1& 2 Peter: Forgeries according to B. Ehrman

Assertions often out-run the evidence. In the case of Bart Ehrman, the assertions are on an Olympic fast-track! For example, he claims that the subject matter of 1 Peter pertains to a post-70 AD – post-destruction of the Jerusalem Temple – which is after Peter’s death, precluding the possibility that Peter might have authored this letter:

* But tradition also indicates that Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero in 64 C.E. Would it make sense that he was calling Rome “Babylon” [1 Peter 5:13] before the Romans had destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70? By the time that the catastrophe hit, Peter was long dead. (Forgery, 68).

Ehrman’s case is built on three shaky assumptions:

1. “Babylon” refers to Rome, instead of Jerusalem, Babylon, or Egypt, as others have suggested.
2. Rome could only have been referred to as “Babylon” after Rome had destroyed the Temple in 70 AD.
3. The content of 1 Peter could only refer to a Rome after it had destroyed Jerusalem, long after Peter’s death. Therefore Peter couldn’t have been the author.

There is absolutely no evidence for any of these assumptions. In response to Ehrman, we find that the early church had early on received 1 Peter as Scripture without any opposition:

• 1 Clement (95 AD) seems to indicate acquaintance with 1 Peter. Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, makes use of 1 Peter in his letter to the Philippians. The author of the Gospel of Truth (140-150) was acquainted with 1 Peter. [Bishop] Eusebius (fourth century) indicated that it was universally received. The letter was explicitly ascribed to Peter by that group of church fathers whose testimonies appear in attestation of so many genuine NT writings, namely, Irenaeus (A.D. 140-203), Tertullian (150-222), Clement of Alexandria (155-215), and Origen (185-253). (NIV Study Bible, p.1886)

We are left to wonder why Ehrman promotes such baseless allegations of forgery! However, his case is stronger in regards to 2 Peter:

• One of the reasons virtually all scholars agree that Peter did not actually write this letter is that the situation being presupposed appears to be of much later times. When Peter himself died—say the year 64 under Nero—there was still eager expectation that Jesus would return soon; not even a full generation had passed since the crucifixion. It was only with the passing of time that the Christian claim that all would take place “within this generation” (Mark 13:30) and before the disciples had “tasted death” (9:1) started to ring hollow. (Forged, 70)

There are several problems with Ehrman's claims:

1. Ehrman claims that 2 Peter doesn’t show an “eager expectation that Jesus would return soon,” as it should had it been written in the lifetime of Peter. However, it is clear that 2 Peter does give evidence that the church was erroneously anticipating an early return:

• First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation"…But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:3-9)

Evidently, the church was still anticipating an early return. Therefore, 2 Peter – 34 years after to Crucifixion – had to encourage them in their discouragement. There is nothing here inconsistent with Petrine authorship.

2. Mark 9:1, as well as the parallel passages found in Matthew 16: 28 and Luke 9:27, all refer to the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration and not to Jesus’ return within their lifetime. It is hardly likely that they could have so misunderstood this.

3. It is almost as unlikely that they would have misunderstood (for long) Jesus’ statement that he would return “within this generation” (Mark 13:30). Jesus had prefaced this statement by claiming that,

• Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. (Mark 13:6-8)

They would also be hated by all and put to death. None of this suggests that Jesus had taught His speedy return or that the disciples would have misunderstood Him in this way! Instead, Jesus had directed them to go into all the world with His Gospel (Mat. 28:19) – hardly an afternoon’s undertaking! It’s therefore perfectly consistent with Jesus’ teachings that Christians would become impatient for His return and that Peter would try to explain why it’s requiring many years. Consequently, there is nothing that suggests a post-Peter’s-death date for 2 Peter.

Ehrman also argues that if 2 Peter had been written as early as 64 AD, the author couldn’t possibly have been familiar with Paul’s letters, as he claimed to have been (2 Peter 3:15-16):

• Moreover, the author of 2 Peter is writing at a time when there was already a collection of Paul’s letters in circulation, and these letters were being considered on a par with the Old Testament…This could not have been during Paul’s lifetime.” (70)

Why not? For one thing, there is nothing in 2 Peter that indicates that the author is referring to “a collection of Paul’s letters,” which might have required a later date. Peter might have been merely referring to individual letters. Also, the NT evidence indicates that all of Paul’s letters had been immediately received as Scripture:

• And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. (1 Thes. 2:13; also see Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Thess. 5:27; 1 Tim. 6:3-4)

To cap it off, Ehrman claims that,

• There are excellent grounds for thinking that Peter could not write (70) …The vast majority of Jews spoke Aramaic and had no facility in Greek (74) …Peter was an illiterate peasant…according to Acts 4:13, both Peter and his companion John, also a fisherman, were “agrammatoi,” a Greek word that literally means “unlettered,” that is “illiterate.” (75)

Here, Ehrman supplies us with the only direct “evidence” for Peter’s alleged illiteracy. However, he is jumping to a conclusion that is made by no other translation of Scripture, at least among which I am aware:

• When they [the Sanhedrin] saw the courage of Peter and John and REALIZED that they were UNSCHOOLED [“agrammatoi”], ORDINARY men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13)

In order to make his point, Ehrman has to reject the context. By observation, the Sanhedrin couldn’t have “realized” that they were “illiterate,” unless of course, they administered an exam, which they didn’t. However, it was very apparent that they weren’t refined. Not only does this “evidence” fail to provide support for Ehrman’s contention, it is also contradicted by every translation.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that “No other book in the New Testament poses as many problems of authenticity as does Second Peter.” Wilkerson and Boa give some reasons for this:

• (1) Slow circulation kept it from being widely know, (2) It’s brevity and contents greatly limited the number of quotations from it in the writings of early church leaders. (3) The delay in recognition meant that Second Peter had to compete with several later works which falsely claimed to be Petrine… (4) Stylistic differences between First and Second Peter also raised doubts (Talk Through the Bible, 477)

Indeed, many have noted that the Greek of 1 Peter differs from that of 2 Peter. However, this can easily be explained by the fact that, “With the help of Silas…I have written” (1 Peter 5:12). Even if Peter had been ignorant of the Greek, he could always have found help in the writing and the translation. It could have been a collaborative effort and yet remain Peter’s. In favor of Peter’s authorship, he claims to have written it and the events to which he refers were events in his life. Besides,

• 1 Clement (95 AD) may allude to it…there are noteworthy similarities in vocabulary and other matters [between 1 & 2 Peter]. In fact, no other known writing is as much like 1 Peter as 2 Peter. (NIV Study Bible, 1897)

The first one to doubt the authenticity of 2 Peter was Origen (185-253), but that was a good 150 years after it had been written. Nevertheless, he still quoted from it. Bishop Eusebius (265-340),

• placed it among the questioned books, although he admits that most accept it as from Peter. After Eusebius’s time, it seems to have been quite generally accepted as canonical. (1897)

What new evidences has Ehrman been privy to since then? Apparently none! Is he in a better position to assess the authenticity of 2 Peter than the early church? If he is, he hasn’t shared that with his readership.

Are the Gospels Anti-Semitic as Ehrman Alleges?

Bart Ehrman is a man with a mission – to deconstruct the Bible. In his most recent book, Forged, he sets about to show that a number of NT books are forgeries, deceptively purporting to have been written by Apostles. However, en route to his “noble” goal, he can’t resist being side-tracked to a secondary target – that the Gospels reflect a growing anti-Jewish sentiment, especially manifested after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD:

• Our earliest Gospel, Mark, seems to suggest that the decision to have Jesus killed is shared is shared by the Jewish leaders and the Roman governor Pilate (although even here Pilate’s hand seems to be forced). When we come to the Gospel of Luke written later, Pilate actually declares Jesus innocent three times—so that the fault for his death falls on the Jewish leaders who demand it. The Gospel of Matthew, written about the same time as Luke, has Pilate wash his hands to declare that he is innocent in the shedding of Jesus’ blood. Somewhat notoriously the Jewish people (this is only in Matthew) cry out, “His blood be upon us and our children” (27:25)…The Gospel of John, the last of our canonical Gospels, goes a step farther. Here we are told that the Jewish people rejected Jesus as their king and declared that “we have no king but Caesar”…And then John says that Pilate “handed Jesus over to them to be crucified” (19:16). In this distortion of historical reality, it is the Jews themselves who actually kill Jesus (55-56).

However, Ehrman carefully omits mention of the rest of the verse – “Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So THE SOLDIERS took charge of Jesus” (John 19:16) – hardly an exclusively Jewish indictment!

It is easy to cherry pick the evidence in order to line it up to say what Ehrman wants it to say. Is the Gospel of John really anti-Jewish, at least more than the other Gospels? John is the only Gospel that gratuitously mentions the Jewish Nicodemus’ helping Joseph in the burial of Jesus. He had been part of the Jewish establishment – nothing you’d want to mention if you are trying to build an anti-Jewish case.

Furthermore, John doesn’t include other teachings that could be construed as anti-Jewish. He doesn’t commend Gentiles for their faith as do the two earliest Gospels (Mark 7:29; Mat. 8:10; 15:28). John doesn’t talk about the inclusion of the Gentiles as do both Matthew (12:18, 21) and Luke (2:32). Nor does John mention Jesus’ words that “the subjects of the kingdom [the Jews] will be thrown outside, into the darkness...” (Matthew 8:12). Ehrman argues that John should be the most anti-Jewish gospel. However, it doesn’t include the most “anti-Jewish” sayings.

Similarly, the very evidence Ehrman adduces can be interpreted differently. The most damning statement comes from Matthew (27:25) and not from the last Gospel. Also, we encounter essentially the same Pilate in each of the four Gospels, with only minor variations. Besides, Ehrman’s case is predicated on the disputed assumption of a certain chronological ordering of the Gospels along with their post-70 AD dating.

Perhaps most problematic is his assumption that negative messages about the unbelieving Jews represents some form of anti-Semitism. When we examine the Hebrew Scriptures, especially the Hebrew prophets, it becomes very evident that the negative prophetic messages regarding Israel have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. If anything, these harsh prophetic warnings represent God’s love for His Jewish people, not anti-Semitism. Why then should we believe that the NT negative messages – far less extreme than what we find in the prophets – represent anti-Jewishness?

One last consideration: The Book of Revelation is thought by many to be the final book of the Bible, written around 95 AD. If this is so, according to Ehrman’s thinking it should contain the most evidences of anti-Jewish sentiment. However, instead we find many gratuitously positive references to Israel:

1. Jesus is referred to as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (Rev. 5:5). If John was trying to communicate anti-Jewish sentiment, he could easily have referred to Jesus without the positive Jewish associations.

2. Instead of the disenfranchisement of Israel, we find the inclusion: “Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel” (Rev. 7:4). Likewise, the two references to “Israel” are both positive (Rev. 7:4; 21:12).

3. The only references to “Jerusalem” are positive ones (Rev. 3:12; 21:2, 10). Although Revelation makes much mention of plagues, none are directed against Jews or Jerusalem.

4. Although there are two negative references to “Jews” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), these are no more outstanding than those found in the rest of the Bible.

5. Israel is strongly associated with the Church. The “woman” [Israel] is the one who gives birth to the Christ-child, and they both are equally persecuted by Satanic forces (Rev. 12).

Consequently, we find no meaningful evidence of insipient anti-Semitism within the NT writings, as Ehrman alleges. Often, problems exist only in the eye of the beholder, and Ehrman beholds many. “Forged” might not be a pleasant read – I can think of many things I’d rather read – but perhaps a necessary one.

Is Universalism Really So Appealing?

Universalism is a popular idea, much more popular than the idea of eternal consequences for rejecting God. One man put it like this:

• “I can’t see how a loving and all-powerful God would send any of his creation to hell! The Christian God is just too punitive and exclusive for me and for anyone else who has a mind and a heart!”

According to a recent Barna.org survey, the attractiveness of universalism is even growing among “born-agains”:

• One-quarter of born again Christians said that all people are eventually saved or accepted by God (25%) and that it doesn’t matter what religious faith you follow because they all teach the same lessons (26%).

It’s therefore important that we take a close look at universalism and its implications:

1. Universalism makes salvation into an “entitlement” program with all of the negative psychological baggage that goes along with it.

2. Universalism makes life pointless. If everyone is saved at the end, there is nothing important to learn here – no reason to go to church or study the Bible.

3. If our lives entail no eternal consequences, then life seems pointless, apart from having a good time. It’s like a teacher giving all her students an “A+” regardless of their performance and even whether or not they came to class. It also deprives us of any motivation to do right, especially when we see evil prospering.

4. All the major religions recognize that there will be eternal consequences for our inhumanity, suggesting that God has written this truth into all our hearts (Romans 1:32).

5. There is no adequate rationale for moral living or for seeking God without eternal consequences. It makes more sense to get whatever we can out of life if we’re all going to the same eternal home (1 Cor. 15:19).

6. If God is so benign and doesn’t want to see any suffer eternally, why doesn’t He model life on earth in accordance with His final heavenly plan? Why the discontinuity? If pain is so disagreeable to Him there, why not also here? If God has rejected the idea of eternal judgment, why has He not also ruled against the occurrence of disease, warfare, and tsunamis? Instead, continuity would suggest that we will also have to endure consequences in the next life.

7. A universalistic God has little interest in justice and victimization if He refuses to do anything about them. Such a God would be an offense to our own sense of justice. This would undermine all of our concerns about justice and order. However, with the provision of justice comes peace and reconciliation.

8. Universalism communicates the wrong message—our behavior doesn’t matter and God doesn’t care. Why then should we? Life would become brutal and unlivable if we tried to model ourselves after such a God.

9. If we are created in the image of God and therefore have a powerful sense of justice and retribution, shouldn’t we also expect that God would have the same mind-set? If God lacked such punitive concerns, then our preoccupation with law and punitive sanctions would be something displeasing to God. Therefore, if we truly believe in a universalistic God, we should try to model our society after Him and rid ourselves of courts, prisons, fines, and even failing grades.

10. We need suffering and consequences to become the compassionate, humble, and understanding people God wants us to be. Evidently, consequences for sin are not alien to God’s plan.

11. Knowing that there are eternal consequences serves as a deterrent against crime and also a motivation to seek God (Acts 17:27).

12. Knowing that God will eventually right the wrongs that are done gives us the emotional freedom to love others by committing our concerns and longings for ultimate justice to God. We therefore can devote ourselves to love, knowing that God will justly punish. Without experiencing radical victimization, we Westerners have become quite comfortable and fail to appreciate the fact that the imposition of justice brings psychological closure, which enables us to move on.

13. A God concerned about eternal consequences proclaims that somehow, justice and mercy must coexist. Take a good look at universalism. It provides the affluent, self-indulgent, myopic West with the ultimate in designer gods, one who would tell us, “Live as you like. Far be it from me to interfere with your fulfillments and pleasures. It’ll all be wonderful in the end, however you live.” This fabrication dumps justice in favor of our immediate comforts. How convenient!

Of course, people will object, “Well, no one deserves eternal hell. That can’t be just!” To this, I simply answer,

“The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power; in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress” (Job 37:23).

I haven’t figured it all out, but I am confident that our Lord will prove Himself to be perfectly just and merciful, so much so that every knee will bow and every tongue confess (Phil. 2:10-11) to the glory of God!

Mercy Triumphs over Judgment, but Judgment Comes First

We are embarrassed by God’s promises of judgment, especially in the face of liberal criticism of the “genocidal” Old Testament accounts. We tend to feel that He is a bit extreme at times. Some self-designated Christians have even abandoned this biblical conception of God. Karl Giberson, in Saving Darwin, tried to argue in favor of how we can readily be an evolutionist and a Christian. However, at his Biologos blog, he later revealed:

• “In The God Delusion [evolutionist and New Atheist Richard] Dawkins eloquently skewers the tyrannical anthropomorphic deity of the Old Testament—the God that supposedly commanded the Jews to go on genocidal rampages and who occasionally went on his own rampages, flooding the planet or raining fire and brimstone on wicked cities. But who believes in this deity any more, besides those same fundamentalists who think the earth is 10,000 years old? Modern theology has moved past this view of God.” http://biologos.org/blog/exposing-the-straw-men-of-new-atheism-part-five/

However, this discomfort with the righteous God of the Bible is not new, nor is it merely found among the unfaithful. Even though God had given Israel everything (Jeremiah 2:21), Israel rejected her God so thoroughly that he challenged Jeremiah to find just one truth-seeker:

• "Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem, look around and consider, search through her squares. If you can find but one person who deals honestly and seeks the truth, I will forgive this city” (Jeremiah 5:1-2).

Jeremiah was convinced that God’s assessment of Israel was way off, and that he’d have little difficulty finding one such individual, especially among the educated:

• I thought, "These are only the poor; they are foolish, for they do not know the way of the LORD, the requirements of their God. So I will go to the leaders and speak to them; surely they know the way of the LORD, the requirements of their God" (Jeremiah 5:4-5).

Jeremiah was like the rest of us. He thought that God’s assessment was overly harsh, and therefore, His threats of judgment were inappropriate. He was convinced that the educated elite were of a wholly superior caliber and merited forgiveness instead of judgment. We too see as Jeremiah. We find little in our peers, colleagues, or family that merits divine judgment. Our peers kiss their wives goodbye in the morning and tell stories to their children at night. They are respected, get promotions and are honored by the community. They might not be perfect, but who is? They’re not like the drunkards and wife-beaters, who clearly deserve judgment. However, according to Scripture, appearances can spread a deceptive veneer over reality. Paul quoted and affirmed the Old Testament’s assessment of human degradation:

• "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Romans 3:10-12)

Failing to understand this, we remain convinced that humanity only requires a face-lift and not a complete overhaul. We also fail to fathom the necessity of God’s judgments. Failing to understand the necessity of judgment, we also fail to grasp the radically underserved grace of God.

However, if we are going to represent and serve God faithfully, these truths must become our bedrock. If we fail to realize that everything we receive from God is because of His mercy and not because of our merit, we will become intolerably arrogant. It is for this very reason that our Savior chose the lowliest, those who realized that they deserved the least (1 Cor. 1:26-29) and made salvation entirely a matter of a free gift to prevent any boasting (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:24-28; Luke 14:11). In contrast to God, we tend to regard some as worthy candidates for salvation, honoring some, dishonoring others. However, Jesus adamantly denied that any were worthy of salvation (Mat. 19:25-26; Luke 18:14).

It’s all about God’s merit and has nothing to do with our own (Titus 3:3-5). If we fail to understand this, we cannot give God the worship He requires. Jesus taught that we are to worship God in spirit – in the depths of our being – and in truth (John 4:22-24). This means that He gets all the praise and glory.

This may seem egotistical, but it’s this very understanding that we need for our relationships to flourish. Once the Corinthian church strayed from an awareness of their humble estate, love was soon replaced by conflict and unity by factionalism. They began boasting about themselves and their meritorious associations. Paul warned that this was highly destructive of Christian fellowship:

• Dear brothers and sisters... If you pay attention to the Scriptures, you won't brag about one of your leaders at the expense of another. What makes you better than anyone else? What do you have that God hasn't given you? And if all you have is from God, why boast as though you have accomplished something on your own? (1 Cor. 4:6-7; NLT)

Boasting will not only undermine human relationships, it will also jeopardize our divine relationship. If Jeremiah was going to serve faithfully, he would have to see as God sees, and there would be no better place to learn this skill than in his home town of Anathoth, where he had come from a respectable family, a family of priests. However, he soon learned that the Anathothians also wanted to kill him:

• Then the LORD told me about the plots my enemies were making against me. I had been as unaware as a lamb on the way to its slaughter. I had no idea that they were planning to kill me! (Jeremiah 11:18-19)

And this was only the beginning! The Lord then warned Jeremiah:

• Even your own brothers, members of your own family, have turned on you. They have plotted, raising a cry against you. Do not trust them, no matter how pleasantly they speak (Jeremiah 12:6).

Jeremiah was beginning to see what it meant to truly follow and identify with the Lord. As the entire nation had turned against their God, they had also turned against Jeremiah:

• Then I said, "What sadness is mine, my mother. Oh, that I had died at birth! I am hated everywhere I go. I am neither a lender who has threatened to foreclose nor a borrower who refuses to pay—yet they all curse me." (Jeremiah 15:10)

After we’ve walked in God’s despised shoes, the idea of judgment becomes far more acceptable. It’s inevitable that rejection will impact the way we regard humanity, and it did for Jeremiah. Before, he struggled with what had seemed to him as God’s lack of compassion for Israel:

• ”Why are you like a stranger to us? Why are you like someone passing through the land, stopping only for the night? … Are you helpless to save us? You are right here among us, LORD. We are known as your people. Please don't abandon us now!" (Jeremiah 14:8-9)

However, after he experienced God’s rejection, his calls for compassion fell silent. Now he wanted the very thing that he had been against – judgment!

• Then I said, "LORD, you know I am suffering for your sake. Punish my persecutors! Don't let them kill me! Be merciful to me and give them what they deserve! (Jeremiah 15:15)

• LORD, you know all about their murderous plots against me. Don't forgive their crimes and blot out their sins. Let them die before you. Deal with them in your anger (Jeremiah 18:23).

• LORD Almighty! You know those who are righteous, and you examine the deepest thoughts of hearts and minds. Let me see your vengeance against them, for I have committed my cause to you (Jeremiah 20:12).

We understand God through the lens of our experiences. When we find acceptance among men, we ask for divine compassion and fail to appreciate God’s reticence. When we don’t experience acceptance, we don’t want our detractors to find acceptance. Instead, we ask God for judgment, and are disturbed when the judgment is slow in coming. Israel had more thoroughly rejected their God than had any of the other nations rejected their own worthless gods:

• "Go west to the land of Cyprus; go east to the land of Kedar. Think about what you see there. See if anyone has ever heard of anything as strange as this. Has any nation ever exchanged its gods for another god, even though its gods are nothing? Yet my people have exchanged their glorious God for worthless idols! (Jeremiah 2:10-11)

It is only after we understand the weightiness of the judgment that we deserve, that we can have any appreciation for grace we don’t deserve. Likewise, it is only after we become aware of the extent of our treachery – something that can only come from God – that we can value forgiveness as we ought.

Jeremiah was beginning to appreciate the extent of his betrayal – even his own family had betrayed him – and the necessity for judgment. He was now ready for a lesson in God’s glorious mercy:

• "I will send disaster upon the leaders of my people—the shepherds of my sheep—for they have destroyed and scattered the very ones they were expected to care for," says the LORD. This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says to these shepherds: "Instead of leading my flock to safety, you have deserted them and driven them to destruction. Now I will pour out judgment on you for the evil you have done to them. But I will gather together the remnant of my flock from wherever I have driven them. I will bring them back into their own fold, and they will be fruitful and increase in number. Then I will appoint responsible shepherds to care for them, and they will never be afraid again. Not a single one of them will be lost or missing," says the LORD. "For the time is coming," says the LORD, "when I will place a righteous Branch on King David's throne. He will be a King who rules with wisdom. He will do what is just and right throughout the land. And this is his name: 'The LORD Is Our Righteousness'” (Jeremiah 23:1-6).

From the darkness of judgment, Messiah is best seen for who He is and most fully embraced through a veil of tears and desperation. As the hurricane precedes the rainbow, the bad news must precede the good. The reality of our deserved judgment must serve as the herald for grace. We must suffer with Christ so that we can reign with Him. Judgment (1 Peter 4:17) must precede comfort. There are certain truths we must first learn – the hard way – even as Jeremiah had to learn them.

The Malignant Manipulations of the Mainstream Media

The mainstream media helps to supply the necessary checks and balances on which democratic society has come to depend. But can we really depend upon this media?

• [Peter] Sissons [“One of Britain’s most senior news broadcasters”] made headlines in January when he attacked the BBC for its “institutional” leftwing bias that he said was “written into its DNA.” Sissons, whose memoirs are being published in a series by the right-of-centre Daily Mail newspaper, said that at the BBC, “Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.”

Clearly, those who show outrage and offense will be favored, while those who don’t are “fair game.” With such rules of engagement, can the BBC and other mainstream media sources be trusted?

• …the BBC itself has admitted its anti-Christian bias. In a leaked internal memo in 2006, the BBC admitted to a marked bias against Christianity and a strong inclination to pro-Muslim reporting. The Daily Mail reported on a secret meeting of BBC executives who were said to be frustrated by the corporation’s commitment to “political correctness” at the expense of journalistic integrity and objectivity. At that time, Andrew Marr, the BBC’s former chief political correspondent, said, “The BBC is not impartial or neutral … It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”

I wonder how endemic this problem is within mainstream media? From where I sit, the media seems to be soaked in anti-Christian bias. And what might be the effect of this bias on society, besides breeding cynicism? Judging from the major tectonic worldview shifts of the last few decades, the impact seems to be profound. How will this shift affect the church and Christianity? It doesn’t seem that it could possibly have a benign impact. In fact, from what I’ve observed these days, most Christians feel marginalized, even ashamed to make any kind of public gesture that might be connected with their Christian faith.

Lastly, we are left with the question, “What should we do when our faith is consistently maligned by the media?” Sisson’s perception that “Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended” seems to be on-the-money. Moreover, the implications of this systematic attack on the Christian faith seem to be escalating. With the proliferation of unbalanced—and unanswered—charges that we Christians are now “hate-mongers” and “homophobes,” there has arisen a whole chorus of outcries meant to silence even the few of us who remain vocal in the public arena.

Let us take a look at what the Apostle Peter has written about our first line of defense:

• For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:15)

However, this strategy doesn’t preclude the use of a verbal defense. Knowing that Haman was putting the finishing touches on his plan for the destruction of the Jews, the Jewish Queen Esther risked her life to come before her husband and king:

• "If I have found favor with you, O king, and if it pleases your majesty, grant me my life--this is my petition. And spare my people--this is my request. For I and my people have been sold for destruction and slaughter and annihilation. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king." (Esther 7:3-4)

It was this petition, by the grace of God, which saved the Jewish people. Perhaps it is time for us to speak up as well!

How Good must We be to be Good Enough?

In the reception following a heady symposium on ethics, I met a playwright. She surprised me, saying, “The motivation behind liberal ethics is our misguided quest to quiet the conscience.”

“How do you mean that?” I asked. She seemed to be a liberal herself, so I was taken back by her transparency.

“We have to do good to quiet our guilty consciences. This is made even worse by the privileges that we enjoy as educated Westerners.” I was impressed by her bleak, yet penetrating analysis.

“How many good deeds would you need to quiet your conscience?” I asked. Again, I was surprised by her response: “Always a little bit more!” She clearly realized that the conscience is insatiable. There is no amount of good deeds that will quiet it. Shame and guilt seem almost impervious to the most profound self-sacrifices. These emotions are never satisfied. They serve as unrelenting taskmasters compelling us to always do more. No sacrifice will suffice, at least not for long.

We try to convince ourselves that God will grade on a curve. We might figure that if the top 70% will get a passing grade, we can self-righteously assure ourselves that we have made the cut. Ironically, while we justify ourselves in this manner, we are in effect compelled to de-justify what we find in others! It’s not good enough to score “90%,” if half of the class scored higher.

Another version of this rationalization is the one adopted by Islam. If our good deeds outweigh the bad, we’ll make it in. However, we still find that our conscience remains adamant that there’s a serious problem even when the good seems to predominate. Consequently, it is impossible to experience any authentically joyful confidence. We are still endlessly trying to prove ourselves, often at the expense of others.

Scripture helps us understand why our conscience remains so implacable. It might be a surprise for us to learn that the Apostle Paul affirmed that, in agreement with our conscience, we can never be good enough:

• [The] purpose [of the law] is to keep people from having excuses and to bring the entire world into judgment before God. For no one can ever be made right in God's sight by doing what his law commands. For the more we know God's law, the clearer it becomes that we aren't obeying it (Romans 3:19-20; NLT).

In many ways, we all fall far short of God’s standards (James 3:2; Romans 3:23; Psalm 143:2). Although it is truly depressing to learn that we can never be good enough for God, this revelation seems to accord with our ceaseless self-indictment of guilt and shame, or the more prevailing sense that we’re simply not good enough.

Once again, let’s look to Paul to see what light he can shed on our pride:

• If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing (1 Cor. 13:2-3, NIV).

However exalted our ethical standards, we’re no better than others. We’re all sinners in need of a Savior, and no sacrificial act we could possibly dream up can change this, even if we pay the ultimate price with our own life.

This is terribly offensive to most of us. We have convinced ourselves that we are more deserving than others, and this teaching is just too humbling and depressing to bear. However, this seems to be the uniform indictment of Scripture! The only way we can receive salvation is as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). It just cannot be earned or achieved. Interestingly, our conscience agrees. Even Israel’s greatest king came to realize that His blessedness was a matter of the mercy of God. David wrote autobiographically:

• Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit (Psalm 32:1-2).

However, this message is not only offensive, but it seems to us to be unbelievable, as well. From our own myopic perspectives, humanity just doesn’t seem to be so bad, at least among our colleagues, family and friends. Certainly not bad enough to deserve eternal separation from God! We erroneously come to this conclusion because, on the one hand, we fail to apprehend the extent of our own sinfulness. On the other hand, we have no true conception or appreciation for the awesomeness of a God who created and sustains everything. We characteristically want to domesticate Him and remake Him in our own image. We want to diminish God’s holiness and His holy requirements to assure ourselves of our own worthiness.

Ah, but there most certainly is another way to live our lives. I freely and joyfully confess that I now embrace the “unbelievable!” Let me share with you what I mean.

Five highly recommended psychologists and psychiatrists each tried their best to free me from my accusing conscience. They tried building my self-esteem; they tried psychoanalysis; they tried unblocking my emotional channels. They even tried prescribing the latest neurological “wonder” drugs. However, each of their therapies left me worse off than I was before.

Instead, I’ve come to find that my Savior has the perfect answer. He has silenced my conscience with His blood. He has taken upon Himself the just penalty that I rightly deserved. I can never be good enough for Him. I can never deserve the slightest smile or “thank you” from Him. However, by admitting my hopeless predicament, He joyfully gives me all things! Encouraged in this manner, I want to engage His world in a way that pleases Him!

When my conscience starts to make its tired old accusations, I laugh through my tears of joy. He has convinced me that I no longer bear my sins, although it took a while for this truth to permeate my being:

• To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:31-32).

Freedom comes at a price, but He paid the price in full. I now have every confidence that He will continue to protect His investment – me!

I didn’t have an opportunity to share any of this with the playwright. She was gone before I could piece my answer together. I wanted to tell her, “You are so right. Morality will never satisfy guilt and shame. They are realities that laugh at all of our attempts to placate them. They remain indictments against all of our self-righteous attempts to eliminate them. They taunt every act of self-sacrifice and all the monuments of self-importance that we attempt to erect as tributes to ourselves. But, if we listen carefully to their denunciations, they will point us to His freedom.”

Planned Parenthood and Patterns of Dis-Information

Sadly, it’s too late to do anything about defunding Planned Parenthood (PP) – the death machine. They receive $350 million in federal monies, but spend $140 million on public relations.

Meanwhile they claim to provide important services like mammograms, but this claim has been contradicted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umI-gLEC6C8&NR=1

If we can't trust PP about things that can be so easy verified, how can we even begin to trust PP about other claims?