SHOULD CHRISTIAN PASTORS AND PARENTS BAN CERTAIN BOOKS?

One seeker wrote in to complain about a pastor who told him not to read certain books. He asked if this kind of censorship was legitimate. Here is how I answered:

“The young and even college students and adults are going to be indoctrinated by someone. In fact we all have to place our trust in someone, whether the plumber or the doctor. Consequently, we have to be careful where we place our trust.

Parents, despite the bad rap that they have been given, are the most trustworthy. Why? They are the loves who want the best for us. In contrast, the government has a poor track record when it comes to informed caring. Instead, we are usually just their political pawns.

However, it should not be simply a matter of trust. However, I warn my students that they shouldn’t read certain books unless they are first committed to researching them thoroughly and have the tools to do so. Otherwise, we will simply fall prey to the one who can out-argue them and who has more education.

Consequently, I shy away from reading medical journals. I simply lack the tools and knowledge to be able to meaningfully evaluate them.”

We can claim that the pastor was being close-minded, but I think that there is a place for this. New believers need to be protected from ideas that they cannot defend against. In fact, while Israel was open to immigrants – and there are many commands about loving the alien – never once do we have any indication that they were allowed to practice their religion or proselytize in Israel.

While the situation is different in the NT, the same thing pertained to the Church. No one could teach another belief in the Church:

·       But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9 ESV)

The Church could only teach what accorded with the Gospel. Any philosophy that came against the Gospel had to be confronted. Therefore, Elders had to be knowledgeable in the Word:

·       He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. (Titus 1:9-11)

Even outside of the confines of the Church, the individual had a responsibility to conduct spiritual warfare. This consisted of vigilance against any thought that might challenge the blessed Gospel:

·       For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ… (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)

I must confess that I read “forbidden literature.” However, I need to do this in order to warn students again them and to “take every thought captive to obey Christ.”

Before the Lord, each of us must assess whether we have the tools, time, and the knowledge to do so. Otherwise, I would counsel, “flee,” as I too must flee from certain circumstances that I have not been given the grace to confront.

THE DIFFICULTY OF UNDERSTANDING JESUS AND WHY EVERYONE CLAIMS HIM

Have you noticed that diverse groups claim Jesus as their own? The socialists claim that Jesus was a socialist, the anarchists as an anarchist, the libertarians as a libertarian, the iconoclasts as an iconoclast. I am even expecting the atheists to claim that Jesus was really an atheist.

Why this broad range of disagreement about Jesus? Jesus spoke in parables:

·       And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (Matthew 13:11-13 ESV)

Jesus only explained His teachings to those who were willing to understand Him. However, even His disciples failed to understand Him. Therefore, He explained His parables to them. However, we have only one example of this in the Gospels – the parable of the Sower, Seeds, and Soils (Matthew 13).

Consequently, they continued to misunderstand Him even to the end (John 16:17-18), and if they did, it is no surprise that we would also misunderstand Jesus.

Therefore, is there little hope of understanding Jesus? No! However, I think that we need to adhere to two very important principles. Firstly, we have to understand Jesus according to the way He insisted that we understand Him, according to the Scriptures:

·       “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19; 4:4; 22:29; John 5:39-47; 12:49-50)

Jesus was thoroughly imbued with the Hebrew Scriptures and never spoke a word against them. He criticized those who would elevate their traditions to the level of Scripture (Matthew 15:1-9) and criticized those who refused to follow them (John 14:21-24). Had Jesus ever spoken against the Scriptures, He would have given the religious leadership all the reason they needed to put Him to death. However, they were never able to do this, although they repeatedly tried to get Him to speak against the Scriptures.

Here is the second principle. Jesus stated that there were many things that He wanted to teach His disciples, but they were not yet ready to hear them. Therefore, He promised that the Holy Spirit would later complete His work:

·       “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:12-15)

By themselves, Jesus’ teachings were not complete. In many ways, He had not been explicit about His identity and His work. He never explicitly told the disciples “I am God,” and only indirectly did He admit that He is the Messiah. Only at His final Passover did He disclose that He was bringing in the promised New Covenant. Instead, He would leave all that He had left unsaid to the Spirit.

In many ways, Paul, and the other Apostles, had acknowledged the critical role of the promised Spirit in their Apostolic ministry:

·       But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory… these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:7,10-13)

Consequently, if we are to understand Jesus’ teachings, we also must understand the Hebrew Scriptures, but especially the Apostles, the very men that Jesus had commissioned and validated with the miracles of the Spirit:

·       …how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (Hebrews 2:3-4)

Consequently, by using the guidance of the rest of the Bible, we can understand Jesus.

THE NEANDERTHAL?

Some hold up the Neanderthal as our evolutionary ancestor or as an alternative humanoid sub-group, although less intelligent. However, Bruce Malone, founder of Search for the Truth, writes:

·       Yet over the last few decades, anthropologists have discovered that Neanderthals demonstrated sophisticated human behavior.

·       The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has recently found and analyzed a specialized bone tool used in leather working at two French Neanderthal sites.  Microscopic analysis of the tools revealed wear and tear consistent with today’s tools used to make supple, lustrous hides.  In other words, Neanderthals were also great leatherworkers!  Once again, science is confirming the biblical viewpoint.  Neanderthals were not some primitive, subhuman creature, but fully human nomads in Europe that lived a rugged life during the Ice Age.

Why then their slightly different cranial structure? For one thing, this shouldn’t suggest that they were any less human, than the slight cranial differences between Caucasian, Black, or Asian humans should suggest.

In the case of the Neanderthal, their thicker skulls might simply be a reflection of the fact that they had lived longer or that the environment had been different than today’s.

THE EXISTENCE OF OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW AND THE ARGUMENT OF RELATIVITY

If there are objective moral laws (OML), objective (not a human invention) like the law of gravity, then there must be a law-Giver and law-Enforcer. (In fact, it is now widely accepted that we have moral laws and moral judgments wired into us. They predictably appear at specific developmental stages.)

This is one reason why the idea of objective moral laws is so strongly opposed. Instead, evolution is offered as an alternative explanation for our moral wiring.

Perhaps the most common argument against the existence of OML is the claim that morality is relative to culture and also to the individual. However, this objection rests on a logical fallacy – that OML means that there are no relative elements at play. There certainly are. However, these relative elements do not argue against the existence of OML.

Let me demonstrate. For example, gravity is objective. It operates according to an elegant formula that can be applied universally. However, the impact of this force depends upon many relative factors – the shape and weight of the object, atmospheric conditions, and location. The existence of these relative factors does not detract from the fact that gravity is an objective and immutably law of science.

Let’s now apply this observation to OMLs. Simply because they impact us in different ways relative to situation, culture, and the people involved, doesn’t mean that OMLs are not objective. Instead, it is logical to conclude that the mere presence of many relative factors cannot deny the existence of OMLs.

This brings us back to the essential question – Are our moral laws God-given (ID) or the product of mindless and purposeless evolution. Here are some considerations in favor of ID:

1.    These laws operate elegantly and harmoniously. When observed, they produce peace, both internally and externally. When we confess our wrongdoing to our spouse, we experience a greater level of internal peace. Otherwise, we obsessively attempt to justify our wrongdoing. When our spouse accepts our apology, we even feel more relieved and the relationship is restored in a more foundational and essential way than anything else can bring restoration. We even have the sense that we have learned important lessons from the entire affair. All of this argues in favor of an intricate and salutary moral design.

2.    Although there are many relative elements, these laws operate universally. Cheating, stealing, and lying are abhorred by almost all cultures, while love, justice, and honesty are valued.

3.    They also seem to be immutable. We find that we can understand and identify with the most ancient writings. Why? Because we can identify with the feelings and morals of these ancients. No evidence of evolution here!

4.    Even those who deny the existence of OML actually affirm their existence in the way they speak and act. If you steal their money, they will claim, “You have no right to do this,” as if they are aware of an objective right and wrong. They will also argue in favor of objective “human rights.” When you accuse them of cutting in the line ahead of you, they will not say, “There are no objective moral truths preventing me from doing this.” Instead, they will attempt to justify themselves to show that they haven’t violated this law of fairness.

5.    If there are objective laws of science, there is no reason to balk at the existence of OMLs. Of course, it is more difficult to derive an elegant formula to describe the operation of OMLs. However, there are many studies and other considerations that demonstrate that when we follow these OMLs, we and our communities predictably profit.

DISCOURAGEMENT WITH SELF

If you are like me, you probably become very discouraged with yourself. You had had higher expectations of what it means to be a new creation in Christ. I did too. That’s why discouragement sometimes takes over. I look inside myself, and I am disgusted by what I find.

But is the real me the ugly things I find inside myself? Not according to Paul! Instead, he taught that what we find are the remnants of sin within, something we now find abhorrent:

·       So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. (Romans 7:17-20 ESV; also 1 Corinthians 6:7-11)

Notice, that Paul made a distinction between the real Paul and the indwelling sin. The real Paul wanted to honor the Lord but, because of sin, lacks the ability and understanding to do so.

You might argue that this description only describes the Paul who had been under the law, and that we should now be doing better.

While I believe that there is truth in this, we need to also observe how Paul described his experience in Christ:

·       Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (Romans 7:24-25; Galatians 5:17)

The flesh, as opposed to the real me, continues to serve sin. Although in Christ, he is now liberated from the domination of sin through its deceptiveness (Romans 7:11), he still had to contend against the power of sin lodged in the flesh.

This is now our struggle. While we want to remain faithful to our Savior, we still struggle against the temptation of sin, but it’s no longer we who sin but the sin that dwells within. Consequently, we are a new creation in the real me.

How then should we regard the ugly and discouraging desires we see within? They are no longer me. I reject them and disown them (Galatians 5:24), although I am still responsible for them. They are like a pit bull I have on my leash. The dog is not me, but I am responsible if I allow it to bite someone.

How do we explain this tension which has become our norm? God hasn’t yet completed His work in our lives. He has merely made a beachhead:

·       And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? (Romans 8:23-24)

We do not yet see who we shall be, let alone, who we now are, but when He returns for us, we shall be like Him (1 John 3:2).