Evolution and the Church: A Dysfunctional Marriage

Although none of its followers would call it a religion, evolution has become the religion of the university. Instead, they call it science, even though none of it can be verified in the laboratory. However, even a growing number of atheists are challenging this theory. The late theoretical physicist, Fred Hoyle, dismissed this theory:

• Darwinian theory is wrong because random variations tend to worsen performance as indeed common sense suggests. (CRJ, Vol. 36, #02, 47)

• Biomaterials [the materials of the cell] with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design.

Even Lynn Margulis, the late biologist and wife of the famous atheist Carl Sagan, finally rejected this theory:

• Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change – led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. (44)

Other atheists, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini confessed that:

• There is something wrong – quite possibly fatally wrong – with the theory of evolution.

• We have been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring science into disrepute. (44)

Nevertheless, the power and prestige of the university has been able to push evolution into the church. Evolutionists are just as evangelistic about their faith as we are and they have even enlisted Christians to do their bidding, and they have been quite successful at this.

Ordinarily, what people believe about biological change does not have a direct impact upon faith and the Bible. However, when Christians adopt Darwin, the consequences are disastrous to the faith. Here are some examples:

Christian evolutionists (CEs) unbiblically elevate evolution to the level of Scripture. Instead of Scripture critiquing all other truth claims evolution now stands in judgment over Scripture. Paul claimed that we have to bring all thoughts and worldviews into conformity to the Gospel (2 Cor. 10:4-5). In reverse to this teaching, Christian evolutionists tend to bring biblical thinking into conformity evolution.

Jesus had warned against serving two masters (Mat. 6:23-24), arguing that one would eventually take the place of the other. In all of my conversations with Christian evolutionists, it has been apparent that it was the Bible that got replaced. It was always coerced to conform to Darwin and not the other way around. Consequently, when “science” is allowed to trump Scripture, there is no end to the compromises that Scripture is forced to make.

Evolution introduces a competing and entirely alien worldview. The message of Genesis, and the rest of the Scriptures, is that God had made everything “very good”(Gen. 1:31) and we screwed it all up, requiring a future Savior (Gen. 3:15) to bring about a “restoration” (Acts 3:21).

According to evolution, life was always a dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest struggle from the beginning. Amazingly, cunning and death were God’s glorious tools. Consequently, Adam and Eve screwed-up nothing, and sin and death had their origins from the inception of life, in contrast with Genesis 3.

As a result of this unholy marriage between the Scriptures and evolution, Jesus, the “second Adam,” has to be re-evaluated. He is no longer the Savior from the effects of the Fall – sin and death, the work of Adam – but the Savior from God’s own “glorious” but bloody evolutionary plan.

There can be no “restoration,” because a restoration would be a restoration to our dog-eat-dog beginnings – not a very pleasant prospect.

The CE claim that the Bible is about the spiritual world, while evolution is about the physical. Therefore, there cannot be any contradiction between Darwin and the Bible, since the Bible is just concerned about the spiritual and Darwin about the physical – two entirely distinct realities! CEs make this insupportable distinction in order to defend themselves against any verse that might contradict Darwinism. Where there is an apparent contradiction, like the biblical assertion that animals had originally been herbivores, the CE claims that this teaching is a spiritual one, not one about the physical creation of the animal world. How convenient, but how inaccurate!

This alien worldview also undermines morality in many ways. If the “survival-of-the-fittest” is God’s glorious plan to bring us onto the scene, then we should regard this God-given methodology as normative – a model for our guidance. Consequently, who can blame Cain for killing the naïve and less well-adapted Abel! Besides, if there is no absolute distinction between us and the beasts, then there can be no absolute distinction between the way we treat man and beast.

Evolution disparages the Biblical accounts. In order to make room for Darwin, Scripture – at least the first several chapters of Genesis – has to be relegated to non-historical allegory. For instance, Genesis 1:30 states that God gave the birds and beasts green herbs to eat. However, this contradicts evolution’s insistence regarding the bloody struggle of the survival-of-the-fittest. Therefore, the CE dogmatically asserts that the Bible “isn’t a science or history text,” but a theology text - the way to find salvation.

In this manner, evolution illegitimately separates theology from its necessary historical foundations. However, we cannot separate the theology of the cross from the history of the cross. To remove the historical fact that Christ died on the cross is to deny the Gospel – that Jesus died for our sins. No history, no theology!

We also find this inseparable relationship between history and theology in Genesis. Peter reasons that God means business about a future judgment. He cites His past (historical) judgments as evidence – the flood and Sodom (2 Peter 2:4-9). However, if these accounts were merely parabolic or allegorical, then we’d have no reason to believe that the future judgment is any more than an allegory. Clearly, this was not Peter’s intention.

Closer to home, Jesus bases His teachings on marriage on the historical events of Genesis 1 and 2:

·        "Haven't you read," he [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' [Genesis 1:26-27] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' [Gen. 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has [historically] joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

If God hadn’t actually created them and historically joined the two together, Jesus’ argument against divorce would be insupportable. (If God hadn’t historically joined them together, then there is no need to keep them together!) Therefore, if Genesis isn’t history, then Jesus was mistaken.

Many CEs deny that Adam and Eve were historical people. However, if we deny their historicity, then we have to deny everything that the New Testament says about them. However, Paul clearly affirmed the historicity of the Genesis 3 account:

·        Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—(Romans 5:12)

Without any doubt, Paul made an historical claim and based a lot of other theology on the historical Adam (1 Tim. 2:14-16; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45).

The many genealogies also assert that Adam was an historical person. Besides, if Adam isn’t historical, then Cain and Abel aren’t historical, and Abraham and David aren’t historical – all the way up to Jesus. Consequently, if Adam wasn’t historical, the genealogies would lead us to believe that all of his so-named descendents are likewise unhistorical. Therefore, to compromise the first chapters of the Bible is to compromise everything else.

The CE worldview kills apologetics – the defense of the faith. Proofs build upon what is clear and generally accepted in order to prove what has been unclear and disputed. This also pertains to apologetics – theistic proofs and proofs that the Bible is actually God’s Word. Consequently, we start with what we can see and touch – the physical world (evidences of miracles, fulfilled prophecy, extra-Biblical testimony…) – and apply these areas of agreement to areas of disagreement. Jesus performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies to provide a foundation for our faith. However, the CE claims that the Bible is both mistaken and unconcerned about events in the physical world. This undercuts the possibility of any comprehensive proof.

The CE also disparages ID as science and proof. This too goes against the testimony of Scripture that we are “without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20) when we deny the physical evidence for the existence of God, because God has given us this evidence. Consequently, the CE worldview has limited the Christian faith to only subjective/personal appeals – “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8)

When I challenge CEs about their inconsistencies, they will tell me that we have to be humble about our interpretation of the Bible. If only they were equally humble about their belief in Darwin!

Darwin and the Growing Gaps in the Fossil Record

If marijuana use leads to harder drugs, then we should be able to document this progression in the case histories of hard core drug users. If we can’t do this, then we should abandon this theory. If polyps lead to cancer, we should be able to demonstrate this lethal progression. If we can’t, then it is time to reconsider our theory. If natural selection leads to macroevolution – the appearance of higher life forms from lower – we should also be able to document this as well. However, the overwhelming consensus of leading paleontologists is that this cannot be done.

I will merely present a very partial list of quotations from these paleontologists:

• "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." (Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager)

• "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki)

• "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George)

• "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts – Paleontologist)

• "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – (Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard)

• "The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion." (Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46)

• "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." – (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University)

• "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Robert L Carroll – Paleontologist)

• "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." (Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9)

• "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". (David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History)

The fossil record provides us with no more reason to suppose Darwinian evolution, no more than to suppose that placing teeth under pillows brings the good tooth fairy. Perhaps it is due time to question the theory of evolution!

Meanwhile, theists are accused of believing “creation myths.” However, can the evolutionist say this with a straight face while they have their own creation myth – that everything sprang into existence uncaused out of nothing? Some do!

An Atheist Admires the Contributions of Religion

Atheist Alain de Botton believes that atheists and secularists can learn and borrow a lot of good things from religion:

• Religions merit our attention for their sheer conceptual ambition; for changing the world in a way that few secular institutions ever have. They have managed to combine theories about ethics and metaphysics with a practical involvement in education, fashion, politics, travel, hostelry, initiation, ceremonies, publishing, art and architecture -  a range of interests which puts to shame the scope of achievements of even the greatest and most influential secular movements and individuals in history. (Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion, 18)

Truly, there are many reasons why the religious combination of “ethics and metaphysics” is productive. Most basically, monotheistic religions maintain that there are unchanging and transcendent Ideals and Truths (metaphysics) that trump even our immediate welfare.

There are many benefits buried in this understanding. For one thing, this understanding (faith) frees us up from the tyranny of our emotions. We no longer are enslaved to their passing whims and demands, knowing that something greater awaits us in the next life.

This faith – knowing that God is taking care of us - also frees us up to be other-centered. We certainly do not like everyone in our church, but we understand that love shouldn’t depend on our likes and dislikes, but on a higher calling. Interestingly, we find that as we love the unlikable, we might also grow to like them!

This faith also frees us up from self-absorption. There comes into our lives something greater with which to be absorbed. Our performance, popularity, and worthiness no longer matter to us as it once did. We know that we are forgiven and beloved and find growing joy in serving our Master.

This, of course, leads us to de Botton’s expectation that the secularist can borrow useful traits and behaviors from the Christian. He recognizes that:

• We continue to need exhortations to be sympathetic and just, even if we do not believe that there is a God who has a hand in wishing to make us so (80).

However, looking longingly through the car dealership window at a Ferrari is one thing; appropriating it for oneself is another. We might admire its fuel-injection system and the energy it imparts. However, we will be very disappointed if we try to swallow it in the hope that we will be similarly energized.

It is precisely the same predicament that the atheist will face by trying to incorporate the things of God without God.

While I am glad that de Botton recognizes the “need [for] exhortations to be sympathetic and just,” the atheist has no adequate reason to heed such exhortations. De Botton correctly argues that such exhortations will produce a better world, but the human being is more interested in what will produce the better life for himself and those in his own household, and why shouldn’t he be!

De Botton bases his case on pragmatism – what will yield positive results. However, if our exhortations are pragmatically based, then pragmatism alone will tend towards self-centeredness and our immediate comforts. These considerations provide maximal benefits.

While it is easy to stage a concert to benefit a worthy cause – and in the short-run, this makes us feel very good about ourselves – it is unsustainable in the long-run. The personal pay-offs dry up as human history ubiquitously testifies. The benefit concert was exciting at first, but over time, it fails to provide high-octane, self-esteem building fuel.

Can the secularist live for the high moral principle itself? This brings us back to the basic flaw of atheism/secularism. There are simply no “higher” moral principles! In the atheistic world, there is nothing higher than his own feelings and opinions – no higher truth to which he will submit or even recognize. Secular Humanist, Max Hocutt, stated the problem this way:

• “To me [the non-existence of God] means that there is no absolute morality, that moralities are sets of social conventions devised by humans to satisfy their needs…If there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no good reason why anyone should pay it any heed.” (Understanding the Times)

However, the atheist doesn’t even believe that there is a “morality written up in the sky.” Instead, morality is something we merely create. Hence, morality serves us; we don’t serve morality, and there is a monumental difference between the two!

This difference means that our cherished principles lack any unchanging basis. Therefore, they are relative to our changing thoughts, feelings and cultures.

De Botton wishes to borrow Christian principles and behaviors. However, he will find that secularism is even unable to retain the Christian principles that Western Civilization already enjoys. Let’s name a few:

1. Mutual and Equal Respect. In the counseling world, this has been translated into “Unconditional Positive Regard” (UPR) for all people.
2. Equal Protection under the Law (The Bill of Rights)

However, these rest upon a transcendent, biblical foundation, as our Declaration of Independence affirms:

• That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

However, this affirmation is not within the grasp of secularism/atheism, which is materialistic and naturalistic. In other words, reality is exclusively comprised from the ingredients of this material universe – no transcendent spiritual realities allowed here! But without the transcendent spiritual, there is no basis whatsoever for equal rights, respect and UPR.

Just imagine a secular psychotherapist who values UPR as a necessary psychotherapeutic tool – and it is! One problem – he has no rational basis to regard all his clients with UPR! From a materialistic perspective, some have positive value and some negative. Some are costly to people and society; others make positive contributions. Therefore, they do not merit equal respect, protection under the law or UPR! Why then extend UPR if reality doesn’t warrant it? From a materialistic perspective, some people merit nothing more than contempt.

This understanding might not stop the therapist from extending UPR, even though he ceases to believe in truth of UPR. However, he will soon realize that he is being manipulative and hypocritical. Eventually, this cognitive dissonance will undermine UPR and any concept of equal respect.

As a probation officer, I always treated my probationers with UPR, even while I was firm with them. However, they sensed the respect I had for them, and I think that this made a difference. However, this is unsustainable for the atheist.

I pray that de Botton will come to realize that he cannot separate the gift of religion from the gift-Giver.

Psychoanalysis and how it has Failed to Address Human Need

Psychoanalysis has been no friend to religion. Sigmund Freud regarded it as no more than a “childhood neurosis” and even worse:

·        The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. It is still more humiliating to discover how a large number of people living today, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of pitiful rearguard actions. (Civilization and Its Discontents,1930)

Therefore, psychoanalysis failed to give it any credibility as an aid in treatment. However, many therapists now recognize the need to take faith seriously and respectfully. Alan Fontana and Robert Rosenheck wrote about those who have experienced severe traumas:

·        One of the most pervasive effects of traumatic exposure is the challenge that people experience to their existential beliefs concerning the meaning and purpose of life. (“Trauma, Change in Strength of Religious Faith, and Mental Health Service Use among Veterans Treated for PTSD,” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192, 9 (2004): 579)

If we are flesh and blood, we have to seek flesh and blood solutions to our problems. However, if we are also moral and spiritual beings, then these dimensions must be addressed, and even more so if this is the presenting concern of the client:

·        Pursuit of mental health services appears to be driven more by their guilt and the weakening of their religious faith than by the severity of their PTSD symptoms or their deficits in social functioning.

·        A primary motivation of veterans’ continuing pursuit of treatment may be their search for a meaning and purpose to their traumatic experiences.

While Freud regarded feelings guilt as an artifact of evolution, perhaps even neurotic, at the least, these feelings require serious attention. A.A. Howsepian, assistant professor of psychiatry, UC San Francisco, writes:

·        Guilt about one’s own perceived morally damaging combat actions is a significant additional risk factor for suicide in war veterans. (Christian Research Journal, Vol.36, Number 02, 23)

However, resolving guilt requires more than a therapist simply communicating, “You are a good person. Be gentle with yourself.” Counseling has to recognize that guilt is more than a feeling. Instead, it is like a fire alarm. It is not enough to turn the alarm off. The reality – the fire - that set the alarm off must be addressed. Feelings of guilt usually indicate that there is a fire raging somewhere. Sometimes, the fire is a matter of making reparations for the offense of the soldier. Howsepian affirmatively writes about Vietnam Veterans of America, an organization that seeks to help veterans heal by linking them up with humanitarian projects in Vietnam.

This program recognizes that there was a real and objective wrong that, at the least, must be restituted. Clearly, it is not enough to merely visualize helping victims – a technique of systematic desensitization. If guilt is real, it has to be addressed as such. If I cheat on my wife, and she finds out about it, it would not be appropriate to inform her that I feel better about the situation, having done some visualization exercises. Neither would it be enough for me to apologize by saying:

·        I don’t really believe that I did anything wrong, but I feel bad because I can see that I hurt you. Therefore, I won’t cheat on you anymore.

This is a demeaning response. It fails to acknowledge that my wife has a legitimate grievance. It treats her feelings as if they are completely arbitrary, subjective and not reality-based. It conveys to her that she is simply not “enlightened” enough.

Even more importantly, if my morality and behavior merely depend upon feelings, then I will eventually return to the same tempting behaviors when the feelings change, which they will. Besides, if my wife goes out of town, and I think I can have a fling and get away with it, why not!

On top of this, my wife will never trust me. If I really don’t believe that my behavior is wrong in an objective sense, then she will realize that I lack sufficient motivation to resist future temptations.

Instead, contrition and confession offer the only real hope of forgiveness and reconciliation. Where there is a complete and humble confession acknowledging real guilt, there is real healing and forgiveness. I’ve experienced this relief and reconciliation many times. Without this, the discomfort is so great that we are inevitably constrained to deny and rationalize our guilt.

If we refuse to acknowledge that our guilt feelings reflect very real transgressions, we block the possibility of an authentic reconciliation. When we don’t experience this reconciliation with our closest friends and family, it might also be that we don’t experience this on a divine level.

Therefore, we have everything to gain to consider the possibility that we have transgressed a higher moral principle. Admittedly, this idea can be terrifying. However, Scripture promises:

·        If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

It’s a Human Right to Kill the Unborn but not to Teach Her

What is a “human right?” In several Western nations, it is no longer considered a human right for parents to raise their children in the way they want. Instead, the State has usurped that right. A Christian couple had recently found an uneasy asylum in the USA, lest their children be taken away by the German State:

• The Christian couple [Uwe and Hannelore Romeike] faced increasing fines and the threat of losing custody of their children after they decided to homeschool in 2006. The family settled here in Morristown, Tenn., where they knew another German family. They soon applied for asylum, arguing that they couldn’t return to Germany because they feared persecution for their religious-based determination to homeschool. An immigration judge granted the family’s asylum request in 2010…But the Obama administration appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Romeikes’ asylum win. The case is set to continue on April 23 in another hearing at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio.

Clearly, our administration doesn’t regard parental rights as unalienable human rights. Meanwhile, they have invented a broad array of their own “human rights.” Our former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton had consistently proclaimed that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” Consequently, homosexuals are all guaranteed asylum here.

Ironically, the same secular thinking declares that it’s a human right to murder the pre-born, but it’s not a human right to raise and instruct the post-born.

What then is a human right? Here are several considerations:

“Human rights are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being” (Wikipedia). However, there must be an Agent that establishes these “inalienable fundamental rights,” as rights that trump whatever the State might determine. Without the authority of God, human rights would be no more authoritative than a herd of cows universally thinking that they have a right to not be eaten, however understandable such thinking might be.

Everything in this world is alienable – a mere matter of molecules in motion. It is only the Transcendent that can give and enforce human rights. It is noteworthy that all of the major world religions recognize parental rights, while they don’t recognize abortive or homosexual rights.

The Bill of Rights – the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – grants parental rights through its “free exercise” of religion clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” However, the Constitution contains not even a whisper about abortive or homosexual rights!

States Rights. Only nine states out of our fifty have passed SSM. The other 41 have rejected SSM. Furthermore, “Pro-abortion forces by the end of 1972 had won in only four states the virtually unrestricted abortion that Roe v. Wade would soon mandate for the nation [in 1973]” (World, May 4, 2013, 80). Clearly, these “rights” were not deemed rights by either the majority of the states or by popular vote.

Rights Based on Nature. There is nothing natural about abortion or homosexuality. However, all nature testifies to the self-sacrificial behavior of parents for their children. They know how to love them better than the State or unnatural and temporary modern couplings. Besides, gays have a much lower lifespan and higher incidents of depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicide, even in countries that are far more accepting of their lifestyle than the Christian lifestyle. Therefore, the gay lifestyle is not conducive to child-rearing.

Rights based on Historical Considerations. Homosexuality has often been tried, but it has never survived for long. Historically, it seems to be a suicidal, lacking any historical continuity, suggesting that it is endemically flawed.  What lifestyle then promotes a nation? John J. Davis (Evangelical Ethics) wrote of the work of British Anthropologist, J.D. Unwin:

• After a comprehensive study of both Western and non-Western cultures throughout human history, Unwin concluded that the record of mankind “does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it had been absolutely [heterosexually] monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.” Unwin observed that a society’s adoption and maintenance of heterosexual monogamy as a social standard “has preceded all manifestations of social energy, whether that energy be reflected in conquest, in art and sciences, in extension of the social vision, or in the substitution of monotheism for polytheism.” (p. 116)

On what then are abortive and gay rights based? Militant demands alone! While our administration is aggressively pushing abortive and homosexual rights – even internationally – it is attacking human rights. Just this past week, the Pentagon announced that Christians who evangelize could now be court-marshaled. 

Similarly, chaplains who continue to call homosexuality “sin” are being threatened with disciplinary action. So much for our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech! Clearly, the Pentagon has no problem with evangelizing in favor of its own agenda - homosexuality.

Why the hostility towards the Christian faith? Jesus claimed that “The world…hates me because I testify that what it does is evil” (John 7:7). Why should it matter what we have to say? To the world we are just narrow-minded fundamentalists. What if we do call homosexuality and abortion “sins”? Why should it bother them so much? I think it’s because they know that we’re right!

God’s Greatest Secret and why He Hides it

It should not be surprising that God’s greatest secret was hidden away within the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle. It was the place where only the high priest could enter, and only once a year, on the Day of Atonement.

It was so secret that it wasn’t enough that it was sequestered away from the people. It was in its own room, covering the Ark of the Covenant, and itself covered by the massive wings of two gold cherubim. It couldn’t be seen. So protected was this “object” that its seclusion within its own private room, obscured by the cherubim, was not enough. When the high priest entered during that holiest day, he had to enter with great plumes of smoke generated by his incense censor. This was the one “object” – the only “object” - upon which he could not look without being struck dead (Lev. 16:2):

• "Aaron shall bring the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household, and he is to slaughter the bull for his own sin offering. He is to take a censer full of burning coals from the altar before the Lord and two handfuls of finely ground fragrant incense and take them behind the curtain. He is to put the incense on the fire before the Lord, and the smoke of the incense will conceal the atonement cover [“mercy seat;” KJV] above the Testimony [the Ten Commandments which had been placed in the Ark], so that he will not die.” (Leviticus 16:11-13)

This provokes many questions. Why should the atonement cover – the mercy seat – be so carefully concealed, and why should seeing it result in death? The Bible presents us with no other object that will cause death if it is seen! Meanwhile, there are many verses that had informed Israel that they couldn’t see God without dying (Exodus 33:20). In essence, a mere object had been elevated to the status of God Himself by this threat.

The mercy seat, resting squarely upon the Ark, had been designated as the place where God would meet Israel (Exod. 30:6). It was there that Israel would inquire of the Lord and would seek His mercy. Before the completion of the Jerusalem Temple, the Ark along with its mercy seat covering – and both of these were covered - were brought into battle with Israel. It represented the presence of God.

However, it was the mercy seat upon which no one could look, and not the Ark itself. Why the distinction. The Law had already been revealed; mercy – the fullness of the mercy of God – hadn’t.

Proverbs tells us that our God conceals:

• It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. (Proverbs 25:2)

Moses informed Israel that the hidden things belong to God (Deut. 29:29) and there were many mysteries adjacent to the mercy seat that God hadn’t revealed. Although He ordained the Levites to make atonement for Israel’s sins, He also cryptically revealed that He will provide the ultimate atonement:

• Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people. (Deut. 32:43)

However, He consistently refused to disclose the redemption or atonement price:

• For this is what the Lord says: "You were sold for nothing, and without money you will be redeemed." (Isaiah 52:3)

Redemption always cost. What then would the atonement of God’s people cost? This disclosure is curiously absent. This takes us back to the question of the nature of the atonement cover resting upon the Ark and the Law it contained. Why the great mystery? Wasn’t the Law with its sacrificial system adequate? Evidently not! Lying on top of it was something additional - a secret guarded with cherubim, smoke and the threat of death.

Parallel with the mystery are the references to a “New Covenant,” signifying that the Mosaic was not sufficient. A New Covenant was also hinted at in other ways. Although God had been very explicit about the Mosaic Covenant, there was the allusion to another secret covenant that He’d reveal only to some - to those who “fear him”:

• The Lord confides in those who fear him; he makes his covenant known to them. (Psalm 25:14)

Central to His purposes and even more hidden from sight was His Messiah who would initiate the New Covenant with His own blood (Isa. 42:6; 49:8):

• He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver. (Isaiah 49:2; 51:16; 52:10; 53:1-3)

This brings us back to the mercy seat. Interestingly, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) translates the corresponding Hebrew word “kapporeth” as “sacrifice of atonement” or “hilasterion” in the Greek. This same Greek word is translated as “propitiation” (KJV) in Romans 3:25:

• God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement [“propitiation,” KJV] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:25-26)

Jesus had to die for us to demonstrate that God is just, and that His holy nature requires punishment for every sin. Jesus then is the mercy seat, the atonement covering. Jesus was the reason that the Father tolerated Israel’s sins. Even under the Mosaic Covenant, He was the secret source of grace. It was Jesus who lead Israel in the desert (Num. 20:16; Exo. 23:20-23; 14:19; 33:2-3, 14). It was Jesus who fed Israel (1 Cor. 10:4). It was Jesus who ultimately provided atonement for the sins of Israel (Heb. 9:14). But why couldn’t anyone look upon the mercy seat without dying? Why such a severe penalty for something – Someone – so glorious.

Clearly, the mercy seat represented the very heart of all history – the highest expression of God’s glory. Even though Jesus suffered greatly as the time of His crucifixion approached, He nevertheless talked about this event as the time of His glory:

• "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once.” (John 13:31-32)

But why should the Father have so carefully guarded this good news? Usually, we keep bad news a secret. My youngest brother became hospital-phobic at an early age. He had suffered at too many of them. Therefore, when my parents had to bring him in for additional treatments, they lied to him about going to the hospital.

However, having our sins forgiven and going to heaven would seem to be something to cry out rather than conceal. Why then did God so meticulously conceal this good news, even at the threat of death? I must confess that I can’t fully explain this. However, I will try to offer a partial answer. There is some knowledge that can destroy us if we are not ready for it. When I became a supervisor in the NYC Department of Probation, I determined to be as Christ-like as I possibly could. Foolishly, I thought that if I was totally transparent with my subordinates and demonstrated my commitment to justice and their welfare, they would reciprocate. However, they mistook kindness for weakness, and tried to get away with murder.

Consequently, I had to bring charges against them. Conclusion: They hated me and I hated them. I learned that many people are not prepared to receive total transparency. In fact, it will hurt them.

When Joseph’s brother came to him seeking grain during the great famine, he didn’t disclose to them his identity. Instead, he tested them in ways that appear cruel. In the end, he saw how they were willing to lay their lives down for their youngest and favored brother, Benjamin – the one they probably even envied as they had Joseph. At that very point, Joseph broke down and sent all of his Egyptian guards out of the room. They weren’t ready for his disclosure, but his brothers were (Gen. 42-45).

There is much – perhaps all - that our God wants to disclose to us, but we can’t handle it. However, John promises that there is coming a time when we will be able to understand:

• Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

Are Christians Self-Righteous and Pharisaical?

 For one thing, it depends on how you define these terms. In a just-published study entitled Are Christians More Like Jesus or More Like the Pharisees, Barna.org investigated this very question. However, their measures of what it means to be “like Jesus” and what it means to be “like the Pharisees” are somewhat questionable. Here are some of their statements that are intended to equate with “Actions like Jesus”:

• I listen to others to learn their story before telling them about my faith.
• I regularly choose to have meals with people with very different faith or morals from me.
• I am personally spending time with non-believers to help them follow Jesus.

According to the first statement, it would be un-Christ-like to do street preaching or to hand out Christian tracts without first listening. Therefore, we are no better than self-righteous hypocrites when we do these things and claim to be following Jesus! Consequently, I fail to see how these statements touch upon the question of pharisaism or even of being Christ-like.

Perhaps I’m just overreacting to the barrage of criticism systematically aimed at the church and Christians. We are routinely accused of being “Pharisees” because we make assessments about others’ behavior – especially in regards to sexual sins. Meanwhile, the “Progressive” church claims that they are more Christ-like, because they accept everyone, just as Jesus did. (Needless to observe, they are not very accepting of Evangelicals!)

Although Jesus did accept everyone, it was always with the proviso that they repent of their sins – the very thing that the Progressives refuse to require. In fact, Jesus insisted that we all had to repent:

·        But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (Luke 13:3-5)

While the Progressives accuse us of “pharisaism” because we judge, Jesus did as much judging as anyone in the Bible. Here’s just a small sample of His denunciations:

·        "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” (Matthew 23:13)

·        "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.” (Matthew 23:25)

·        "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. (Matthew 23:27-28)

In light of this, it is surprising that Barna would list the following statements as reflective of Jesus’ attitudes:

·        I see God working in people’s lives, even when they are not following him.

·        It is more important to help people know God is for them than to make sure they know they are sinners.

Rather than reflecting the Jesus of Scripture, these statements are more reflective of popular, unbiblical notions about a soft, mellow, and user-friendly Jesus. Instead, the Jesus of Scripture talked more about sin, condemnation and hell than anyone else in the Bible. However, today a holy and righteous Jesus offends modern sensibilities. He explained: “The world…hates me because I testify that what it does is evil” (John 7:7). Should it be any surprise that the world also hates us terrible “fundamentalist Christians” who also talk about sin (John 15:18-20)?

According to Barna’s understanding of Jesus, we are not very Christ-like. We judge and we make offensive distinctions between the saved and the unsaved, righteousness and unrighteousness. However, these are the very distinctions that Jesus made!

I’m not saying that we Christians should be immune from criticism. I criticize myself and also the church. We both deserve it and need it. Besides, it’s healthy to confess our sins. Humility and transparency are to be esteemed.

However, I do object to the one-sided disparagement of the church. It has descended from constructive criticism into destructive condemnation and has become a source of widespread contempt towards the church and has tragically caused many of our youth to turn against the church.

Well then, what does it mean to be self-righteous and pharisaic? Here are the statements that Barna associates with “self-righteousness”:

• I find it hard to be friends with people who seem to constantly do the wrong things.
• It’s not my responsibility to help people who won’t help themselves.
• I feel grateful to be a Christian when I see other people’s failures and flaws.
• I believe we should stand against those who are opposed to Christian values.
• People who follow God’s rules are better than those who do not.

However, these statements have little to do with self-righteousness or pharisaism. What then is it? Jesus told many parables to expose the sin of pharisaism – a trust in one’s righteousness and merit before God. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, he exposed the self-righteousness of the prodigal’s older brother who rejected him, because he regarded himself as more worthy than the prodigal (Luke 15:11-31). He was convinced that he was the deserving son, but the prodigal was being hosted to a celebration by simply returning and confessing his sin to his father. Convinced that he deserved better, it was the self-righteous brother who willingly excluded himself from the blessings.

Jesus told a parable about two people entering the Temple to pray. One was a rank sinner who understood his desperate condition before God, and the other was a self-righteous Pharisee who didn’t. Jesus introduced the parable this way:

·        To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'” (Luke 18:9-12)

The Pharisee merely congratulated himself. He lacked any consciousness of his own sin and need for forgiveness. He was in denial. His problem wasn’t that he had strong convictions. Instead, it was that he had erroneous convictions about himself – that he was righteous, deserving, and better than others. His problem wasn’t that he followed God’s rules and regarded them as more important than any other rules – the very thing that Barna suggests – but that the Pharisee was convinced that his adherence to the law made him a superior and deserving person.

Meanwhile, we are maligned as Pharisees because we follow the teachings of the Bible and regard them as the ultimate revelation of truth. However, Jesus never taught against these beliefs. Instead, He reaffirmed them!

Also, Barna indirectly maligns Christians because they might feel grateful for the freedom they have in Christ (John 8:31-32), when they see the moral confusion of non-Christians. Such gratefulness for the blessings we have in Christ has nothing to do with self-righteousness or pharisaism but everything to do with the goodness of Christ to His children.

Nor is it pharisaic to observe that we are acting more morally than another. (We all make such comparative assessments!) However, it is pharisaical to take credit for it.

Jesus did a lot of judging. Contrary to Barna, He stood “against those who are opposed to Christian [Biblical] values.” Arguably, everything He said was in judgment of a distortion of Biblical truth. And we are supposed to think and act like Jesus (1 Peter 1:15). Therefore, it is inconceivable that by merely making moral judgments or by insisting on repentance, we are un-Christ-like, as the world would tell us!

Barna wrongly equates self-righteousness with the statement, “It’s not my responsibility to help people who won’t help themselves.” However, Jesus taught that there are times that we have to shake the dust off our feet, as a sign of God’s displeasure, and move on. He also warned against throwing our pearls of wisdom before swine (Mat. 7:6). Therefore, it is sometimes Christ-like to not extend ourselves to others. Sometimes, we even harmfully enable people by helping them.

You might think that I am making much out of nothing. However, the secular world has no reservations about calling us “hypocrites,” thereby encouraging acts of violence against the church. We are termed “homophobic” and “Islamophobic,” essentially pasting a target on our backs. Consequently, many are now seeing the target and have begun firing away. Here’s one example:

·        The Southern Poverty Law Council's decision to label ministries that oppose same-sex "marriage" as "hate groups" led directly to the Family Research Council (FRC) shooting, according to a chilling new video. 

However, the mainstream media refuses to adequately report the very violence they incur. This merely perpetuates the problem.

Some Christians believe that when wrongly accused, we should merely rejoice. Yes, we should rejoice, but we should also denounce the injustice. When the high priest unjustly ordered Paul to be struck, he protested:

·        "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!" (Acts 23:3)

Was Paul’s response un-Christ-like? Certainly not! Jesus responded similarly at His arrest and trial. May the Lord also give us wisdom to respond in truth and grace when mistreated and maligned.

Returning to the question of self-righteousness – It is we Christians who have been freed from this life-consuming preoccupation of trying to prove ourselves and our worth. This abscess has been absolutely filled by our Savior who has given us the gift of His righteousness. Therefore, we no longer need to deny the ugly things we carry within. Instead, we can be transparent and cry out, “Christ has set me free!