discrepancies between the two gospels. "Virtually everything said in Matthew is missing from Luke, and all the stories of Luke are missing from Matthew. Matthew mentions dreams that came to Joseph that are absent in Luke; Luke mentions angelic visitations to Elizabeth and Mary that are absent in Matthew. Matthew has the wise men, the slaughter of children by Herod, the flight to Egypt, the Holy Family bypassing Judea to return to Nazareth- all missing from Luke. Luke has the birth of John the Baptist, the census of Caesar, the trip to Bethlehem, the manger and the inn, the shepherds, the circumcision, the presentation in the Temple, and the return home immediately afterward- all of them missing from Matthew." (pg. 33)
These arguments by Ehrman are not particularly strong, in my opinion. Just because archeologists have not uncovered evidence of a census or Herod slaughtering children does not mean that these respective events did not happen. People have ridiculed Biblical accounts through the centuries about there being no evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah existing or that the city of Tyre did not exist. This past century, we now have evidence that both of these cities did in fact exist in ancient times. I know I'm making an argument from silence but perhaps, we may find other evidence one day besides the Biblical account.
Furthermore, differing accounts in Matthew and Luke should surprise no one. All scholars agree that Matthew and Luke wrote independently of one another and used Mark (the earliest gospel) as a common source. Just because these two books emphasize accounts that differ (and I might add, do not necessarily contradict) does not mean that there are discrepancies between the two gospels.
MATTHEW'S GOSPEL QUOTES THE WRONG PROPHET
A minor but interesting issue:
"When Matthew indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, he notes (as by now we expect of him) that this was in fulfillment of Scripture: 'Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver...and they gave them for the potter's field.'' (Matthew 27:9-10). The problem is that this prophecy is not found in Jeremiah. It appears to be a loose quotation of Zechariah 11:3" (Ehrman, pg. 51)
Matthew apparently whiffed at quoting the right Old Testament book. What is ironic is Ehrman actually quoted the wrong verse as well! The passage is actually Zechariah 11:12,13 (I guess Ehrman was close enough). His point still stands, however, that the prophecy that Matthew quotes is not in Jeremiah- it is found in a loose paraphrase in Zechariah.
Zechariah 11:12-13 reads, "Then I said to them, 'If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.' So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me: 'Throw it to the 'potter'- that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter." (NKJV)
John MacArthur's study Bible has an interesting note on this issue: "...the Hebrew canon was divided into 3 sections. Law, Writings and Prophets. Jeremiah came first in the order of prophetic books, so the Prophets were sometimes collectively referred to by his name." (MacArthur Study Bible, pg. 1447)
The problem with MacArthur's perspective is that I can't think of any Jewish source that referred to the "Prophets" as Jeremiah collectively. Is there a source out there? I'm unaware of it.
WHEN DID JESUS DIE?
Ehrman discusses next what he alleges is a discrepancy about the exact day that Christ died. He says this discrepancy occurs between Mark and John. The alleged discrepancy is between Mark 15:25 when Christ was crucified in this gospel and John 19:14 which has the account that Jesus was on trial during the same time that He was crucified in Mark's account.
Ehrman writes: "After the meal they go out. Jesus is betrayed by Judas, appears before the Jewish authorities, spends the night in jail, and is put on trial before Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him to be crucified. And we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the sentence: 'It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover, and it was about noon.' (John 19:14)
Noon? On the Day of Preparation for the Passover? The day the lambs are slaughtered? How can that be? In Mark's Gospel, Jesus lived through that day, had his disciples prepare the Passover meal, and ate it with them before being arrested, taken to jail for the night, tried the next morning, and executed at nine o'clock A.M on the Passover day. But not in John. In John, Jesus dies a day earlier, on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon. I do not think this is a difference that can be reconciled." (pg. 26-27)
This is an interesting challenge by Ehrman. I consulted the book, "When Critics Ask", by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe who respond to this challenge with a rebuttal that Ehrman does not acknowledge in his book: "Both Gospel writers are correct in their assertions. The difficulty is answered when we realize that each Gospel writer used a different time system. John follows the Roman time system while Mark follows the Jewish time system. According to Roman time, the day ran from midnight to midnight. The Jewish 24 hour period began in the evening at 6pm and the morning of that day began at 6am. Therefore, when Mark asserts that at the third hour Christ was crucified, this was about 9am. John stated that Christ's trial was about the sixth hour. This would place the trial before the crucifixion and this would not negate any testimony of the Gospel writers." (pg. 376)
I would add that this point by Geisler and Howe makes perfect sense. Mark was the first gospel and may have been written when the early Christian church was largely Jewish. The gospel of John is universally accepted as being written later (possibly in the 80s or 90s) when there would have been more Gentile converts.
JESUS' RESURRECTION
"Who actually went to the tomb? Was it Mary alone (John 20:1)? Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? Or women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem- possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and 'other women' (Luke 24:1; see 23:55)? Had the stone already been rolled away from the tomb (as in Mark 16:4) or was it rolled away by an angel while the women were there (Matthew 28:2)? Whom or what did they see there? An angel (Matthew 28:5)? A young man (Mark 16:5)? Two men (Luke 24:4)? Or nothing and no one (John)? And what were they told? To tell the disciples to 'go to Galilee', where Jesus will meet them (Mark 16:7)? Or to remember what Jesus had told them 'while He was in Galilee', that he had to die and rise again (Luke 24:7)? Then, do the women tell the disciples what they saw and heard (Matthew 28:8), or do they not tell anyone (Mark 16:8)? If they tell someone, whom do they tell? The eleven disciples (Matthew 28:8)? The eleven disciples and other people (Luke 24:8)? Simon Peter and another unnamed disciple (John 20:2)? What do the disciples do in response? Do they have no response because Jesus himself immediately appeared to them (Matthew 20:9)? Do they not believe the women because it seems to be 'an idle tale' (Luke 24:11)? Or do they go to the tomb to see for themselves (John 20:3)?" (Ehrman, pg 48-49)
Again, while these are some interesting issues that Ehrman raises, there are certainly ways that they can be addressed. There could have been multiple trips to the tomb by women or there could have been different groups of women going to the tomb who were there at different times and left at different times.
Furthermore, even if a critic wants to see these issues as "discrepancies", the fact remains that all four gospels speak that Jesus was crucified and rose again. Those major elements of Christianity are accounted for in each gospel account (and they are even accounted for in extra Biblical materials).
CONCLUSION
Finally, I think it is important for believers to be aware of these issues in the Scripture. These issues are a part of having a comprehensive knowledge of the Bible, which I don't possess, but hope to continue striving to learn more. These issues are now appearing in popular books, on the history channel and even on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart". Christians need to be aware of Biblical scholarship and the current issues that scholars wrestle with.
Throughout his book, Ehrman simply encourages people to study the Bible more...and how can I disagree with him on this point. His book, "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the hidden contradictions in the Bible and why we don't know about them" has caused me to recently study the gospels intensely yet again.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Inerrancy of the Bible and Bart Ehrman
My philosophy professor, Dr. Skip Forbes, used to have a mischievous grin on his face in our college New Testament class. He would hold up his worn, leather bound Bible in the middle of class and declare, 'This book did not drop out of heaven one day." He would go on to explain that the Bible was the product of many people writing (or orally transmitting the accounts) over thousands of years, multiple authors, diverse cultures and several languages. The Bible, as affirmed by us Christians as the Word of God, stands as the most influential and well regarded book in the history of western civilization (and one could argue the world entire). Thinking of the Bible as the Word of God leads Christians to attribute the Bible to be inerrant in its accounting of history and events as well as infallible in the authority of the book in a believer's life.
Wayne Grudem, author of Systematic Theology, has this definition of inerrancy: "The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. This definition focuses on the question of truthfulness and falsehood in the language of Scripture. The definition in simple terms just means that the Bible always tells the truth, and that it always tells the truth concerning everything it talks about. This definition does not mean that the Bible tells us every fact there is to know about any one subject, but it affirms that what it does say about any subject is true." (pg. 90-91)
This definition makes sense according to the Christian perspective of God. God is holy and perfect therefore the Word that He inspires should be inerrant and true in the discussion of events and history contained therein.
I've heard pastors speak from the pulpit about how to handle people who say the Bible has errors. The pastor usually says something akin to this, "Well, we hand that person our Bible and say, 'Show me where? Where are the errors?'" The pastor usually has some story about the skeptical person not being able to find an error. Of course, this challenge is based on a presupposition that is very true. Most people don't KNOW the Bible. Most people in our society can't name the ten commandments. Some people think the sermon on the mount has something to do with baseball. Most people in the church don't know the Bible very well and even if they do, they have not intensely studied the text. How can they be expected to find an error...if an error even existed?
Bart Ehrman is someone who has studied the Bible for a good part of his life and has entire sections committed to memory. Personally, I first heard of Bart Ehrman while listening to a podcast sermon by John Piper. Piper mentioned in passing a guy named Bart Ehrman who was from his alma mater, Wheaton College (I wonder if these two guys were perhaps classmates). Piper commended his congregation to pray for Dr. Ehrman who "had walked away from the faith." I believe this was after Ehrman published his New York Times bestselling "Misquoting Jesus" in 2006.
Anyways, before Wheaton College, Ehrman had attended Moody Bible Institute. Ehrman claims that by all accounts he was a professing conservative, evangelical Christian. The story continues with him attending Princeton Seminary where he claims he was ready to argue with the "liberal" professors for the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. I'm assuming his "discoveries" about the Bible happened over time but he came to the place of being convinced of Biblical errors which threw him into a whirlwind of doubt. Ironically, he claims that the alleged Biblical errors are not what made him leave the faith for agnosticism but his trouble of dealing with the issue of theodicy (why a good, gracious God allows so much suffering in the world- OR- just plainly, the problem of evil)
I plan on writing a few articles about my responses and challenges to Dr. Ehrman after reading his book, "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible and why we don't know about them". This book is not a grand work of theological, non-fiction literature and I find that he repeats himself fairly frequently in these pages, but this book's ideas in many ways have challenged me in my Christian convictions about what I think of the Bible.
I believe wholeheartedly that Jesus Christ is divine and fully man and that He rose from the grave. I won't be discussing those issues, per se, but will be talking about how we view the Bible as it is the Word of God.
Let me end with a question: if there were discrepancies, seemingly contradictory accounts, or difficulties in the Bible...how would this affect your Christian faith?
***A final footnote: Go back and read Grudem's definition of inerrancy. Notice how he says, "original manuscripts" when referring to inerrancy. Most church doctrinal statements have these same words. We don't have the original manuscripts.
Wayne Grudem, author of Systematic Theology, has this definition of inerrancy: "The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. This definition focuses on the question of truthfulness and falsehood in the language of Scripture. The definition in simple terms just means that the Bible always tells the truth, and that it always tells the truth concerning everything it talks about. This definition does not mean that the Bible tells us every fact there is to know about any one subject, but it affirms that what it does say about any subject is true." (pg. 90-91)
This definition makes sense according to the Christian perspective of God. God is holy and perfect therefore the Word that He inspires should be inerrant and true in the discussion of events and history contained therein.
I've heard pastors speak from the pulpit about how to handle people who say the Bible has errors. The pastor usually says something akin to this, "Well, we hand that person our Bible and say, 'Show me where? Where are the errors?'" The pastor usually has some story about the skeptical person not being able to find an error. Of course, this challenge is based on a presupposition that is very true. Most people don't KNOW the Bible. Most people in our society can't name the ten commandments. Some people think the sermon on the mount has something to do with baseball. Most people in the church don't know the Bible very well and even if they do, they have not intensely studied the text. How can they be expected to find an error...if an error even existed?
Bart Ehrman is someone who has studied the Bible for a good part of his life and has entire sections committed to memory. Personally, I first heard of Bart Ehrman while listening to a podcast sermon by John Piper. Piper mentioned in passing a guy named Bart Ehrman who was from his alma mater, Wheaton College (I wonder if these two guys were perhaps classmates). Piper commended his congregation to pray for Dr. Ehrman who "had walked away from the faith." I believe this was after Ehrman published his New York Times bestselling "Misquoting Jesus" in 2006.
Anyways, before Wheaton College, Ehrman had attended Moody Bible Institute. Ehrman claims that by all accounts he was a professing conservative, evangelical Christian. The story continues with him attending Princeton Seminary where he claims he was ready to argue with the "liberal" professors for the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. I'm assuming his "discoveries" about the Bible happened over time but he came to the place of being convinced of Biblical errors which threw him into a whirlwind of doubt. Ironically, he claims that the alleged Biblical errors are not what made him leave the faith for agnosticism but his trouble of dealing with the issue of theodicy (why a good, gracious God allows so much suffering in the world- OR- just plainly, the problem of evil)
I plan on writing a few articles about my responses and challenges to Dr. Ehrman after reading his book, "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible and why we don't know about them". This book is not a grand work of theological, non-fiction literature and I find that he repeats himself fairly frequently in these pages, but this book's ideas in many ways have challenged me in my Christian convictions about what I think of the Bible.
I believe wholeheartedly that Jesus Christ is divine and fully man and that He rose from the grave. I won't be discussing those issues, per se, but will be talking about how we view the Bible as it is the Word of God.
Let me end with a question: if there were discrepancies, seemingly contradictory accounts, or difficulties in the Bible...how would this affect your Christian faith?
***A final footnote: Go back and read Grudem's definition of inerrancy. Notice how he says, "original manuscripts" when referring to inerrancy. Most church doctrinal statements have these same words. We don't have the original manuscripts.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Best Films of 2008
I always have to give a disclaimer before I make such a list as the best movies of any particular year. That disclaimer is that I have by no means have seen every movie that came out in 2008. Not even close. I don't have the time and don't want to wade through heaping piles of celluoid crap (although it is fun to give negative reviews). I choose my movies based on what I think looks good and by what my various trusted sources tell me is good. Every once inawhile I feel adventurous and might watch something that I normally wouldn't see.
I have a tradition of watching all 5 nominees for the Oscar best picture race every year and I have done that again. Someone may notice that only 1 of those best picture nominees even made my list. No "Slumdog" (although this was a good movie), No "Benjamin Button" (good as well but sort of like Forrest Gump and a little long), No "Reader" (this movie sucked and further proves that Harvey Weinstein buys his way into the best picture race), and no "Milk" (this movie has extraordinary acting and not just from Sean Penn).Here is a top 7 from 2008. I want to feel different, I guess, so that's why I don't want to do a top 10.
7) In Bruges- This is a great, dark comedy somewhat in the style of the Coen Brothers. The movie is about two hitmen from Dublin who are ordered by their boss to lay low in Bruges, Belguim. There are funny moments as well as thrilling moments and in the end, "In Bruges" becomes a film to ponder upon. The theme of judgment that pervades this movie is provocative and thought-provoking.
6) Frost/Nixon- Not only is this a well-made film built around a somewhat simple premise, it feels incredibly timely. The movie delves on themes of the liberal/conservative divide and of course, Nixon's assertion that a liberal media was out to take him down. These thoughts that the characters had were alive and well in 1973 and today, it seems like ideologically driven news with a particular partisian bent is all there is out there. The performances in the film are outstanding with Frank Langella and Michael Sheen not just trying to impersonate real life characters but channel their thoughts and emotions. This movie sometimes feels like a cat-and-mouse thriller. The reporter trying to dig for a confession and embattled president trying to make it through the interview and collect his cash. "I'm saying if the president does it, it's NOT illegal." There probably was not a more haunting line to be found in the movies last year.
5) Ne le dis a personne (Tell No One)- The film that would have made Alfred Hitchcock proud. This French thriller is riveting from beginning to end. The story revolves around a man whose wife is brutally killed and 8 years later, he emerges (again) as a prime suspect. But is she actually dead and what is with the bizarre plot twists that keep happening? The strange thing about this movie is just when the viewer believes that they have found multiple plot holes, this movie goes and explains them all in a rational way. Compared with other French films I've seen, this one really has a different feel to it.
4) Doubt- There was probably not a better acted movie last year than this one. The cast deserved every reward they won. Faith and doubt and all that is in between take center stage in this work. The miraculous thing about this movie is that even with the ambiguous feel that it evokes, the film still manages to be intriguing and powerful.
3) Wall E- Pixar is not only the king of animation but they are probably one of the most consistent studios in pumping out high quality films. Their track record for great movies is unbelievable. Here is another...a movie brimming with biting irony. Robots feeling love and evoking emotion while humans are pampered and lazy is ironic and has unnerving rings of truth as we think about the future. An environmental message is in full force as well as humans have trashed the planet and now live on space ships. The movie is bold and is not only a good movie for children but a thinker for adults. Wall-E is a revolutionary film for the animated and sci-fi genre at the same time.
2) The Dark Knight- Director Christopher Nolan from “Memento” to “The Dark Knight” has not made a bad film. As a matter of fact, he hasn’t even made a mediocre one. This movie feels like an absolute classic action-adventure film from the get go. I thought of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and other action movies and subsequent effect that those movies have had on pop culture. There is not much more to say about this movie that hasn’t already been said and written about. It contains great performances (especially from Heath Ledger and not just for sentimental reasons), stunning action sequences, and social commentary related to our own political times. How does a society stop a raving, anarchist maniac hell-bent on blowing things up and killing people? Those issues are wrestled with in the film and there are no easy answers. However, the bottom line is: this is one exciting film.
1) Gran Torino- I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood (so that might be a bias in this decision) especially the director/actor's work from Mystic River to Gran Torino. This movie is definitely among the best work Eastwood has ever done. Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a retired Detroit autoworker whose wife has just passed away. He is one of the only white people left in a neighborhood that is becoming increasing diverse. He is bitter, angry and racist. He frequently launches profanity laced, racist diatribes against his Hmong neighbors. When the next door teenager, Tao tries to steal Eastwood's prized Gran Torino, Eastwood reluctantly becomes involved in the family's life. As the movie goes on, he discovers he has much more in common with these neighbors than his own family- who seem all too eager for him to kick the bucket so they can collect on his inheritance. Of course, a monumental moral dilemma comes into play and Eastwood is left with a stark choice. Some people criticized this movie for having a predictable ending. This movie is not about having a surprise ending or "pulling the rug out" from underneath the viewer. This is a movie about atonement and redemption for deep wrongs that have been committed. Eastwood has said this will be his last acting performance. If that is true, he goes out with a performance equally as ugly as it is powerful and redemptive.
I have a tradition of watching all 5 nominees for the Oscar best picture race every year and I have done that again. Someone may notice that only 1 of those best picture nominees even made my list. No "Slumdog" (although this was a good movie), No "Benjamin Button" (good as well but sort of like Forrest Gump and a little long), No "Reader" (this movie sucked and further proves that Harvey Weinstein buys his way into the best picture race), and no "Milk" (this movie has extraordinary acting and not just from Sean Penn).Here is a top 7 from 2008. I want to feel different, I guess, so that's why I don't want to do a top 10.
7) In Bruges- This is a great, dark comedy somewhat in the style of the Coen Brothers. The movie is about two hitmen from Dublin who are ordered by their boss to lay low in Bruges, Belguim. There are funny moments as well as thrilling moments and in the end, "In Bruges" becomes a film to ponder upon. The theme of judgment that pervades this movie is provocative and thought-provoking.
6) Frost/Nixon- Not only is this a well-made film built around a somewhat simple premise, it feels incredibly timely. The movie delves on themes of the liberal/conservative divide and of course, Nixon's assertion that a liberal media was out to take him down. These thoughts that the characters had were alive and well in 1973 and today, it seems like ideologically driven news with a particular partisian bent is all there is out there. The performances in the film are outstanding with Frank Langella and Michael Sheen not just trying to impersonate real life characters but channel their thoughts and emotions. This movie sometimes feels like a cat-and-mouse thriller. The reporter trying to dig for a confession and embattled president trying to make it through the interview and collect his cash. "I'm saying if the president does it, it's NOT illegal." There probably was not a more haunting line to be found in the movies last year.
5) Ne le dis a personne (Tell No One)- The film that would have made Alfred Hitchcock proud. This French thriller is riveting from beginning to end. The story revolves around a man whose wife is brutally killed and 8 years later, he emerges (again) as a prime suspect. But is she actually dead and what is with the bizarre plot twists that keep happening? The strange thing about this movie is just when the viewer believes that they have found multiple plot holes, this movie goes and explains them all in a rational way. Compared with other French films I've seen, this one really has a different feel to it.
4) Doubt- There was probably not a better acted movie last year than this one. The cast deserved every reward they won. Faith and doubt and all that is in between take center stage in this work. The miraculous thing about this movie is that even with the ambiguous feel that it evokes, the film still manages to be intriguing and powerful.
3) Wall E- Pixar is not only the king of animation but they are probably one of the most consistent studios in pumping out high quality films. Their track record for great movies is unbelievable. Here is another...a movie brimming with biting irony. Robots feeling love and evoking emotion while humans are pampered and lazy is ironic and has unnerving rings of truth as we think about the future. An environmental message is in full force as well as humans have trashed the planet and now live on space ships. The movie is bold and is not only a good movie for children but a thinker for adults. Wall-E is a revolutionary film for the animated and sci-fi genre at the same time.
2) The Dark Knight- Director Christopher Nolan from “Memento” to “The Dark Knight” has not made a bad film. As a matter of fact, he hasn’t even made a mediocre one. This movie feels like an absolute classic action-adventure film from the get go. I thought of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and other action movies and subsequent effect that those movies have had on pop culture. There is not much more to say about this movie that hasn’t already been said and written about. It contains great performances (especially from Heath Ledger and not just for sentimental reasons), stunning action sequences, and social commentary related to our own political times. How does a society stop a raving, anarchist maniac hell-bent on blowing things up and killing people? Those issues are wrestled with in the film and there are no easy answers. However, the bottom line is: this is one exciting film.
1) Gran Torino- I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood (so that might be a bias in this decision) especially the director/actor's work from Mystic River to Gran Torino. This movie is definitely among the best work Eastwood has ever done. Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a retired Detroit autoworker whose wife has just passed away. He is one of the only white people left in a neighborhood that is becoming increasing diverse. He is bitter, angry and racist. He frequently launches profanity laced, racist diatribes against his Hmong neighbors. When the next door teenager, Tao tries to steal Eastwood's prized Gran Torino, Eastwood reluctantly becomes involved in the family's life. As the movie goes on, he discovers he has much more in common with these neighbors than his own family- who seem all too eager for him to kick the bucket so they can collect on his inheritance. Of course, a monumental moral dilemma comes into play and Eastwood is left with a stark choice. Some people criticized this movie for having a predictable ending. This movie is not about having a surprise ending or "pulling the rug out" from underneath the viewer. This is a movie about atonement and redemption for deep wrongs that have been committed. Eastwood has said this will be his last acting performance. If that is true, he goes out with a performance equally as ugly as it is powerful and redemptive.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Review: Doubt
"Doubt" is one of the best movies that I saw in 2008. The film unravels an unsettling and ambiguous story that takes place in 1964 at St. Nicholas in the Bronx. Meryl Streep plays Sister Aloysius who is a strict, traditional nun who seems uncomfortable at the reforms taking place within the Catholic Church via Vatican II (then still going on).
In the movie, she carries out an undeclared war against the Parish priest, Father Flynn, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. She is particularly rattled by a progressive sermon preached by Father Flynn in the beginning of the film on the subject of (you guessed it) "Doubt". She also hates ballpoint pins and seems rather uncomfortable with the racial integration that is beginning to take place in the school.
The final issue becomes a rather poignant issue within the story. One African American student, Donald Miller (Joseph Foster II) is attending the school and is mocked by many of his fellow caucasian classmates. Father Flynn takes Donald under his wing. He encourages Donald in sports and appoints him as an altar boy. The incredibly sweet, but naive, Sister James (Amy Adams) notices that Donald is being called to the rectory...alone...to meet with Father Flynn. Upon the boys return, he is acting "funny" and appears to have drunk communion wine.
Sister James reports these findings to Sister Aloysius and the battle is taken to a whole new level. Sister Aloysius accuses Father Flynn of the unthinkable. She believes that Father Flynn has taken advantage of a boy in a tough social situation for devious purposes. Father Flynn denies these charges stating that he has compassion on the boy due to the circumstances that he was facing.
Sister Aloysius is "certain" and says she has her "certainty" that there has been an improper relationship between the boy and Father Flynn. There is only one little, tiny problem. There is no evidence.
What becomes of this is a dramatic battle, filled with incredible tension, created by some of the best actors/actresses in the world. There probably was not a better acted film last year with Philip Seymour Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Amy Adams and a rousing performance by Viola Davis.
The movie is based upon John Patrick Shanley's Pulitizer and Tony award winning play. He has successfully directed the piece to a motion picture adaptation.
Some viewers may be frustrated, in the end, by the ambiguity. The point of this film is not "did he do it or not". The theme of the film is faith and doubt and the relationship between the two. In regard to the situation that arises, all the characters believe things and are certain about the things that they believe. But are their beliefs accurate?
The nature of faith implies some element of doubt, does it not? The term "leap of faith" implicates a risk. Everyone has faith: the Christian, the atheist, the Buddhist, the Hindu, etc. Therefore, everyone has doubt...to one degree or another.
The unknown writer of Hebrews says, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Other translations replace "certain" with "confident". Indeed, the difference between certain and confident is massive.
This unnerving principle is at the heart of "Doubt". The movie comes highly recommended.
In the movie, she carries out an undeclared war against the Parish priest, Father Flynn, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. She is particularly rattled by a progressive sermon preached by Father Flynn in the beginning of the film on the subject of (you guessed it) "Doubt". She also hates ballpoint pins and seems rather uncomfortable with the racial integration that is beginning to take place in the school.
The final issue becomes a rather poignant issue within the story. One African American student, Donald Miller (Joseph Foster II) is attending the school and is mocked by many of his fellow caucasian classmates. Father Flynn takes Donald under his wing. He encourages Donald in sports and appoints him as an altar boy. The incredibly sweet, but naive, Sister James (Amy Adams) notices that Donald is being called to the rectory...alone...to meet with Father Flynn. Upon the boys return, he is acting "funny" and appears to have drunk communion wine.
Sister James reports these findings to Sister Aloysius and the battle is taken to a whole new level. Sister Aloysius accuses Father Flynn of the unthinkable. She believes that Father Flynn has taken advantage of a boy in a tough social situation for devious purposes. Father Flynn denies these charges stating that he has compassion on the boy due to the circumstances that he was facing.
Sister Aloysius is "certain" and says she has her "certainty" that there has been an improper relationship between the boy and Father Flynn. There is only one little, tiny problem. There is no evidence.
What becomes of this is a dramatic battle, filled with incredible tension, created by some of the best actors/actresses in the world. There probably was not a better acted film last year with Philip Seymour Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Amy Adams and a rousing performance by Viola Davis.
The movie is based upon John Patrick Shanley's Pulitizer and Tony award winning play. He has successfully directed the piece to a motion picture adaptation.
Some viewers may be frustrated, in the end, by the ambiguity. The point of this film is not "did he do it or not". The theme of the film is faith and doubt and the relationship between the two. In regard to the situation that arises, all the characters believe things and are certain about the things that they believe. But are their beliefs accurate?
The nature of faith implies some element of doubt, does it not? The term "leap of faith" implicates a risk. Everyone has faith: the Christian, the atheist, the Buddhist, the Hindu, etc. Therefore, everyone has doubt...to one degree or another.
The unknown writer of Hebrews says, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Other translations replace "certain" with "confident". Indeed, the difference between certain and confident is massive.
This unnerving principle is at the heart of "Doubt". The movie comes highly recommended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)