Initial Thoughts on Misquoting Jesus

To get some background on Bart Ehrman's thoughts on Scripture I picked up his other book Misquoting Jesus -- Who Changed the Bible and Why. It was on the New York Times Bestseller list. I read it and now I understand why Bart has a problem with God -- he doesn't really believe the Bible accurately represents God because of the variants in the texts of Scripture.

The arguments he presents are not new but he communicates them well -- he has a great way of making the complicated more understandable. Besides this I still think his reasoning has problems:

1. He thinks the early copyists (1st and 2nd centuries) were just rich Christians and not professional scribes. Given the absence of a text from the period how would we know this? How can we ascertain quality if we have nothing to look at. We do many things about how the scripture were preserved. One question: if it was the rich Christians who held the texts wouldn't they be rich enough to hire a professional scribe to do the work especially if they thought the Scriptures in question were important?

2. One thing he does not mention is how much of Scripture has no variants at all. Wouldn't this indicate that the text at least at these points are accurate and trustworthy?

3. He still relies on higher criticism in this book which is largely opinion.

Right now I am reading the counter to this book by Timothy Paul Jones called Misquoting Truth. Hopefully his arguments will cover everything I think about in dealing with Ehrman. If not I will mention some of them.

Church Antagonism -- Part 3 -- Types of Antagonists

Or perhaps we should say levels of antagonists. You can classify antagonists based on their level of hostility. This is important as antagonism has a pyramid structure going from top to bottom. I classify them as various types of wolves in sheep's clothing.

1. The Demon Wolves -- This is the top of the pyramid -- these wolves are psychotic and paranoid -- that is they see evil in everything but themselves. The enjoy making trouble although they will deny it. These are the clergy killers who feel they are on a crusade to rid the church of evil and that evil to them is found in the pastor and his closest associates. I never really faced one this bad but I could see where a couple of them might develop into ones.

2. The Big Wolves -- These are not as demon inspired as the above but they still do many of the same things. They are distinguished by the fact there is no reasoning with them. They don't necessarily enjoy what there doing but they are dominated the the belief they are right and that's that.

The guy who ultimately got the board to go along with him in voting me out of my second church was this type -- all he could see was evil. Everything I did and said was interpreted through the lens of darkness. I had ulterior motives for everything he said. I was the problem no matter how much I did, explained my actions or apologized. The guy just did not have grip on reality. There was no explaining things to him or reasoning with him. There was a woman in my first church like this too -- I was shielded from her by the fact she wasn't as member of the church but her influence over her family that did attend and were members was large and she used it to try to get what she wanted. There were a couple of others as well. One board member I had was convinced that I should micromanage everything and that my belief in team leadership was bad. No matter what I showed him there was no convincing him -- he caused problems but then when he couldn't get what he wanted he left the church but did so in a way that caused further problems. This happened a lot in my first church.

3. Pack Wolves -- These are the antagonists that have power or position but take their orders through the Demon or Big Wolves. They strike when the first blow has already been laid down. They act as support before the blow is struck. They are cowards but get brave when the there is an advantage to them and the battle is on and the shepherd is on one knee from the knife in his back.

The best example I have of this was in my second church. There was a couple who kept under the radar but they were hostile toward me from day one. As they were leaving the church at my election they told the denomination official that the vote that elected me was illegal. They wanted someone else and I was not the people they wanted (they were trying to get a friend of theirs). After that they would show up when they felt like it. This was barely enough to keep their membership and they used their money (they were quite well off) to manipulate people. They ultimately wrote a letter saying that it was them or me. They waited until the other board member talked about above made the first move. The thought of the loss of their money put fear in the rest of the board and that formed the atmosphere for the board meeting (without me) that the board requested I leave. I could go on and on with this type -- seen a lot of this.

4. Wolf Pups -- These people yap a lot -- that why I call them pups -- they have little power or influence but they act to create the atmosphere of trouble. They create mood by keeping the gossip going or supporting what the bigger wolves are doing.

These are the basic types of antagonists. What allows them to prosper is the subject of the next post.

Next -- What Allows Antagonists to Thrive

Christians and Sexuality: Sexual Fantasy

It's Saturday so it sex day. In particular, I want to talk about sexual fantasy. The question being what relationship should sexual fantasy have in the Christian life. Is it sinful or is it one of those things that is sinful in only certain circumstances?

Matthew 5:28 -- lusting of course is sin, but at what point does fantasy --simple desire -- become -- lust -- the desire to possess a person's sexuality for ones self. And what do you do when the fantasy person is just that -- pure fantasy -- they do not actually exist.

Now the main problem is that when a person approaches the church about this subject the response is usually one of two things -- silence or counsel to repression. In either case the result is guilt followed by shame or disillusionment. The church is notoriously bad when it comes to this subject.

I believe there is distinction between lust and sexual fantasy, but the must be a way to distinguish between the two to keep things clear. The line can often get blurry. Lust is uncontrollable passion that causes a person not to look at the subject of that lust as a person but and object to be used. Sexual fantasy does not always lead to this -- many times it is the longing of persons heart for intimacy or attraction. They do not always lead to lust based on the above definition.

There is a positive function to sexual fantasy -- for the single person it allows one to keep reality at bay while letting the imagination loose in a boundary it can fit in. The problem is when that boundary is crossed you end up in lust. The positive function in marriage is to loose the imagination so you don't get bored. It enables a couple to keep things fresh. It is also of use when separated due to circumstances.

Sexual fantasy needs to be reflected upon not ignored -- the "why" question needs to be asked -- is this fantasy about longing like in the Song of Songs or is it something that has crossed the line. People seem to be embarrassed or don't see the value of reflecting on the "why" of their own sexual fantasies but there is great power here when we both reflect and pray about them so that we engage the question of where the line is with God's help. By reflection and prayer one may find the answer to victory over lust.

Engaging God Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter One

I, of course, have many disagreements with Bart Ehrman's in chapter one of God's Problem.

Bart brings up many things in chapter one but one thing you get loud an clear is that Bart has a problem with God and it is in part because God will not do as Bart wishes. God simply does not fit into his mold. This attitude, by the way, is all through the book.

Of course, Bart brings up theodicy and if you are unaware of what it is; it is an argument that has been around for a long time about God and suffering.
1. God is all powerful
2. God is loving
3. Suffering exists

The conclusion is that 3 is incompatible with both 1 and 2 so therefore God is either not all powerful or not loving. Therefore the God of the Bible cannot be true. I have found this problematic for years because I think theodicy oversimplifies the issue and does not take into account other aspects of God that reflect on suffering, but more on that later.

Bart's main thrust in the chapter seems to be the fact that while many things regarding freewill can explain suffering, natural disasters seem to defy this -- Bart asks -- how did freewill cause this natural senseless evil? This where Bart makes a critical error because in reality he does not accept the Bible as history -- if he did he might find a connection between natural evil and the Flood.

Bart maintains that the freewill defense has only a minor role in Biblical tradition and that is a major problem for me because if you look at the origins of evil and suffering much of it has much to do with freewill disobedience -- all of the suffering and evil that follows in Genesis 1-11 is predicated by bad decisions BY THE HUMAN RACE.

Bart argues in the Bible God overrides freewill on many occasions to get his wishes why not in all cases to prevent evil. I have two questions:
1. Are we sure that God is overriding freewill in these cases or does it seem that way or is that the way they have been interpreted?
2. What kind of world does Bart want us to live in? -- Apparently a world where god always bails us out of our problems and where we have no responsibilities but to do whatever we please without consequences apparently.

Probably the greatest disagreement I have though is with his statement that the various answers the Bible gives contradict each other -- I don't think so but we will deal with this book we will deal with each answer as it comes and at the end show that the answers are various because each type of answer deals with various types of suffering and evil.

One more thing, Bart seems to have prejudice against traditional views. He dislikes answers to the problem of evil that old or unimaginative. My thoughts are just because something is old or unimaginative does not make it wrong.

Next -- Agreements with Chapter Two

Engaging God's Problem -- Agreements with Chapter One

In dealing with this issue I have decided to engage each chapter and divide each chapter in two. I want to first express some of the things I and Bart agree and and then what we disagree on will be handled in the next post. Going back and forth through the book like this I hope to engage the book completely after about sixteen more posts with maybe a few final words.

Chapter One is entitled Suffering and a Crisis of Faith. I chronicles Bart's own journey to his conclusion that the God of the Bible cannot be the God that exists and the issue that tilts the balance for him is suffering. I agree that this is a great problem and should not be taken lightly because it is a serious problem.

Like Bart I agree that pat answers and shallow thinking on it are both not helpful and short sighted when it comes to faith. In truth, this question should be a make or break issue for faith and if it isn't then it probably means the person involved hasn't thought completely about the issue. I too am bothered by the question of suffering and evil, but as you can see the course I chose is different.

Bart does seem to give a nod to the freewill defense involving suffering but in the end brings up a question -- If bad decisions are made by people and that results in suffering because of freewill what about heaven or the new earth? If freewill is a great gift won't we have it in heaven and wouldn't that mean the possibility of disobedience and suffering will still be possible afterwards. It is a great question and one I am still wrestling with at the moment.

One pet peeve both he and I share is the fact that people pick and choose what Scriptures support their views and then ignore the rest and this is bad. We all do this to an extent but it doesn't make it right.

Here is the big agreement -- both of us find the books currently addressing the issue to be Intellectually unsatisfying, morally bankrupt and practically useless. Most Christians I see that write on this subject are just regurgitating old arguments and there has been little original thought into the issue.

In short, both of us are tired of the half-hearted, half-intellectualized, half-brained solutions to the problem. But at the same time I disagree that the Bible does not have a solution. I believe if the Bible is taken for what it says it is and not turned into something else there is an answer to the problem of evil and suffering --through we may not like to hear it.

Next: Disagreements with Chapter One

Higher Criticism and Revisionist History: An Interesting Parallel

Robert Heinlein, the Grandmaster of Science Fiction, wrote this of revisionist history in his last book To Sail Beyond the Sunset through the character Maureen Smith:

"In the twentieth century Gregorian in the United States of America, something called 'revisionist history' became popular among 'intellectuals'. Revisionism appears to have been based on the notion that the living actors present on the spot never understood what they were doing and why, or how they were being manipulated, being mere puppets in the hands of unseen evil forces....But why are the people of the United States and their government always the villains in the eyes of the revisionists? Why can't our enemies ... take a turn in the pillroy? Why is it always our turn?" p.67.

He has a good point -- revisionist history claims to be recovering the truth about our history but every time I read one of these people what I get is not revision but anti-USA. They start with the assumption that the USA is the bad guys.

In a similar way the 'scholars' of Higher Criticism assumes that the Bible is not history. They claim to be trying to uncover the real history of Biblical times but in reality they do much the same thing.

1. Both assume that we here have a better perspective to the events in question than the people who were there or knew people who were there. There is a chronological and philosophical arrogance to both groups.
2. Both assume that the original or ancient accounts are in error or outright lies if you take them to their logical conclusion. Must be hard to believe that everything you read is false.
3. Eyewitness accounts cannot be trusted. But then why are non eyewitness accounts more trustworthy?

Recently I received a copy of Bart Ehrman's book -- Misquoting Jesus which I plan to read as soon as I can. I engage Bart because he represents a new kind of scholar in higher criticism. The ideas he presents are not new, but what is new is the way they are being packaged -- to mass audience appeal so that doubt is created. They are 'pop' in their orientation. I feel very sorry for them in a way -- doubt is all they know, but at the same time their views are fallacious and need to be confronted. I am not the first to take their ideas on but right now this is the battleground -- if the Bible is stripped of history then everything we believe is built of falsehood and we might as well do something else. The same is true with US history and our beliefs in this nation.

The battle is in history and faith -- The Bible must be a product of both to believed. This is the battle of our day. Fight on.

Church Antagonism -- Part 2 -- Identifying an Antagonist

At what point does a person cross the line from being a person with an objection to the direction of the church (which I think is healthy) to an antagonist.

The real issue is what is the standard makeup of the average antagonist. I am speaking here of course of the guy or gal who leads the charge not the followers of an antagonist. I am showing you what the leader looks like and how they work. My backup is The Wounded Minister by Guy Greenwood. I am summing up his findings. It is a good book to buy if you are going through this; it helped me a lot.

1. They are destructive --they have no qualms about destroying relationships or causing emotional pain. To make matters worse they initiate trouble because they genuinely believe they are doing what they do for the greater good.
2. They are determined -- They will stop at nothing to achieve what they want regardless of the desires of the rest of the church. They have contempt for rules, constitutions or democratic action. They are never satisfied and no amount of concessions will be enough for them. Even when they get what they want they still go on starting a new crusade.
3. They are deceitful nitpickers -- they dwell on the smallest problems and enhance the belief there is a bigger problem by lying about it and making things up. They will do something and then accuse someone else of doing it -- The end always justifies the means for them.
4. They are masters of intimidation -- They often start harmless enough and maneuver themselves into positions of power and responsibility through putting on a show of being pious and devote. Once they strike, they attack the top and have no fear in trying to destroy a minister or even a fellow board member. The goal is selfish ambition to get what they want and to do this they must seize control.
5. They take advantage of inactivity an apathy. They attack where things are weak and when no one seems to have a desire to put up a fight.

There are people out there like this? In church? Yep. I have had two churches in Assemblies of God which had several each. Now none of them were this extreme and you don't have to have all the characteristics to cause trouble. In fact, there are many levels to this, but that is the subject of the next post

Next -- Types of Antagonist.