Dewayne Bryant's Blog, page 13

Buy Only the Truth

[image error]In Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan tells the story of a dream in which two characters named Christian and Faithful pass through a wicked town named Vanity. This town was noteworthy because it hosted an ancient festival known as Vanity Fair. The goods for sale at the fair included cheating, gambling, drunkenness, adultery, lewd entertainment, sinful pleasures, and countless other immoral acts.

When Christian and Faithful visit the fair, the people immediately see them as different. Their dress seems strange, as does their manner of speech. Most tellingly, the two are uninterested in any of the goods for sale. When approached by the merchants, both of them put their fingers in their ears and look upward to heaven. One seller confronts the pair and in a mocking tone asks, “What will you buy?” In righteous defiance, they respond, “We buy the truth.”

Proverbs 23:23 tells us, “Buy the truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.” Scripture places a premium on truth because it is grounded in the very nature of God. But like the denizens of Vanity Fair, the world will try to sell us all kinds of corrupt merchandise. Some of it directly opposes God and his will. We will also see cheap counterfeits that seem legitimate at first glance. The devil is no fool; he has had a long time to practice his craft (see John 8:44). By hook or by crook, his desire is to cause the downfall of everyone who names Christ as his or her Lord.

There is a time for Christians to stick our fingers in our ears and look upward. Vanity Fair is very real, and it is all around us. Like Christian and Faithful, God’s people are destined for a heavenly home. And when the world tempts us with anything sinful or false, our duty is to remind it that we only buy the truth–and that we have no interest in anything else.

Surviving Religion 101

[image error]Fresh-faced high school graduates all over the country will head to college in a couple of months. Whether their destinations are community colleges or four-year schools, the majority will be leaving home for the very first time. Some will be adult learners, going back to school after having spent some time in the military, or to finish a degree they started years ago but did not complete. Graduates will live on their own or with roommates and will accept a new world of responsibilities they didn’t have before. These young people will have more than a little nervous excitement.

For most of these institutions—from the local community college to Ivy League universities—religion requirements will be minimal. Private schools will feature at least a few religion courses, most likely taught from the perspective of the institution’s religious affiliation. For schools without any ties to a particular tradition, religion requirements will be at a bare minimum, whether they are secular private or state institutions of higher learning.

The religion courses offered at these institutions often share similar features. In many cases, freshman may take an introduction to religions course, or possibly an introduction to the Bible, or perhaps an introduction to OT or NT. In some cases, students may expect to experience criticism of the Bible for the first time, and perhaps the first time in an academic environment. The ideal professor will teach the course so objectively that the students may not be able to discern their instructor’s personal beliefs. Unfortunately, this is usually not the case.

Professors can challenge students’ beliefs about the veracity of Scripture. A professor may highlight alleged contradictions, errors, or discrepancies in the biblical text. He or she may argue that history and archaeology provide information that contradicts the biblical account, or that the Bible provides a deficient worldview that promotes racism, bigotry, misogyny, and violence. Before long, incoming freshmen may be shaken, reeling spiritually under his or her professor’s critical assault.

Students sometimes struggle with their faith at college because they encounter new and more aggressive spiritual challenges. Young Christians may begin to fall away from the church at this time (although the process will have started long before for some of them). Some do it because they haven’t gotten plugged into a good congregation. But some do because of attacks on their faith that come from inside the classroom.

There are professors much like this across the academic landscape of the United States. They tend to share the same set of characteristics. Unfortunately, it isn’t just the professorate who have them. Christians can see it in interviewees for documentaries, as well as authors of books and articles that are critical to biblical Christianity.

So what kind of qualities or characteristics should Christians prepare to find? Here are five of the most popular:

Critical Scholarship. The professor will likely consider himself a critical scholar, unlike the “uncritical” scholars in religious universities, seminaries, and divinity schools who accept the Bible as inspired. His skepticism of the Bible’s veracity will be front and center throughout the course, likely taking the form of questioning the Bible’s portrayal of historical events and emphasizing extrabiblical evidence he considers to be at odds with the biblical text. This will almost certainly include gross misinterpretations of the Bible. Caricature is one of the critic’s most powerful weapons.
Proselytism. The professor will not be a neutral guide but may attempt to convince his students to accept his point of view. This can take the form of presenting the information as intended to enlighten whatever students are unfortunate enough to maintain their religious beliefs. Belief in the Bible as God’s Word will be viewed as backward, naïve, and possibly even dangerous. Christianity will be portrayed as archaic and outdated. Professors like this will be apologists for their personal worldview.
Skepticism. The professor will promote skepticism of the Bible, billing it simply and straightforwardly as a modern, educated perspective. While “the Bible says” may work back at home around the dinner table, it will be forbidden in the college classroom. The professor will treat the biblical text with automatic suspicion, even if he or she accepts other ancient texts at face value. Any student attempting to point out this double standard may meet with public reprisals from the teacher and ridicule from his or her peers.
Anti-Supernaturalism. Students may encounter such claims as, “Educated people deny the supernatural” or “Most people reject the old notion that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.” What students must understand is that a belief is not true based on its number of believers, but whether or not it conforms to fact or reality. It is true that many, maybe even most, college professors deny the inspiration of Scripture, but this does not make it false. This is an example of a logical fallacy known as argument ad populum (“argument to the people”), the fallacy of appealing to the majority point of view as a source of authority.
Revisionism. Finally, our religion professor may present “problems” with the Bible as if they are either recent discoveries or difficulties without adequate answers. Caricaturing the faith in this manner has the effect of making Christians look gullible and silly as if the only way that believers deal with problems is by ignoring them. In reality, answers to these problems are readily available in any number of sources.

There are academically informed and intellectually respectable responses to all of the above objections. This is vital for students to remember: just because he or she may not be able to answer his or her professors’ points, it does not mean that no answer is available. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Christians apologists have been answering objections to the Christian faith since the days of the early church. They continue to do so today.

Christian parents spend a great deal of time preparing children for the moral and ethical challenges they will face in college. This is indeed a challenge, given the moral and ethical climate of our country. But equally important is the need to prepare students for the academic and intellectual challenges they will face. The Christian worldview is one that has been held by history’s most prominent philosophers, scientists, and other educated thinkers. It is not a worldview for backward rubes. It is intellectually defensible on every level.

What every Christian must remember—from our hypothetical college freshman to seasoned saints in the church—is that opposition provides the opportunity for growth. Challenges to faith give opportunities for believers to dig into recent scholarship, to uncover new worlds of learning they never knew existed. Parallels in other areas abound. Athletes will never reach their full potential without working through grueling physical exercises and learning how to compete against other athletes. Intellectuals will never plumb the depths of their chosen field of study without spending countless hours wrestling with the deepest thinkers in that field—some of whom will share the same viewpoint and others who will be on the opposite end of the spectrum. Similarly, Christians will never possess an intellectually formidable faith without overcoming challenges that present themselves.

KJV Insanity

[image error]There is a meme that has been circulating for a while on social media that purports to expose supposed problems with the King James Version of the Bible. It lists several facts designed to undermine the reliability of the KJV, and, therefore, the Bible in general. (Critics like to attack the KJV, presumably because they believe it is the version used by Christians as a whole. In reality, Christians use all kinds of versions, and none is without its flaws.)

Let’s take a moment to fact-check the statements in this meme.

The King James Version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England. False. There were six panels of scholars who worked on the KJV: three for the Old Testament, two for the New, and one for the Apocrypha (for those who didn’t know, the Apocrypha was included in the KJV until it was dropped in the 1800s). In total, forty-four leading scholars worked on the version. The chuch affiliation of these men included both Anglican and Puritan.

There were (and still are) no original texts to translate. True, but misleading. The basic intent behind this statement is to imply that a lack of original texts means that Bible translations are prone to errors. However, we must qualify this by saying that, to anyone’s knowledge, we have no original documents (autographs) of any composition written in the ancient world. The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, a family of manuscripts dating back to the Medieval period. More modern versions use texts that date back as early as the early second century. These two families of manuscripts are very similar with only slight differences.

The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. False. The oldest manuscripts date several decades after the apostles died. So far, the earliest manuscript is the John Rylands Papyrus (P52), a fragment which includes several verses from John 18. This manuscript dates to approximately AD 125-135 – roughly four decades after John is thought to have died. There is a huge difference between “a few decades” and “hundreds of years.”

There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts, with no two alike. Partially true, but misleading. There are over 5,800 manuscripts, not 8,000. The inflated number could be a mistake stemming from the author’s basic unfamiliarity with the subject. And it is true that the manuscripts do differ in very minor respects, although this is far from what is implied by the phrase, “no two are alike.” There are many different kinds of textual variants, but only a rare few have any bearing whatsoever on scholars’ understanding of the text–and none of them affects any theological position. The creator of our meme obviously doesn’t know anything about the field of textual criticism.

The King James translators used none of these, anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve. Mostly False. Whoever wrote this meme is unfamiliar with the Great Preface, which was included in the first editions of the KJV but was later dropped (it’s available online). This document makes it clear that the KJV was, in fact, more of a revision than a translation. King James instructed the scholars working on the KJV to use earlier translations—specifically the Bishops Bible—as a guide but to make changes wherever the original language dictated. To determine the original wording as accurately as possible, the translators consulted numerous ancient versions in addition to the Hebrew and Greek texts available at the time. Many of the manuscripts available today were unknown at the time the KJV was produced.

So, 21st Century Christians believe the “Word of God” is a book edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copied of lost letters written in the 1st Century. False. There’s a lot to unpack here. No, Christians do not believe that the KJV is the “Word of God” in itself. It is only God’s Word in the sense that it accurately represents the original words of the biblical authors. And again, the 8,000 number is way off. As far as the “contradictory copies” comment goes, anyone who has spent any time studying the issue knows that the textual variants may include nothing more than a simple misspelled word, an accidental omission, or swapping two words (e.g., one text having “Jesus Christ” while another has “Christ Jesus”). The way some critics use the term contradiction seems to be, “any disagreement, no matter how slight or insignificant.” A true contradiction is where one statement stands in unmistakable opposition to another–something we don’t find among the biblical manuscripts.

Finally, the date of “4th Century” is used for no apparent reason. There are manuscripts dating to the second and third century. What our critic may have done is used the date of the earliest complete version of the Bible, which is Codex Vaticanus (c. AD 325; then again, the creator called the texts “scrolls” when he should have said “codices”). We have to remember that even dating 230 years after the death of the last apostle, Vaticanus is still closer in time to the originals than virtually any other composition from the ancient world. The earliest copies of works by Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Julius Caesar and others often date 600-800 years—and some as much as 1,000 years or more—after their original date of composition. That makes the New Testament the best-attested document in antiquity – a fact of which our critic is completely unaware.

We know that a position is weak when a person has to deliberately misrepresent the opposition, as has been done with this meme. It will no doubt get the applause its creator desired from those who share his beliefs. But it is a false portrait of actual scholarship. This meme reveals the heart of some who criticize Christianity. The characteristics of a person like this include a lack of accurate factual information, a willingness to caricature the opposition, reliance upon faulty arguments, and zero interest shown in learning anything about the issues raised.

Is Marriage Unnatural?

[image error]In his time on earth, Jesus taught that God’s design for humanity included marriage. At the beginning of creation, he said, God made human beings male and female (Mark 10:6-9). However, not everyone in our culture has such a high view of marriage. For instance, in a February 2017 interview with Playboy magazine, award-winning actress Scarlett Johansson stated:

“I think the idea of marriage is very romantic; it’s a beautiful idea, and the practice of it can be a very beautiful thing. I don’t think it’s natural to be a monogamous person. I might be skewered for that, but I think it’s work. It’s a lot of work. And the fact that it is such work for so many people—for everyone—the fact of that proves that it is not a natural thing.”

Marriage is hard work? Of course. Men and women often see things from different perspectives. We have slightly different ways of approaching problems and offering solutions. There’s no doubt that marriage is work, and is even a bit mysterious at times (Prov. 30:18-19). But is it a bad thing that men and women are different? Not at all.

We usually celebrate variety. Think of our enjoyment of different types of music, art, or cuisine. Personally, I find the study of diverse cultures to be fascinating. There is a richness that comes with variety. As they say, “Variety is the spice of life.” Without it, life would be very, very dull. No excitement. No new experiences. Nothing but a bland, predictable existence from one day to the next.

Yes, differences can create obstacles that need to be overcome. But is that a bad thing? There is a sense of camaraderie that comes with working together to triumph over something difficult, to create something beautiful, to help someone else fulfill a goal or realize a dream, or to join forces for a greater good (cf. Ecc. 4:9). In a sense, that is precisely what marriage does.

I’m sorry that Ms. Johansson holds such a low view of marriage. With two divorces behind her, she seems to be looking for a relationship that is both beautiful and effortless. But as an extraordinarily talented and accomplished actress, she has no doubt worked very hard at her craft. So have other actors, artists, musicians, students, and athletes, or anyone learning a new skill, working a labor-intensive trade, or starting a business from scratch. Almost any pursuit will benefit from investing extra effort. Unless we’re working too hard and wasting time, energy, and resources, we never really say that hard work is unnatural for anything else. In fact, we usually think of work as noble, while laziness is unnatural or at least unseemly. 

Marriage is the most intimate relationship two human beings can enjoy (cf.Gen. 2:24). Due to our differences, men and women sometimes need to work hard to make our marriages the best they can be. Marriage isn’t effortless. Nothing worthwhile ever is.

Hank Hanegraaff’s New Book: Muslim

[image error]

The popular media is a place where many conflicting pictures of Islam appear. We see distinctly different portraits painted by public figures from talk show hosts to presidential candidates. On one end are those who see Islam as a beleaguered religion of peace and tolerance. On the other are those who denounce it as a poisonous faith of violence and murder. It seems that relatively few earnestly try to see Islam objectively.

Hank Hanegraaff—popularly known as the Bible Answer Man—has written a book exploring the faith shared by over a billion Muslims worldwide. This detailed analysis of the Islamic worldview highlights the negative aspects of Islam but is hardly a screed. Hanegraaff takes care to point out that many Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people even if Islam itself is not. He adds that many millions of Muslims do not share the deceptive and violent methods of promoting the faith (a detail often repeated by non-Muslims). Muslim is not intended to demonize but to accurately portray the history of a religion that some have painted erroneously as noble and peaceful.

Hanegraaff helps readers understand that Islam is not a religion in the traditional sense – it is an all-encompassing worldview antagonistic to other cultures and religious systems. Unfortunately, this is what makes Islam so dangerous. Shariah law is not merely another legal code; it is intended to be a replacement for every other political system and philosophy. With Islam ranking as perhaps the fastest-growing religion in the world, the prospect of the implementation of Shariah law is a cause for concern. Hanegraaff cites the many problems with Shariah law which makes it offensive to Western sensibilities. Its treatment of women and non-Muslims alone make it a horrific system to live under, as the last 1300 years demonstrate.

Muslim details the litany of problems plaguing Islam. These are not merely due to differences between the mores of Islamic and American cultures. He exposes the Qur’an’s misrepresentation of history, such as Christ’s crucifixion and other details of the Gospel accounts. Other problems include the conveniently-timed divine revelations that conferred benefits upon Muhammad, such as being able to marry however many wives he wished, (including the wife of his son-in-law). He also addresses the alleged literary excellence of the Qur’an as an identifier of its divine origin—in reality, Muslim scholars themselves have criticized the supposed eloquence of the text, with some paying a dear price for their work.

[image error]Hanegraaff explodes some of the myths of Islamic history commonly believed by the ill-informed and even promoted by American politicians and other public figures. For instance, he cites Islamic texts which show Muhammad to have been a violent warlord instead of a peaceful religious leader. He likewise shines a spotlight on the “Andalusian paradise” in medieval Spain in which Muslims, Jews, and Christians supposedly lived in harmony. In reality, it was a living horror for those deemed to be infidels. An extremely helpful part of the book is the number of quotes taken from Islamic texts as well as Muslim scholars.

The book does not merely focus on identifying problems within Islam and its sacred texts. It does a helpful service in recounting much of the history of Islam, articulating critical points of Islamic theology, and demonstrating the implications of a hypothetical world governed by Islam. Muslim is an important book—virtually a clarion call—for those who want to know more about one of the most dominant faiths in the world today and how non-Muslims should respond. It is a vital resource that must not be overlooked.

The book hits bookstores and online retailers tomorrow, October 10. Please give it a look. You’ll almost certainly have your eyes opened.

(Disclaimer: This review was written for the publishing launch team, who provided me with an advance copy of the ebook.)

Archaeology and ISIS

CNN featured a news report recently showing images of recent ISIS destruction at the ancient city of Palmyra. This city has a long history reaching back at least as early as the second millennium BC. Sadly, we have seen ISIS destroying priceless cultural artifacts and sites because of religious motivations. This destruction is not a surprise; in fact, it’s quite predictable for several reasons.

Shariah law strictly prohibits the depiction of the human figure, particularly the human face (this is why much of Islamic art avoids depicting people and instead shows verses of the Qur’an). This, coupled with Islam’s self-professed superiority over every other worldview (cf. Surah 48:28), means that images like those at Palmyra should be–must be–destroyed. The museum there has been trashed with statues defaced. Christians do not see these kinds of images as a threat; they are merely artifacts representing nothing more than the human figure or imaginary divine beings (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6).
Second, Islam is a religion with real-world concerns that drive it. Islam is not so much a religion as an all-encompassing social, political, economic, religious worldview. Non-Islamic social structures are forbidden, as are non-Islamic political viewpoints. Culturally, Islam is unapologetically Arabic in nature. Any other culture must be defeated and brought into conformity to standards provided by the Islamic faith. This is quite unlike Christianity, where believers may come from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds but still be Christians (Galatians 3:28-29). Here we could contrast the necessity of reading the Qur’an in the original Arabic in Islam vs. the Christian belief that the Bible can be read as God’s Word in any language.
Islam divides the world into two arenas: the House of Islam and the House of War. The House of Islam consists of areas where Islam is the established religion. The House of War describes everything else. Islamic thinkers are making a clear statement here: everywhere Islam is not celebrated is a theatre of war where it will It seems that destruction has been the tool of choice, even for cultures that exist only in the form of relics from the past.

I find it fascinating that this story actually made the news. There is a widespread attempt by members of the media to paint Islam in as positive a light as possible. There are reasons why this is so. Yet extremism and destruction cannot be tolerated, no matter the perpetrator.

In the end, we can only hope and pray that those guilty of these crimes—and all other atrocities committed in the name of Allah—will realize what they have done and stop this wanton destruction of other cultures and their heritages.

Debunking Anti-Catholic History

[image error]

I recently finished reading a book titled Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History. It is an extremely helpful survey of historical evidence with a bearing on some of the greatest historical misunderstandings of church history. It includes chapters on the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, anti-Semitism, and the supposed torture of scientists by the Roman Catholic Church during the Medieval period.

Author Rodney Stark is Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University. His storied academic career includes a Pulitzer Prize nomination for his book The Rise of Christianity. While this book covers some of the same material Stark has treated in other books, much of it is fresh. I’ve come to appreciate Stark’s writing very much. His work is insightful and well researched.

Bearing False Witness is a curious beast. It is a book defending the history of the Roman Catholic church, written by an “independent Christian” and former Lutheran/agnostic who currently teaches at a Baptist university. And since he is a sociologist, his background does make an appearance from time to time in his work. There are stranger things, but few so delightful.

Although Stark does not write as an apologist, his work has a great deal of apologetic value. Anti-Catholic polemic affects not just Roman Catholicism, but Christendom in general. When Crusaders are wrongly described as bloodthirsty barbarians who conquered peace-loving Muslims, every Christian is implicated as a matter of course. When the Roman Catholic Church is demonized for the fictitious persecution of Medieval scientists, every church is attacked.

I thoroughly recommend Stark’s newest book. Some of the myths he treats will be well-known to observant and studious Christians. They are not as familiar to many other people, which is why these myths continue to persist. This book is required reading for all believers concerned about the public perception–and especially misunderstanding–of the Christian faith.

Back to the Olympics

Of all the spectacles in the ancient world, the Olympic Games were among the greatest. It was there that athletes became immortalized in sports history. We almost never know the names of anyone other than the winners of the events–winning was everything, and second place was merely the first loser.

It is said the Greeks considered it a misfortune to die without ever having visited Olympia. As great as the Olympic Games are, we might not be so quick to agree when we understand the conditions in which they took place. We have the luxury of watching the Games on television in air-conditioned homes. The ancients had to travel as long as two weeks, braving personal dangers, blistering heat, and difficult terrain. When they got to Olympia, there was little water, no showers, no public sanitation, and no deodorant. Any of us might shudder to think of being trapped in a filthy ocean of unwashed humanity. Yet it did not matter to the ancients. Nothing could detract from the glory of the Games.

When we think of the worlds greatest Olympians, Michael Phelps may come to mind. He has 21 gold medals currently, and will almost certainly add to his total this year. We might also think of Simone Biles, who is already being called one of the greatest gymnasts ever. At a diminutive 4’8″, the 19-year old has dominated international competition and looks to do the same on the Olympic stage. Her future looks bright. It’s already golden.

We live in an age where Olympians are still some of the greatest heroes in the world of sports. It was no different in ancient times, where Olympic champions could live a life of ease if they were successful. In light of this year’s Olympics, I’d like to do a quick comparison between ancient and modern athletes.

Michael Phelps’ diet consists of something like 10,000 calories a day. One ancient Olympian could beat him, however. It is said that the 6th century BC wrestler Milo of Croton consumed 20 lbs. of meat, 20 lbs. of bread, and 3 pitchers (roughly 8 quarts) of wine every day. He supposedly carried a four-year-old bull on his shoulders into the stadium at Olympia, where he proceeded to slaughter it and consume the entire carcass in a single day. I don’t know how many calories are in a 2,000-pound animal, but I bet it’s a lot.
Russian Aleksandr Karelin is widely considered the best Greco-Roman wrestler of the 20th century. He is known for the “Karelin Lift,” a maneuver in which he would pick up his opponents and slam them down on the mat. But our friend Milo of Croton could probably best him. Legend has it that Milo was so strong that he could grip a pomegranate without crushing it while others unsuccessfully tried to pry it from his grasp. Once he broke a belt tied around his head simply by taking a deep breath and making the veins in his temples bulge.
Cuban Felix Savon is considered one of the greatest boxers in modern Olympic history. With a record three gold medals (tied with two others) and a dazzling six world championships as an amateur, his greatness is impossible to dispute. Yet Theagenes of Thasos supposedly won 1,300 fights at the Olympics and claimed 21 championships. He was never defeated. According to an ancient legend recorded by the Greek author Pausanias, someone who had a grudge against Theagenes attempted to vandalize his statute. The statue fell on the man, killing him. You know you’re for real when your statue can kill someone.

The examples that I’ve cited are of real athletes, but their stories come from ancient legends (and, therefore, are mostly untrue). But it’s fun to explore the mythology of the ancient Olympic Games. If you would like to get a taste of what the ancient Olympics were like, please check out this week’s podcast at The Light Network or on iTunes.

 

 

 

 

Image courtesy of stockimages / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

 

Obadiah’s Message

On a Sunday morning last year, I met a visitor named Obadiah who is a homeless preacher in the South Austin area. He came in about halfway through the class I was teaching and stayed to talk with me afterwards. He railed against the materialism of the ancient Romans and the educational elitism of the ancient Greeks, arguing that both adversely affect churches everywhere today. He advocated a radical departure from culture as we know it, leaving everything behind and just following Jesus. I agreed to a point. What bothered me about Obadiah’s diatribe is not that it was against materialism or intellectual elitism; it was anti-materialistic and anti-educational.

Anti-Materialism. It is true that the Bible contains numerous warnings about the dangers of materialism (Matt. 13:22), ranging from over-dependence (1 Tim. 6:17) to obsession (Luke 12:15; 16:13; James 5:1-3). Materialism proves a dangerous cause of discontent that ever seeks to keep pace with, or outdo, others (cf. Ecc. 5:10). The Bible teaches that true riches are immaterial in nature (Romans 2:4; 9:23; 11:33; Eph. 2:6-7; Phil. 4:19; cf. Matt. 6:20). But we cannot dismiss the fact that numerous wealthy individuals in Scripture were also righteous. OT examples include such figures as Abraham, Joseph, and David, while the NT includes individuals such as Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Lydia.

God requires the responsible use of resources, not the total rejection of them. The Bible encourages the proper acquisition and appropriate use of material possessions. Paul says that God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor. 9:7), which implies that a person has some means from which he or she can give to others. The Bible expects a father to save his resources for his children as an inheritance (Prov. 13:22). It fascinates me that these types of individuals reject most material things when it comes to their own possessions but do not reject them when they can benefit from the same items in the possession of others (asking for donations to their causes, for instance).

Obadiah said that the Bible never claims that ministers should be paid for their work. Paul, he said, gave everything up, illustrating it by pushing his Bible away from him (I found his gesture, ironically, telling). A few people today agree. Yet in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul makes an extended case that the minister deserves support. Some might point out that Paul worked with his hands in order not to be a burden to the Corinthians, but we cannot miss his statement that while he did not accept money from the Corinthians, he did accept money from other churches so that he would not be a financial burden on those in Corinth (see Phil. 4:14-16).

Both materialism and anti-materialism are preoccupied with wealth. The difference between the two is that the former is consumed with acquisition and worship, the latter with rejection and demonization.

Anti-Intellectualism. One of the greatest challenges facing the church today is anti-intellectualism. Obadiah implied that he had been dismissed by others because he did not have a seminary degree. He dismissed the value of a formal education, thereby standing in a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in American churches everywhere. He criticized the educated, pointing to Jesus and his host of fishermen disciples as examples of unlearned evangelists. Again, this is true to a point. What is far more disturbing is that the rejection of education often seems to include the attitude that the less-educated a person is, the more godly he or she is. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Was Jesus seminary-trained? Of course not. Did he astound the Jewish religious elite with his breadth and depth of knowledge? Absolutely (John 7:15). Jesus expected others to be familiar with Scripture also (cf. Matt. 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:29, 31; John 5:39). We must also add the fact that Paul was extremely well-educated, enough that he could stand toe-to-toe with the Greek philosophers at Mars Hill (Acts 17). In his address, Paul uses well-constructed arguments and cites Greek authors. Had he not demonstrated a knowledge of Greek culture, he would not have won a second hearing from some of those who gathered to hear him (Acts 17:32).

Most basic Bible students understand that the Bible was not written in English. How do we have accurate translations? Because scholars spend many long years of preparation in ancient languages (not merely the biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek but others also), ancient history and culture, and other fields necessary simply to render the biblical text into the English language accurately. In other words, an immense amount of scholarship–the very kind of scholarship the anti-intellectual rejects–is required to have a translation.

The Bible says nothing about earning degrees at a seminary or graduate school, but it has quite a lot to say about education and formal training. Jesus called people to love God with their minds (Luke 10:27). We might say that this could mean to not only learn the truths of the Bible, but to understand them and be able to articulate them clearly and with precision (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15). What is wrong with learning to do this effectively in a context of formal education? There aren’t many jobs where a person trains primarily through trial-and-error or an apprenticeship. Other occupations of all kinds require a great deal of training and formal education. The real objection here should not be that a person has received formal training, but how he treats others who have not had the same privilege–not against education, but against using education as a bludgeon.

I was disheartened by Obadiah’s message. We had to end our talk abruptly because worship was beginning. He left before the sermon, and I doubt I’ll ever talk to him again. I can only hope that he finds a more balanced and informed position. Obsession with material things and education are wrong-headed, but so is their radical rejection.

Image courtesy of Sira Anamwong / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Who is Like the Lord?

What is God like? It’s difficult enough trying to understand another human being, much less a divine God. Thankfully, we aren’t left in the dark or with meager tidbits of information. I try to bring some of this out in my book Who is Like the Lord? Exploring the Attributes of God.

This book began about ten years ago when I taught a class on the attributes of God for the Nashville School of Preaching. It was the most popular class I ever taught at the school, and I am humbled by that. It should, perhaps, be only fitting that my most popular class should focus on God himself.

Although no library could contain everything we would ever want to know about God. Scripture does allow us to understand him well enough, but not thoroughly that he ceases to amaze and surprise us. God’s immensity overwhelms us. We marvel at his patience. We stand in awe at his power. We celebrate his mercy, patience, and generosity. We are humbled by his wrath. We are both disturbed and comforted by his justice. No Christian could ever be bored with God.

Unlike ancient conceptions of pagan gods, the God of Israel wanted his people to know him. He also wanted to have a relationship with them. In fact, the Bible could be seen as something of an autobiography. God directed his authors to write about him, which they did as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21).

I hope you’ll check out this book, available at Amazon.com and the Start2Finish website. You can download the introduction and first chapter here. I am indebted to a number of people for its production, and I pray it is a blessing to you.