Knowing that the Bible is the Word of God

“Believing that the Bible is the Word of God isn’t about facts or evidence, but instead groundless faith.”

This represents a gross misrepresentation of what the Bible teaches as “faith.” Belief was always to be based upon concrete reasons-to-believe. This was also true within the Hebrew Scriptures. Israel was required to believe because God had provided incontrovertible reasons-to-believe:

• “You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other. From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, and you heard his words from out of the fire.” (Deut. 4:35-36)

Belief was never something that was supposed that rested on feelings and experiences alone. According to Hebrew thought, everything had to be proved by two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15). This also applied to matters of faith. Israel was provided with strict evidential criteria to determine what and who should be believed (Deut. 13:1-5; 18:19-22).

Jesus continued this very tradition: “Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does” (John 10:37). If He didn’t manifest the miraculous signs of His Father, then it didn’t matter how charismatic He might seem. He was not to be believed (John 5:31-38).

“But even if Jesus did perform miracles, we don’t have that type of evidence today. Therefore there isn’t enough evidence to believe that the Bible is God’s Word!”

This seems to be contradicted by the Bible (Romans 1:18-32; 2:14-15; Acts 14:17). For one thing, I’ve know many non-Christians who have experienced miracles that have substantiated the Bible, but have simply chosen to turn their back on this evidence.

In addition to this, there are many testimonial evidences of Jesus’ miracles. The Apostle John wrote in favor of the weightiness of eyewitness testimonies:

• “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31)

“You’re not expecting us to believe that the Bible is God’s Word based upon 2000 year old biased testimonies!”

If you were an historian who bothered to weight the historical evidences, you might see things differently. In fact, the ancient enemies of the Christian faith never denied that Jesus performed miracles:

• "It is noteworthy that Jesus' enemies are not presented as denying that he did extraordinary deeds; rather they attributed them to evil origins, either to the devil (Mark 3:22-30) or in the 2d-century polemic to magic (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.32.3-5)." (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, pp. 62-63)

Even many skeptical historians acknowledge that Jesus must have been a worker of miracles:

1. "Among NT scholars there is almost universal agreement that Jesus performed what he and his contemporaries regarded as miraculous healings and exorcisms. (B.L. Blackburn, Jesus and the Gospels, p. 556),

2. "Any fair reading of the Gospels and other ancient sources (including Josephus) inexorably leads to the conclusion that Jesus was well known in his time as a healer and exorcist. The miracle stories are now treated seriously and are widely accepted by Jesus scholars as deriving from Jesus' ministry. Several specialized studies have appeared in recent years, which conclude that Jesus did things that were viewed as 'miracles'." (B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, pp. 11-12, NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998)

3. "The deepest impression Jesus made upon his contemporaries was as an exorcist and a healer. . . . In any case he was not only believed to possess some quite special curative gifts but evidently, in some way or other he actually possessed them." (Michael Grant, An Historian's Review of the Gospels, pp. 31, 35)

4. "Yes, I think that Jesus probably did perform deeds that contemporaries viewed as miracles." (Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, p. 114)

5. "There is no doubt that Jesus worked miracles, healed the sick and cast out demons." (Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, p. 277)

6. "In most miracle stories no explanation at all is given; Jesus simply speaks or acts and the miracle is done by his personal power. This trait probably reflects historical fact." (Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 101)

7. "There is agreement on the basic facts: Jesus performed miracles, drew crowds and promised the kingdom to sinners." (E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, p. 157)

8. “Yes, we can be sure that Jesus performed real signs which were interpreted by his contemporaries as experiences of an extraordinary power." (H. Hendrickx, The Miracle Stories and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 22)

9. "[T]he tradition of Jesus' miracles has too many unusual features to be conveniently ascribed to conventional legend-mongering. Moreover, many of them contain details of precise reporting which is quite unlike the usual run of legends and is difficult to explain unless it derives from some historical recollection; and the gospels themselves show a remarkable restraint in their narratives which contrasts strangely with that delight in the miraculous for its own sake which normally characterizes the growth of legend." (A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, p. 100)

Consequently, the Christian, N.T. Wright concludes that it is “clear that Jesus' contemporaries, both of those who became his followers and those who were determined not to become his followers, certainly regarded him as possessed of remarkable powers." (Jesus and the Victory of God , p. 187)

Perhaps Jesus’ most significant miracle of all was His resurrection. Regarding the overwhelming evidence in favor of this event, two non-believers conclude:

1. “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.’” (Atheist historian Gerd Ludemann)

2. “The Disciples’ conviction that they had seen the risen Christ…is historical bedrock, facts known past doubting.” (Paula Fredriksen, both quoted from the Case for the Real Jesus, Lee Strobel)

“Well, even if you are right about these miracles, these don’t prove that Jesus is the Messiah or even that your Bible is the word of God!”

Jesus’ miracles and resurrection are embedded within a rich interpretive framework. The prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures instruct us to interpret them messianically. The promised One would die for our sins and rise again!! However, laying forth the messianic prophecies would require volumes. Instead, I’ll conclude with two quotes from the ancient Rabbinic writings, which provide another interpretive perspective. The Jerusalem Talmud reads:

• "Forty years before [30 AD] the destruction of the Temple [70 AD], the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open" (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157).

The Babylonian Talmud likewise reads:

• "Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple [70 AD] the lot did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves" (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).

These accounts look to the year of 30 AD, presumably the year of the Cross. At this time and for the “forty years” until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, supernatural omen were manifest against the nation of Israel. The Temple light, which was lit every evening, would never stay lit despite the diligent efforts of the priests. The light symbolized the presence of God among the people, who understood that its failure to stay lit represented God’s departure.

“The gates of the Temple” presumably would not stay closed because this symbolized the fact that God was leaving His Temple to destruction as He had prior to the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians in 586 BC (Ezekiel 10:18-19).

“Nor did the crimson-colored strap become white” referred to the Yom Kippur ritual of sending a scape-goat off into the wilderness bearing the sins of Israel. For years prior to the Cross, it would be miraculously transformed from red, symbolizing sin, to white, symbolizing forgiveness (Isaiah 1:18). However, this miracle promptly ceased at the time of the Cross, as if God was now informing Israel, “Goats will no longer carry away your sins!”

There were other “coincidences” also associated with the Cross. In Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, Orthodox Jewish writer, David Klinghoffer, repeats some of these omens, but adds:

• "The Talmud states that from forty years before the Temple's destruction and onward, there were supernatural omens of the disaster to come--that is, starting from the inception of the Christian religion following the death of Jesus. The eternal fire of the Temple altar would not stay lit. The monumental bronze Temple gates opened by themselves. Josephus confirms the Talmud's account of the inner Sanctuary's east gate and its mysterious openings. He adds other portents from these years: a bright light shinning around the altar and the Sanctuary at three in the morning, a cow brought for sacrifice giving birth to a lamb, apparitions of chariots and armies flying through the sky above the whole land of Israel." (117)

The interpretation seems clear, just as Isaiah had prophesied:

• “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:3-6)

Happiness Studies

According to the Huffington Post, God “is getting accolades from mental health specialists who say they are finding that a belief in God plays a positive role in the treatment of anxiety and depression, The Washington Times, reports. University of Toronto psychologists reported last year that 'believing in God can help block anxiety and minimize stress,' their research showcasing 'distinct brain differences' between believers and nonbelievers. A new study released Wednesday by Rush University Medical Center in Chicago took the idea a step further. In patients diagnosed with clinical depression, 'belief in a concerned God can improve response to medical treatment,' said the new research, which has been published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology.”

These findings do not reflect something new, but the author goes on to question why: “Why do people believe? Because it's true? Or because it's good for them?”

Why not both? When I complete my jigsaw puzzle, I have placed the pieces where they truly belong. I guess that’s a form of correctness or “truth.” However, I also feel a certain sense of satisfaction with the congruent image looking back at me. As the pieces fit together in such a harmonious way, and as the final inserted piece brings unity – a connectedness – to the whole, so too does my Lord bring unity and harmony to my life!

Truth, Relationship and Intimacy

One blogger accused me of “fundamentalist Bible idolatry” because I would quote Scripture and reason according to Scripture. In contrast, he claimed to be God-centered instead of Bible-centered. He then asked me to delineate the difference between the two positions. Here’s how I answered:

Bible-centrism is God-centrism!!! This is because God has always insisted that His people relate to Him through His Word, as Jesus summed it up:

• Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him….If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (John 14:21-24)

You might ask, “Why is God so insistent about His Word?” Perhaps this might help. Jesus insisted that we had to worship God in spirit (in the depth of our being) and in truth (according to His revelation) (John 4:20-24).

Truth is the only foundation for a meaningful relationship. It is so critical to any relationship that we love/appreciate the other according to who they really are. For instance, if you’re wife adores you simply because you remind her of her first lover, such a relationship is built on smoke and deceit, and its fraudulent nature will inevitably surface with disastrous results.

This is why we are not free to mentally construct God in any we way please, but according to His own self-revelation. Anything short of this is idolatry – creating God and relationship according to our own tastes. As such, it isn’t truly relationship but egoistic self-stimulation.

Communication Skills don’t Cut through Self-Delusion

This was my response to someone who placed a lot of hope in communication skills to heal relationships:

Welcome back! I’m not a big believer in communication skills. I know that for me the problems had been much deeper. Lacking the assurance of Christ’s love, forgiveness and righteousness, I lived my life believing in myself and my earned sense of self. However, to believe in myself required that I deny and suppress the counter-self-righteous evidence, evidences that disqualified my belief in self -- my selfishness, self-centeredness, and need to always promote myself and to be right.

It also required me to feed myself a lot of nonsense self-affirmations that tended to alienate me from both life and viable relationships. Relationship depends upon truth, the only basis for sharing a common vision and communication. It’s hard to relate to someone who believes that they are the savior of the world or is in deep denial about themselves. It requires that we enter into the fantasy world of another. After a while, that gets old and irksome. Instead, we long for authenticity.

Consequently, whenever my wife and I got into an argument – and that happened often – I was convinced that I was right and she was wrong, and she was convinced of the opposite. As a result, we could never reconcile our differences, but had to bury them in order to move on. But we didn’t really move on. Our differences just festered, and communication skills couldn’t even begin to touch them. We humans are just highly resistant to the truth, especially the truth about ourselves!

However, it has only been in following Christ – not in my five highly recommended psychologists – that I found liberation (John 8:31-32). Knowing His love and gift of righteousness allowed me to slowly lay down the self-delusions that had taken me captive. Consequently, I can now laugh at myself and admit that I am wrong, because it’s no longer about me, but Him. He loves me and will never leave me.

Also, I am no longer needy of others opinions of me. Of course, they can hurt me, but I just take my pains to God, knowing that He’ll lift me back up. And He does!!

Morality Starts at Home

When we violate God’s wisdom, we pay for it, literally. On March 9, 2010, LifeSiteNews.com reported,

“Family breakdown now costs Britain £41.7 billion per year, estimates the Relationships Foundation, a British-based think tank…

The Foundation’s estimate includes £12.38 billion in tax credits and benefits, £4.27 billion in housing support, and £13.68 billion in health and social care. The authors report that their estimate works out to £1,350 a year per taxpayer.”

The Foundation describes these costs as both “unsustainable” and rising “rapidly” and adds that,

“Functioning families are key to learning, capacity building, acquiring skills and providing welfare. They provide social care and support worth £73 billion a year in the UK, and family businesses generate turnover in excess of £1 trillion, contributing £73 billion each year in tax.”

How are we to understand this deterioration? “In an op-ed for the Daily Mail at the end of January, columnist Melanie Phillips connected the breakdown of the family with the erosion of the institution of marriage in British society. ‘The disintegration of the family lies at the heart of the progressive breakdown of moral and social behaviour - and the erosion of marriage lies at the heart of that disintegration.’”

Of course, this comes as no surprise. We are killing ourselves and our societies with our philosophy of instant self-gratification and “my-needs-first-ism.” This will prove to not only be a dead-end financially, but also emotionally, interpersonally, and medically. We don’t build lasting and meaningful relationships by placing our own gratification first. Any 10-year-old can tell us that. Nor do we build healthy minds and bodies by indulging our every whim.

So what’s the answer? The Church! Before all else, we have to show the world that we have the answer and that we are willing to take the same medicine that we dish out. We have to put God’s will above our own. Nobody will take our prescription seriously, when they see us flush it down the toilet.

Leaving the Faith

We face an assortment of discouragements during these hard times that promise persecution. We are grieved by the performance of the church, our own often dismal performance, and apostasy (people falling away from the faith.) We grieve for lost friends, brothers and sisters in the Lord, and we grieve for ourselves. If they could depart from the faith, isn’t it possible that I too might fall away?

This problem – trying to remain confident in the face of apostasy – has confronted the Church from the time of its inception. Therefore, there is much Biblical counsel from which we can draw comfort. For one thing, apostasy has not blind-sided the Church. It has been prophesied from the start, beginning with Moses, who gave his Israelites a song that would remind them of their betrayal. In the midst of their successes, they would turn their back on their God to their great loss (Deut. 32). Nevertheless, in the end, God would restore Israel.

Likewise, Jesus warned about the great and final apostasy. The masses would be deceived by miraculous manifestations, but that He would keep His people from this deception (Matthew 24:24).

Paul brings the discouragement of apostasy even closer to home. When he visited the elders at the church at Ephesus for the last time, he prophesied that “savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock” (Acts 20:29).

Our first reaction to apostasy is to think that something is horribly wrong, that the trust we had placed in God had somehow been misplaced! Instead, apostasy is part of God’s plan to purify the Church by removing those who are not truly brothers (Hebrews 12:26-27). (I too grieve. Even the removal of dead branches can be painful!)

God uses trials to shake loose from the Church those things that aren’t part of its architecture. Paul even names names – Hymenaeus and Philetus. I’m sure that they were very esteemed. They apparently were fully accepted among the brethren, trusted enough to be heard and to “upset the faith of some” through their deviant gospel.

In the face of this falling away, how could those who remained be sure that they were in the right or that they would even remain in the true Gospel? Paul assured the church through Timothy that the Church the Lord has built “stands firm,” because “the Lord knows those who are His” (2 Tim. 2:19). Evidently, Hymenaeus and Philetus were never His, despite the fact that they had appeared to be genuine Brethren.

Our confidence tends to easily surrender to anxiety. After Jesus had warned His flock that one of them would betray Him, each nervously began to question whether it might be he who would do the betrayal. They never once thought, “Oh, I know who will betray Jesus. It’s that Judas! I always had a bad feeling about him!” No one dreamed that Judas wasn’t truly one of them (John 17:12). Apostasy will blind-side us again, for only God can read the heart.

We often join religions and cults – even the very demanding ones – because they fulfill our need for self-righteousness, our appetite to feel special and superior to others, the outsiders. Jesus prophesied that many would come to Him and declare that they deserved His blessings, reciting a list of their spiritual accomplishments. Jesus’ response was shocking:

“Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'” (Matthew 7:23).

For years, I had been horrified by His response. If they, who had performed great spiritual deeds, weren’t worthy of Jesus’ salvation, what hope did I have. Like them, I too had been unwilling and perhaps unable to let go of the illusion that somehow I was worthy of Jesus’ free gift of life. It required years for me to face the fact that I was totally unworthy of even His “thank you” (Luke 17:10). However, with my breakdown and the final resignation to this realization – that I came to Him empty-handed, without any valid claim upon His mercy – I found peace and an understanding of the simplicity of the Gospel. I also came to realize that we’re all “evildoers” (Eph. 2:1-3) who need His free gift of life. However, this fact is repugnant to us.

I’ve become thoroughly convinced that this understanding must come as a gift. It’s just too unnatural for us to lay aside our cherished belief that we are deserving of Him. I think that this is at the heart of apostasy – we believe too much in ourselves and our own foolish ideas to be receptive to the truths of God. We believe too strongly in ourselves to believe in Him.

If we do grasp the Gospel, and consequently our own unworthiness and hopelessness, we realize that without Him we have nothing and nowhere else to go! According to the Apostle John, this had not been the case of those who had departed from the faith:

“They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us” (1 John 2:19).

Had they been believers, they would have remained, perceiving the green pastures they had in the Gospel. Never truly having been believers, they had no idea what they were leaving behind. Instead, they trusted that they could do better elsewhere. When we know the Gospel, we know that there isn’t an “elsewhere!” If the God of the Gospel isn’t for us, we have nothing and are nothing (Gal. 6:3). It takes only the smallest measure of faith, true faith, to comprehend this, but the vast majority of humankind is destitute of this dust-sized faith, filled instead with an imitation – an edifice of self-trust.

I thank God that He has whittled away my edifice. If only we would all pray, “Teach us the truth, no matter how painful!” Apostasies will come, but our Savior knows those who are His!

Christianity Ruins Everything?

Whether it’s church bashing or church burning, it has become a national pastime, but this one has its victims. Bashing is also generously dealt out by church insiders, who profusely apologize for the church. I’m all for apologies when a wrong has been committed, but many of these “apologies” don’t pertain to wrongdoing but wrong-being. We Christians are apologizing for being ourselves. Criticism can often be healthy and constructive, but criticism can easily become contempt, even self-contempt, especially when abundantly served up with every meal. Snowfall is delightful, but an avalanche is deadly.

It has become so acceptable to regard the church as “intolerant,” bigoted,” “judgmental” and “homophobic,” even by the most “tolerant” newscasters and social pundits. However, when they point the finger at the Church, indicting it for “intolerance,” they never once admit their own intolerance toward the Church.

This hypocritical climate has elevated biased and unbalanced reporting into standard-operating- procedure. The media has justified this by subtly painting the Church as the villain, the purveyor of discrimination, denying civil rights to all people. Therefore, according to the prevailing cultural bias, “they deserve what they get.” This carefully packaged bias has serious consequences, even depriving the church of police protection in the midst of intimidation and violence. As a result, Christians wrap themselves in a cloak of “mea culpa” and inhabit the shadows of society. Others – the younger Christians – have become convinced that the Church needs to be entirely overhauled.

I think it’s time to balance out the portrait that society is being force-fed. The 19th century Princeton theologian, B.B. Warfield, wrote,

“Hospitals and asylums and refuges for the sick, the miserable and the afflicted grow like heaven-bedewed blossoms in its path. Woman, whose equality with man Plato considered a sure mark of social disorganization, has been elevated; slavery has been driven from civilized ground; literacy has been given by Christian missionaries, under the influence of the Bible.” (The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield)

Fortunately, although secularism has been able to remove the crosses and Bibles from public places, it has not yet been able to remove hospital names of the likes of “St. Mary’s” or “Methodist Hospital” or “Presbyterian Medical Center” -- a remaining testimony to the glory of Christ. Perhaps the only reason that our Ivy League schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Brown still retain their names, is because their names do not reveal their Christian origins – all were started as Bible schools to train pastors.

Ironically, today’s universities have washed their hands of their parents and pretend that they were the sired by secularism. They scornfully proclaim that the West progressed in technology and science because it succeeded in shedding its religious mantle. However, historian Rodney Stark offers a very different assessment:

“Rather, the West is said to have surged ahead precisely as it overcame religious barriers…Nonsense, The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.” (The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, xi)

Nevertheless, many of the new atheists proclaim that Christianity can’t do anything right. While they charge that Christians can’t do science – after all, our minds are already made up – the facts protest against this indictment. British scientist Robert Clark sums up the evidence this way:

“However we may interpret the fact, scientific development has only occurred in Christian culture. The ancients had brains as good as ours. In all civilizations—Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, India, Rome, Persia, China and so on—science developed to a certain point and then stopped. It is easy to argue speculatively that, perhaps, science might have been able to develop in the absence of Christianity, but in fact, it never did. And no wonder. For the non-Christian world believed that there was something ethically wrong about science. In Greece, this conviction was enshrined in the legend of Prometheus, the fire-bearer and prototype scientist who stole fire from heaven, thus incurring the wrath of the gods.” (Christian Belief and Science, quoted by Henry F. Schaefer, 14)

Likewise, secularism likes to boast that it is the author of equality and justice. However, Jurgen Habermas reminds us that,

“Christianity and nothing else is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source.”

It’s our Bible that has provided the rational basis for equality and egalitarianism. It even required Israel’s king to study the Bible in order to remind him that he was no better than the lowest human and has subject to the very same laws (Deut. 17:18-20; Gen. 1:26-27). Even the highly secular Thomas Jefferson wrote,

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” (Notes on the State of Virginia)

Rights are not found in nature, nor can they be the endowment of Darwinian theory, where only the strongest have “rights.” They require a foundation rooted in heaven.

Our media also likes to associate our shameful treatment with our nature American Indians with the Christian faith. In order to make their case credible, they delete those chapters of history that demonstrate otherwise. In New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675, Historian Alden T. Vaughn presents a very different portrait. The Puritans were arguably the most thorough-going Christians. Vaughan writes, “They came as close to living by their pronouncements as did any other society of the seventeenth century, or any other century, perhaps” (112). He summarizes his research about the Puritans:

“What emerges from my investigation of the sources is a conviction that the New England Puritans followed a remarkably humane, considerate, and just policy in their dealings with the Indians. In matters of commerce, religious conversion, and judicial procedure, the Puritans had surprisingly high regard for the interests of a people who were less powerful, less civilized, less sophisticated, and – in the eyes of the New England colonists – less godly” (vii).

This shouldn’t surprise us. Christ taught us to give as we have been given, and the Puritans took this and other Biblical teachings seriously. Vaughan disposes of two other myths:

“One of the most persistent myths concerning the relations between the Puritan settler and the American Indian asserts that the colonist robbed the native of his land…Such a view in no longer held by those reasonably well acquainted with the history of early New England…The second…holds that while the Indian willingly sold his land…the native did not understand the implications” (104).

Indeed, history informs us that those who have been most committed to the Christ of the Bible have been leaders in the area of human rights. In this regard, Christian missionaries have received a bad name. However, in his book, Six Modern Myths about Christianity and Western Civilization, Philip J. Sampson corrects this judgment:

“Human sacrifice…infanticide…bloody wars, where conquerors spared neither women nor children – all these had been abolished…by the introduction of Christianity.”

According to Sampson, missionaries suffered maligning because they interfered with the traders, many of whom sexually abused the native population for their alluring trinkets:

“I believe that, disappointed in not finding the field of licentiousness quite so open as formerly, they will not give credit to morality which they do not wish to practice or to a religion which they undervalue, if not despise.” Charles Darwin

Christians have been taking care of the poor and the sick for a long time, just as they have been commanded by their Master, so much so that they put the Pagans to shame:

“Emperor Julian [an opponent of Christianity] ordered the creation of hospices saying, ‘It would be shameful, when the Jews have no beggars, when the impious Galileans feed our own people along with their own, that ours should be seen to lack the help we owe them.’” (Alvin Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World)

Julian and the other Pagans had been shamed by the unselfish care-giving of Christians. For instance the early third century theologian Tertullian wrote,

“We Christians have everything in common except our wives. It is our care of the helpless, our practice of lovingkindness that brands us in the eyes of many of our opponents. ‘Look,’ they say, “how much they love one another.’”

Aristides of Athens similarly wrote: “If the brethren have among them a man in need and they have not abundant resources, they fast for a day or two so as to provide the needy man with the necessary food!” Even the Pagan Lucian (190 AD) wrote, “The earnestness with which people of this religion help one another in their needs is incredible. They spare themselves nothing for this end.”

Such a confession was not characteristic of Greek and Roman Paganism. Historian Rodney Stark writes,

“Classical philosophy regarded mercy and pity as pathological emotions—defects of character to be avoided by all rational men. Since mercy involves providing unearned help or relief, it was contrary to justice.”

In contrast to this, the Apostle Paul wrote,

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9).

Consequently, it has become our duty to follow Christ in this manner. We have not always done it well, but the church has left its mark.

You are probably wondering at this point, “Well, the purpose of this essay is to defend Christianity, and so the author is merely picking out those things that support his position.” If you are thinking this way, you are correct. It’s a question that we need to ask of anyone who is making a case for any cause. Unbalanced reporting can mislead just as affectively as can out-right lies.

The Church has certainly experienced many humiliating moments throughout history, but at least we’re humiliated by them. I often ask myself if I’m presenting a distorted picture and/or coming to distorted, self-serving conclusions. Sometimes, we need to step back to take in the big picture, the entire panorama, in order to put the smaller parts into perspective.

For example, when we compare the panorama of nations that have arisen out of a Biblical worldview to those who hold very different worldviews, the comparison is quite illuminating. The communist/atheist nations that had promised a workman’s utopia instead have produced unmitigated suffering and genocide. By some estimates, these nations have exterminated 100 million of their own people!

While we are challenged by the horrors committed during the Crusades, our accusers conveniently forget that the Crusades were in response to hundreds of years of Islamic militancy, during which time Islam slew their way across North Africa and into Spain and across the Near East into India. Despite their many conquests, they continued to push their vision of world conquest into France in the 8th century and even to the gates of Vienna in the 16th.

While Christianity is routinely blamed for its “mistreatment” of the poor and marginalized, the truth is that within those traditionally Bible-oriented nations mercy and social justice found their most extensive flowering. It wasn’t in “enlightened” Greece and Rome that slavery came to an end. In fact, their religions promoted slavery. According to Dinesh D’Souza, even the enlightened Aristotle,

“had a job for low men: slavery. Aristotle argued that with low men in servitude, superior men would have leisure to think and participate in governance of the community. Aristotle cherished the ‘great-souled man’ who was proud, honorable, aristocratic, rich.” (What’s so Great about Christianity)

D’Souza continues,

“Christians were the first group in history to start an anti-slavery movement. The movement started in late eighteenth century in Britain…In England, William Wilberforce spear-headed a campaign that began with almost no support and was driven entirely by his Christian convictions…Pressed by religious groups at home, England took the lead in repressing the slave trade abroad.” (73)

Nor was this an anomaly. When Christians became excited about their Christ and His Word, they would often push for social justice:

“The Second Great Awakening, which started in the early 19th century and coursed through New England and New York and then through the interior of the country, left in its wake the temperance movement, the movement of women’s suffrage, and most important, the abolitionist movement.” (D’Souza, 75)

Secularists wrongly claim these achievements and sentiments for themselves, failing to credit the Christian worldview they inherited, albeit diminishing. Instead, upon close examination, the secularist, pagan, and even communist worldviews provide little, if any, support for our concepts of equal justice and welfare. For example, atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche correctly observed that Christianity was the source of the ideas that he hated:

“Another Christian concept, no less crazy: the concept of equality of souls before God. This concept furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal rights.” (Will to Power)

Nietzsche realized that the concept of equality could not be derived from an examination of nature, but required a transcendent source, something that he thoroughly rejected. D’Souza observes that,

“When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that ‘all men are created equal,’ he claimed that this was a self-evident truth. But it is not evident at all. Indeed, most cultures throughout history, and even today, reject the proposition.” (70)

Instead, I believe that Jefferson was correct about our essential equality being a “self-evident truth.” However, our anti-God philosophies have obscured this fact. If evolution is a fact, then some are more evolved than others. If atheism is a fact, then reality is only a matter of what we can see, touch, or quantify. When we measure up our fellow humans against this single materialistic standard, we find that some are deserving and some aren’t; some are educated and productive, while others aren’t. There is no basis here for equality.

The essential equality among male and female also did not find support within classical philosophy:

“The Greeks viewed the family almost exclusively as a vehicle for procreation. Most marriages were arranged, and the husband and wife were not expected to be friends. Indeed, Aristotle thought women largely incapable of friendship, and he certainly didn’t expect wives to relate to husbands on the plane of equality.”(D’Souza)

Instead, it was under the umbrella of Christianity that the woman was exalted to a place of essential equality. While many commentators scorn the Christian concept of the husband as the head of the wife, they conveniently ignore the fact that the husband was required to give his life for the wife as Christ did for the church (Eph. 5:22-31).

Non-Biblical worldviews also fail to provide a basis for the value of human life. If evolution is the ruling worldview, then there is no basis to value humanity over the animal kingdom. D’Souza writes:

“In ancient Rome and Greece, human life had very little value. The Spartans left weak children to die on the hillside. Infanticide was common, as it is even today in many parts of the world. Fathers who wanted sons had few qualms about drowning their newborn daughters. Human beings were routinely bludgeoned to death or mauled by wild animals in the Roman gladiatorial arena. The greatest of the classical thinkers from Seneca to Cicero, saw nothing wrong with these practices.” (71)

Instead, it required the Christian worldview and the Christian emperor Valentinian to outlaw infanticide, abortion, and abandonment (374 AD)! Alvin Schmidt similarly observes,

“In neither Greek nor Roman literature can one find any feeling of guilt related to abandoning children…Even Seneca [60 AD], whose moral philosophy was on a higher plain than that of his culture, said, ‘We drown children who at birth are weakly and abnormal.’” (Under the Influence: How Christianity Changed Civilization)

Perhaps the only reason that our modern secularists aren’t equally as decadent is because they have unwittingly inherited a Christian worldview. However, as this worldview continues to sustain attacks and erodes, we will become re-acquainted with the barbarities that had long ago been outlawed. Even the gladiatorial fights are slowly making a comeback in the form of “ultimate fighting.” Schmidt writes,

“Minicius Felix cites a Roman pagan who strongly criticized Christians for their anti-gladiatorial stance: ‘You do no go to our shows; you take no part in our processions…you shrink in horror from our sacred [gladiatorial] games.’”

From the Biblical perspective, we are all created gloriously in the image of God, and therefore, such barbarity is unacceptable, but not from a pagan or a strictly secular point of view:

“Each gladiator was seen as ‘crude, loathsome, doomed, lost…a man utterly debased by fortune, a slave, a man altogether without worth or dignity, almost without humanity.” (Anthony Kamm, The Romans)

Such a worldview is the natural domain of secularism. If we are no more than flesh and blood, then there is nothing the matter with the survival-of-the-fittest. It required the Christian emperors Theodosius 1 (378-395 AD) and his son Honorius (404) in the East to finally outlaw these “games.”

I did not inherit the above sentiments. I was raised in a secular Jewish home and hated anything to do with Christianity and the West. In fact, I wanted to see the destruction of Christianity, a religion that I had wrongly held responsible for the death of so many of my own people. My change in sentiment is reflected in the words of Albert Einstein, who had fled Nazi Germany. He confessed that as the Nazis rose to power, he had looked to the media to challenge them. However, he was shocked when they all capitulated. He then looked to the great German universities, which certainly would not tolerate Hitler and his gang. However, they too fell willingly into line. He then looked to the Church, an institution that he had long despised, but the only institution that offered any resistance against the violent hoard. Perhaps this resistance was too little and too late, but it changed Einstein’s assessment of the church to one of respect.