Shake It Off

 

“And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate… I shake it off, I shake it off.”

– “Shake It Off”, Taylor Swift

I tend to read a fair number of articles from AnswersInGenesis.com each week. For those unfamiliar with the site, it is a Creationist apologetics ministry. Regardless of what one thinks about the age of the earth debate, AIG does an excellent job of presenting research in a variety of scientific fields and examining the data from a biblical perspective. Often they will point out biases that lead to researchers in secular science not presenting an accurate picture of reality. Again, this is not to start a creationism vs scientism debate, but it does lead to a point I think the American church is missing in our modern era. In historical fiction, and writing about history in general, context is important. It gives clarity and understanding of events and actions of the long past. Without it, it can be easy to misinterpret things and as a writer, it can really throw the audience/reader off. Perhaps it is due to my reading the AIG articles, but I’m acutely aware there is a perception pervading popular culture that the Bible and Christianity are in opposition to science and vice versa. That is unfortunate, because it really does a disservice to the presentation of the Gospel, and leaves some without a wonderful insight into the intricacies of God’s creative work. However, there are a couple things we must understand. Science itself is not in opposition to the Bible, science is merely a discipline representative of an approach to gleaning knowledge in what should be an orderly and rationale manner. Science is not against the Bible, but a number of scientists are.

It is at this point where the distinction between science and a scientist’s suppositions are most important, because, as in the study of history, one’s interpretation and biases invariably arrive in the final outcome. One would not expect a writer’s voice and inner ethos to be absent from his or her writing or even a given paint brush to not add an ever so slight nuance to the strokes on a canvas. Likewise, scientists can, intentionally or not, carry their predilections into their findings. Case in point: Archaeology is a fascinating scientific field and one I’ve studied a bit. It’s akin to being a detective for the past. It’s not as glamorous as Indiana Jones makes it out to be, but still enjoyable to a certain degree. After the painstaking parts, and an archaeologist makes and reports a finding, typically historians will then pick up that kernel of insight into the past and adjust their discourse on the related culture, period, etc. However, the interpretation of artifacts found by archaeologist and historian can become an exercise in subjectivity.

I had a history course in college, the material was centered on ancient Mediterranean civilizations (at the time I took it hoping to get insights for DQR) of which ancient Israel was covered. You can probably guess where this is going. Besides dragging out the tired and utterly refuted document hypothesis theory for the Old Testament and the absurd, but persistent, contention that the Gospels were written in the 2nd Century AD (also long since refuted); on particular point in the course vexed me. The instructor drew particular attention to archaeological discoveries of artifacts that seem to refer to the LORD by the term Baal or associate Him with Ashtoreth. Baal and Ashtoreth were false Canaanite deities, but as the term baal also meant “lord” the Canaanites tended to refer to false deities they worshipped as baals. This finding, the professor asserted, proved Israel was polytheistic and implied that the anomalous notion of Israel as the sole major monotheistic religion of early history was a later construct. A fabrication, though he wouldn’t outright say that. Such a fact would be devastating to the Judeo-Christian worldview. But wait, is it? Consider these verses form the book of Hosea, written around the 8th Century BC by a minor prophet God sent to the northern kingdom of Israel (which corresponds to the archaeological find both temporally and geographically): “In that day—this is the Lord’s declaration—you will call Me, ‘My husband,’ and no longer call Me, ‘My Baal.’  For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth; they will no longer be remembered by their names.” (Hosea 2:16-17). See how the Bible minces no words here? The same facts are corroborated in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Israel was apostate and worshipping other gods and relegating the LORD to the same level as the false Canaanite baals. So, it makes sense to find an inscription from roughly that timeframe referring to the LORD in such a blasphemous way. The evidence really serves to highlight the reliability, integrity, and utility of the Bible for understanding history, but the archaeological finding, interpreted by those predisposed to distrusting the Bible use it as a weapon against Scripture.

It is clear, some scientists, not all scientists and certainly not science itself, are at odds with the Bible. Remember I mentioned context is important, well Christianity’s beginnings have a contextual basis that is increasingly not so different from our current world. Consider what the Apostle Paul said, “Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish?  For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached.  For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles.  Yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom, because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength… Instead, God has chosen what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen what is weak in the world to shame the strong.” (1 Corinthians 1:20-25, 27 HCSB).

Many people would be surprised to know atheism and belief in a “self-existent” universe are not new, but rather tired philosophical positions espoused by ancient Greek philosophers and others. These notions existed in the Roman Empire at the same time Paul made the above statements. Paul goes on to say, “…people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them.  For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.  For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened.” (Romans 1:18-21 HCSB) I would argue Paul’s advice to: “…pay attention to Jewish myths and the commands of men who reject the truth… But avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels, and disputes about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. ” (Titus 1:14, 3:9 HCSB) is also equally relevant today and applies to the Gnostic and Coptic mystery gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc.) that seem to enthrall many (which I most note were without doubt written so late in the second and third centuries as to be of doubtful veracity and content, but more on that another time).

So, what do all of these verses teach us? Essentially, the so called wise and intelligent people of Paul’s day, the so-called religious experts, and the sensationalist fabrications out there all looked on Christianity with disdain and accused it of being nonsensical and foolish. Yet, Paul went toe-to-toe with these very people time and again: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, since it is written: He catches the wise in their craftiness; and again, The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise are meaningless.” (1 Corinthians 3:19-20 HCSB) He did not back down and compromise the Gospel’s message because some people, even influential people, found it questionable. Paul never wavered on the truth of the Christ’s resurrection or the Scriptures. We act today as though we must apologize for what the Bible says, as if some knowledge or wisdom or opinion displaces it. Hardly. From the beginning, those who “claiming to be wise…” have “…exchanged the glory of the immortal God…” and “…worshiped and served something created instead of the Creator.” (Romans 1:23, 25 HCSB) If millennia later men do the exact same thing, why should we be discouraged or surprised? Again, a primary reason for composing DQR was to give believers today some context. As it was in days past, so it is becoming today. “Evil people and impostors will become worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed.” (2 Timothy 3:13-14 HCSB)

If Paul believed men would get worse, even as he lived in Rome of the first century AD, imagine what lies ahead for believers of the not so distant future to face. I say all of this to encourage those reading to not let the words of unbelieving scoffers deter you from faith in Christ and the Bible. “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” (1 Peter 3:15b HCSB) That’s the root of apologetics. Not an apology as we know it, but a reasoned defense of what we believe. What is it the Taylor Swift song says? “Haters gonna hate, hate, hate…” Unbelievers are going to doubt and the subversive will seek to mask the truth and the wicked will do evil and hate us. “If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me before it hated you.” (John 15:18 HCSB) Don’t let it discourage you from trusting the Scriptures. “Shake it off,” and keep standing firm.