A Biblical Perspective on Suicide

I am sometimes asked what the Bible says about the issue of suicide. Because suicide is a problem in our society, I want to briefly address what the Scriptures say about it.

We begin with the recognition that, from a biblical perspective, issues of life and death lie in the sovereign hands of God alone. Job said to God, "Man's days are determined; you [O God] have decreed the number of his months and have set limits he cannot exceed" (Job 14:5). David said to God, "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:16).

Moreover, suicide goes against the commandments of God. In fact, the sixth commandment tells us, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). This command is based on the sanctity of human life. We must remember that man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26).

It is important to understand that the command, "You shall not murder," has no direct object. That is, it doesn't say, "You shall not murder someone else," or "You shall not murder your fellow man." It simply says, "You shall not murder." The prohibition thus includes not just the murder of one's fellow man but even the murder of oneself. While suicide is certainly not the "unforgivable sin," we must never forget that God prohibits murder of any kind. Christian pastors and counselors often point out that a believer who ends his life also forever ends his opportunities to witness and serve the Lord on earth. Furthermore, suicide is one of the greatest acts of selfishness, for in it the individual caters to his own desires and his own will, ignoring the catastrophic effects it has on others. The lives of certain biblical saints are instructive on the issue of suicide. There were times when certain servants of God in biblical times were so severely tested and distressed that they wished for their own death (see 1 Kings 19:4; John 4:8). But these individuals did not take matters into their own hands and kill themselves. Instead, in these cases, God always rescued them. We can learn a lesson here. When we despair, we must turn to God and not commit suicide. God will see us through. The apostle Paul certainly went through tough times. Indeed, in 2 Corinthians 1:8 Paul reflected on his past: "We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life." Nevertheless, Paul did not succumb to breaking God's commandment against murder and commit suicide. He depended on God, and God came through and gave him all the sustenance he needed to make it through his ordeal. Following Paul's example, we must depend on God when life throws us a punch. And just as God sustained Paul through his difficulties, so He will sustain us.

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

"Black Theology, Black Power, and the Black Experience"

Part Two in a Three-Part Series on Liberation Theologyby Ron Rhodes

Between 1517 and 1840 it is estimated that twenty million blacks were captured in Africa, transported to America, and brutally enslaved. The experience of these blacks - and their descendants - serves as the backdrop for understanding contemporary black liberation theology.

During slave trading days, blacks were crammed into ships like sardines into a can and brought across the Atlantic. Many died at sea from dysentery, smallpox, and other diseases. "Some starved themselves to death refusing to eat. To prevent this form of suicide, hot coals were applied to the lips to force the slaves to open their mouths to eat."[1]

Upon arriving on American shores, the slaves - men, women, and children - were forced to work from sunrise to sunset. Even old and ailing slaves were forced to work.

The brutality shown to the slaves is among the saddest chapters in American history. Black theologian Anthony Evans tells us that "black women were raped at will by their masters at the threat of death while their husbands could only look on. Families were separated as they were bought and sold like cattle."[2]

For tax purposes, slaves were counted as property - like domestic animals. Eventually, however, a question arose as to how to count slaves in the nation's population. The Congress solved the problem by passing a bill that authorized the U.S. Census Bureau to count each slave as three-fifths of a person. This Congressional compromise resulted in what one Negro writer of the 1890s called "the 'Inferior Race Theory,' the placing of the Negro somewhere between the barnyard animals and human beings."[3] THE CHRISTIANIZATION OF SLAVERY Initially, there was heated resistance to evangelizing among slaves. Black scholar C. Eric Lincoln tells us there were three principal reasons for this: "(1) the hearing of the gospel required time that could be economically productive; (2) slaves gathered together in a religious assembly might become conscious of their own strength and plot insurrections under cover of religious instruction; (3) there was an English tradition of long standing that once a slave became a Christian he could no longer be held a slave."[4]

In addition, many whites were repulsed at the suggestion that blacks could

go to heaven. Morgan Godwyn, a graduate of Oxford University who served in churches in Virginia around 1665, wrote that slavemasters would commonly exclaim, "What, such as they? What, those black dogs be made Christians? What, shall they be like us?"[5]

Some whites tried to argue that blacks were less than human. Buckener H. Payne, in his book The Negro: What Is His Ethnological blacks are present with us today, they must have been in the ark. There were only eight souls saved in the ark, however, and they are fully accounted for by Noah's family. As one of the beasts in the ark, the black has no soul to be saved."[6] So why try to evangelize them?

Regardless of such preposterous arguments, missionary work eventually began among the slaves in the early 1700s and many of them became Christians. The brand of Christianity that was preached to them, however, was one that justified slavery. It was argued that Paul and other New Testament writers issued specific instructions for master-slave relations, thus apparently sanctioning the practice. Moreover, a curse of slavery was placed on the "sons of Ham" (Gen. 9:20-27) - who were interpreted to be blacks. Furthermore, slavery was considered a "religious good," for it amounted to importing unsaved heathens to a Christian land where they could hear the gospel and be saved.

(However, though Paul gave instructions on master-slave relations, his underlying belief was that slaves should be freed [1 Cor. 7:21]. Moreover, a curse of slavery was placed only on Ham's son, Canaan - whose descendants later occupied Phoenicia and Palestine. They were Caucasians. As for slavery being a "religious good," this seems an absurd claim in view of the cruel, inhuman treatment shown to the slaves.)

Most blacks accepted the slave brand of Christianity at face value. Moreover, white missionaries persuaded the blacks that life on earth was insignificant because "obedient servants of God could expect a reward in heaven after death."[7] The white interpretation of Christianity effectively divested the slaves of any concern they might have had about their freedom in the present.

As more blacks began attending white Christian churches, restrictions in seating, communion services, and property ownership caused many blacks to seek autonomy in their own congregations and ultimately, separate denominations. So, by the mid-1700s, black slaves had begun meeting in private to worship since authentic worship with whites was impossible. There is sufficient historical evidence to conclude that themes later developed by black liberation theologians were present in these early slave meetings in at least a nascent form.

For example, God was interpreted by the slaves as a loving Father who would eventually deliver them from slavery just as He had delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage. Jesus was considered both a Savior and an elder brother who was a fellow sufferer.

Heaven had a dual implication for black slaves. Yes, it referred to the future life, but it also came to refer to a state of liberation in the present. Because of the risk involved in preaching liberation, the slave learned how to sing liberation in the very presence of his master:

"Swing low, sweet chariot (underground railroad -

conestoga wagon)

Coming for to carry me home (up North to freedom)

Swing low (come close to where I am),

Sweet chariot

Coming for to carry me home.

I looked over Jordan (Ohio River - border between North

and South) And what did I see,

Coming for to carry me home

A band of angels (northern emancipators with the

underground) coming after me.

Coming for to carry me home."[8] THE DEVELOPMENT OF BLACK LIBERATIONIST THOUGHT It was not long before slave theology gave rise to black activism. There are many important figures who contributed to the cause of black liberation throughout black history. We can only mention a few here.

Nat Turner (1800-1831) was the most notorious slave preacher who ever lived on American soil. Turner's hatred of slavery propelled him to seek freedom by violence. Indeed, Turner killed nearly sixty white people before being captured and hanged in September, 1831. This violent revolt marked the beginning of the black struggle for liberation.

Marcus Garvey (1887-1940) is regarded by many as "the apostle of black theology in the United States of America."[9] Martin Luther King, Jr., said

Garvey "was the first man on a mass scale and level to give millions of Negroes a sense of dignity and destiny, and make the Negro feel he is somebody."[10] Garvey was one of the first to speak of seeing God through black "spectacles."

Howard Thurman, in his book Jesus and the Disinherited (1949), saw black life paralleling Jesus' life because His poverty identified Him with the poor masses. Thurman also noted that Jesus was a member of a minority group (the Jews) in the midst of a larger and controlling dominant group (the Romans). Thurman thus drew many applications for the black experience from the life of Jesus.

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) was America's most visible civil rights leader from 1955 until his assassination in April, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee. Though he cannot be called a formal participant in the black theology movement, he nevertheless roused the conscience of black America to passionate commitment to liberation.

King was an advocate of Ghandian nonviolent social change. Through nonviolent suffering, King believed that "blacks would not only liberate themselves from the necessity of bitterness and the feeling of inferiority toward whites, but would also prick the conscience of whites and liberate them from a feeling of superiority."[11] To some, King's assassination indicated that nonviolence as a means of liberation had failed and that perhaps a more revolutionary theology was needed.

Albert Cleage was one of the more militant black writers of the 1960s. His claim to fame was The Black Messiah, a 1968 collection of sermons in which he set forth his brand of black nationalism.

Cleage rejected the Pauline books in the New Testament. He said that - in contrast to the black Messiah - there was a spiritualized Jesus constructed by the apostle Paul who "never knew Jesus and who modified his teaching to conform to the pagan philosophers of the white gentiles. We, as black Christians suffering oppression in a white man's land, do not need the individualistic and other-worldly doctrines of Paul and the white man."[12] THE EMERGENCE OF A FORMAL "BLACK THEOLOGY" Over one hundred and thirty years after Nat Turner was hanged, black theology emerged as a formal discipline. Beginning with the "black power" movement in 1966, black clergy in many major denominations began to reassess the relationship of the Christian church to the black community. Black caucuses developed in the Catholic, Presbyterian, and Episcopal churches. "The central thrust of these new groups was to redefine the meaning and role of the church and religion in the lives of black people. Out of this reexamination has come what some have called a 'Black Theology.'"[13]

For the first time in the history of black religious thought, black clergy (primarily educated, middle-class black clergy) and black theologians began to recognize the need for a completely new "starting point" in theology. They insisted that this starting point must be defined by people at the bottom and not the top of the socioeconomic ladder. So, black theologians began to re-read the Bible through the eyes of their slave grandparents and started to speak of God's solidarity with the oppressed of the earth.

The most prolific and sophisticated writer of this new theological movement has been James Cone. No one has matched him either in terms of sheer volume of writing, or in terms of the challenge posed by his books. For this reason, we shall examine his theology in depth. James Cone: Theologian of Black Liberation In assessing the theology of James Cone, it is critical to recognize that he sees black experience as the fundamental starting point for ascertaining theological truth. And his own writings are a reflection of his own "black experience" - that is, the discrimination he suffered while growing up as a child in Bearden, Arkansas.

What was it like in Bearden? "It meant attending 'separate but equal' schools, going to the balcony when attending a movie, and drinking water from a 'colored' fountain. It meant refusing to retaliate when called a nigger unless you were prepared to leave town at the precise moment of your rebellion. You had no name except for your first name of 'boy.'"[14] Cone concedes that "my theological reflections are inseparable from the Bearden experience. What I write is urged out of my blood."[15]

Cone says that "it is this common experience among black people in America that Black Theology elevates as the supreme test of truth. To put it simply, Black Theology knows no authority more binding than the experience of oppression itself. This alone must be the ultimate authority in religious matters."[16]

From the above, one may immediately suspect that Cone has a deficient view of the authority of Scripture. Indeed, his view seems very close to the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth, as when Cone writes: "It is true that the Bible is not the revelation of God, only Christ is. But it is an indispensable witness to God's revelation."[17] Moreover, "we should not conclude that the Bible is an infallible witness."[18] Cone believes the meaning of Scripture is not to be found in the words of Scripture as such, but only in its power to point beyond itself to the reality of God's "revelation," which - in America - takes place experientially in God's liberating work among blacks.

Black Theology and Black Power. Based on the preeminence of "black experience," Cone defines theology as "a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed

community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ."[19] Cone's theology asks (and seeks to answer) the question, "What does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men whose existence is threatened daily by the insidious tentacles of white power?"[20]

In answering this pivotal question, Cone emphasizes that there is a very close relationship between black theology and what has been termed "black power." Cone says that black power is a phrase that represents both black freedom and black self-determination "wherein black people no longer view themselves as without human dignity but as men, human beings with the ability to carve out their own destiny."[21]

Cone says black theology is the religious counterpart of black power. "Black Theology is the theological arm of Black Power, and Black Power is the political arm of Black Theology."[22] And, "while Black Power focuses on the political, social, and economic condition of black people, Black Theology puts black identity in a theological context."[23]

We gain insights about what Cone means by "black theology" and "black power" by understanding what blackness means in his theology. Cone notes two aspects of blackness: the physiological and ontological. In the first sense, "black" indicates a physiological trait. It refers to "a particular black-skinned people in America."[24]

In the second sense, "black" and "white" relate not to skin pigmentation but to "one's attitude and action toward the liberation of the oppressed black people from white racism."[25] Blackness is thus "an ontological symbol for all people who participate in the liberation of man from oppression."[26] Seen in this light, "blackness" can be attributed to people who do not have black skin but who do work for liberation.

By contrast, "whiteness" in Cone's thought symbolizes the ethnocentric activity of "madmen sick with their own self-concept" and thus blind to that which ails them and oppresses others. Whiteness symbolizes sickness and oppression. White theology is therefore viewed as a theological extension of that sickness and oppression.[27]

Having established that the black experience is the governing principle in Cone's interpretation of Scripture, it is important to understand how this governing principle has affected his views of specific doctrines.

God. Cone bases much of his liberationist theology on God's deliverance of Israel from oppression under the Egyptians. He says that the consistent theme in Israelite prophecy is Yahweh's concern for "the lack of social, economic, and political justice for those who are poor and unwanted in the

society."[28]

This same God, Cone argues, is working for the deliverance of oppressed blacks in twentieth-century America. Because God is helping oppressed blacks and has identified with them, God Himself is spoken of as "black."

Black theology's dominant perspective on God is "God in action, delivering the oppressed because of His righteousness. He is to be seen, not in the transcendent way of Greek philosophy, but immanent, among His people."[29] God is "immanent" in the sense that He is met in concrete historical situations of liberation.

This is very similar to the idea of the immanence of God in process theology. Indeed, process theologian David Ray Griffin, while recognizing important differences between process and black theology, has suggested that "process philosophy supports liberation theologians in locating the reality of God's presence and creative activity in this world."[30]

Jesus Christ. Cone's intention is to stand in the Chalcedonian tradition in his understanding of Jesus Christ. The Chalcedonian creed (A.D. 451) affirmed that Christ is "truly God and truly man." Cone agrees with this, but adds that the role of Jesus as God-Incarnate was to liberate the oppressed: Jesus Christ "is God himself coming into the very depths of human existence for the sole purpose of striking off the chains of slavery, thereby freeing man from ungodly principalities and powers that hinder his relationship with God."[31]

One of the more controversial aspects of Cone's Christology is his view that Jesus was (is) black: "The 'raceless' American Christ has a light skin, wavy brown hair, and sometimes - wonder of wonders - blue eyes. For whites to find him with big lips and kinky hair is as offensive as it was for the Pharisees to find him partying with tax-collectors. But whether whites want to hear it or not, Christ is black, baby, with all of the features which are so detestable to white society" (emphasis in original).[32]

Cone believes it is very important for black people to view Jesus as black: "It's very important because you've got a lot of white images of Christ. In reality, Christ was not white, not European. That's important to the psychic and to the spiritual consciousness of black people who live in a ghetto and in a white society in which their lord and savior looks just like people who victimize them. God is whatever color God needs to be in order to let people know they're not nobodies, they're somebodies."[33]

For Cone, the Resurrection of the black Jesus - a real event - symbolizes universal freedom for all who are bound. It is not just a future-oriented hope in a heavenly compensation for earthly woes. Rather, it is a hope that

focuses on the future in such a way that it prevents blacks from tolerating present inequities.[34] This is closely related to Cone's understanding of eschatology (more on this shortly).

Sin and Salvation. In Cone's view, sin is "a condition of human existence in which man denies the essence of God's liberating activity as revealed in Jesus Christ."[35] In this view, sin is anything that is contrary to the oppressed community or its liberation.

Salvation for Cone primarily has to do with earthly reality, not heavenly hopes. "To see the salvation of God is to see this people [i.e., the blacks] rise up against their oppressors, demanding that justice become a reality now and not tomorrow."[36] Hence, though Cone often speaks of Jesus as the Liberator, in practical terms he emphasizes the human work of self-liberation among blacks and downplays divine help.

The Church. Cone believes the black church has played an instrumental role in the religious and social life of black America. He says the black church was the creation of a black people "whose daily existence was an encounter with the overwhelming and brutalizing reality of white power. For the slaves it was the sole source of identity and the sense of community. The black church became the only sphere of black experience that was free of white power."[37]

Still, Cone believes that - since the days of slavery - the black church has largely capitulated to the demands of a white racist society. He argues that in order to survive, the black churches have given up their freedom and dignity. After the Civil War, black churches became passive in the struggle for civil rights and freedom while currying favors from the white establishment. This condition, Cone says, has persisted up to the present day, rendering the black church "the lifeless pawn of the status quo."[38]

Only faithfulness to the "pre-Civil War black church tradition" will issue in "an exclusive identification with black power," Cone believes. He says that a continued emphasis on black power is "the only hope of the black church in America."[39] (Though "black power" as a movement faded after the 1960s, the primary emphasis of the movement - the dignity, freedom, and self-determination of black people - has continued in Cone's theological writings. It is this emphasis that Cone says has been missing in many black churches.)

Eschatology. Cone rejects what he terms the "white lie" that Christianity is primarily concerned with life in the next world: "If eschatology means that one believes that God is totally uninvolved in the suffering of man because he is preparing them for another world, then black theology is not eschatological. Black theology has hope for this life."[40]

Cone asks what good there is in golden crowns, slippers, and white robes "if it means that we have to turn our backs on the pain and suffering of our own children? Unless the future can become present, thereby forcing us to make changes in this world, what significance could eschatology have for black people who believe that their self-determination must become a reality now?"[41]

Revolution and Violence. I would be remiss to close this discussion of James Cone without noting his views on revolution and violence. Cone defines liberation as the "emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary."[42] This definition would seem to allow for the use of violence.

Cone does not advocate armed revolution against white society. But some violence, he says, seems unavoidable. He points out that "the Christian does not decide between violence and nonviolence, evil and good. He decides between the lesser and the greater evil. He must ponder whether revolutionary violence is less or more deplorable than the violence perpetuated by the system."[43] Injustice, slave labor, hunger, and exploitation are all violent forms that must be considered against the cost of revolutionary violence. LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND THE BLACK CHURCH We have seen that James Cone has developed a full theology based on a reading of Scripture through the eyeglasses of "blackness." The question is, How influential has black liberation theology been in the life of the black church in America?

C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya have recently completed a ten-year statistical study of the black church in America. They've published their findings in a hefty volume entitled, The Black Church in the African American Experience (1990). Part of the Lincoln/Mamiya study dealt with black liberation theology: "In our urban questionnaire we asked the pastors of 1,531 urban churches, 'Have you been influenced by any of the authors and thinkers of black liberation theology?'"[44]

Responses to the urban questionnaire were quite revealing. Only 34.9 percent of urban black clergy said they had been influenced by black liberation theologians as opposed to 65.1 percent who said they had not. Little more than one-third of the black pastors interviewed claimed any influence from this movement!

Lincoln and Mamiya discerned that age and education were among the most significant variables in determining clergy responses:

Clergy who are forty and under claimed to be more strongly influenced by

black liberation theology than those who are older. Education was also very strongly associated with knowledge of black liberation theology. Pastors with a high school and less educational background said that they were minimally influenced by liberation theology, while those with a college education have the most positive views of the movement. The majority of the less educated pastors have neither heard of the movement nor of the names of theologians associated with it. Among educated clergy familiar with the movement, James Cone has the highest name recognition.[45]

These differences are not that surprising, Lincoln and Mamiya say, since black liberation theology is a relatively recent intellectual movement "occurring largely among the educated elite of the black clergy."[46]

Another significant variable was found to be denominational affiliation. According to Lincoln and Mamiya, the black denominations with higher educational levels among their clergy - such as the African Methodist Episcopal Church - are the major proponents of liberation theology. "The fact that the Pentecostal ministers of the Church of God in Christ, which has the largest sector of lower-class members among the seven [major black] denominations, have been scarcely influenced by this theological perspective suggests some of the class limitations of this movement."[47] This would seem to indicate that the formulators of black liberation theology have not been able to move beyond their middle-class origins, even though black liberationists have sought to do theology from the "bottom up" - that is, from the perspective of the oppressed in American society.[48]

Based on their nationwide field experience, Lincoln and Mamiya have observed that the majority of black clergy are educated as apprentices - learning "on the job" under the direction of senior clergy. What little academic education they receive is usually at the local Bible school level. Moreover, most of their reading is denominationally oriented. "It is this local level of clergy education," Lincoln and Mamiya suggest, "that the new black liberation theology has thus far failed to penetrate."[49]

Lincoln and Mamiya close with this warning: "Unless the movement of black liberation theology reaches beyond its present location in an intellectual elite and gives more attention to a mass education of clergy and laity in the churches, the movement will continue to have minimal influence among its key constituencies."[50]

Lincoln and Mamiya are probably correct. However, the problems of black liberation theology go much deeper than a simple failure to reach the masses. This I shall make clear in what follows. A CRITIQUE It is difficult for a white person such as myself to critique black theology. As I write, I am mindful of James Cone's conviction that any

criticism of black theology by a white theologian will be influenced by white racism and is thus invalid.[51] To help disarm this objection, I will draw support for each of my points from one or more black theologians.

I want to begin by affirming that black theology has made some important contributions. I will mention only four here. First, black theology has reminded us that theology - if it is going to meet the needs of twentieth century (and beyond) Christians - must find practical expression in society. Second, black theology has reminded us that God is involved with His people in real-life situations. Third, black theology has focused our attention on the need to reach out to others in the body of Christ who are suffering. And fourth, black theology serves as an indictment against the racist views that have been all-too-often (but not always) present among white people. These contributions are important and extremely relevant.

Despite these contributions, however, there are some serious problems that must be addressed. As a preface to my criticisms, I want to draw attention to Part One of this series in which I criticized the hermeneutic of Latin American liberation theology. In that article, I pointed out that Latin American theologians have approached Scripture with a preunderstanding that has led them to interpret Scripture with a bias toward the poor. I emphasized that if we are to understand the biblical author's intended meaning, it is imperative that preunderstandings be in harmony with Scripture and subject to correction by it. This same point must be made with reference to black theology. However, since I will not repeat any material from Part One, I urge the reader to review my comments on preunderstandings in that article. "Blackness" and Scripture In my critique of black liberation theology, I will focus my attention on the particular preunderstanding which interprets Scripture through the eyeglasses of "blackness." More specifically, I shall address the question: Is it legitimate to make the black experience the fundamental criterion for interpreting Scripture?

Certainly I do not wish to minimize the importance of the black experience. Nor do I want to come across as unsympathetic to the plight of African Americans in a white-dominated society. There can be little doubt that black liberation theologians have a legitimate gripe regarding the treatment of their people throughout American history. But imposing the black experience (or any other experience - including feminist, gay, anti-supernaturalist, New Age, mystic, etc.) onto Scripture robs Scripture of its intrinsic authority and distorts its intended meaning.

Theologians who make black experience all-determinative have, in a way, made the same mistake some white racists did during the days of slavery - only in reverse. Just as some whites imposed their "experience" as slavemasters onto

Scripture in order to justify slavery, so some blacks have imposed the "black experience" onto Scripture to justify their radical views on liberation. Both positions have erred. For blacks to use such an experience-oriented methodology is to condone the very kind of method used by those who enslaved them. In my thinking, this is self-defeating at best.

Black theologian Anthony Evans directly challenges Cone's methodology by arguing that the black experience must be seen as "real but not revelatory, important but not inspired."[52] Black writer Tom Skinner agrees and argues that "like any theology, black theology must have a frame of reference There are some black theologians who seek to make their frame of reference purely the black experience, but this assumes the black experience is absolutely moral and absolutely just, and that is not the case. There must be a moral frame of reference through which the black experience can be judged."[53] That frame of reference must be Scripture.

To produce a biblical liberation theology, Scripture - not the "black experience" - must be the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice. By following this approach, a strong biblical case can be constructed against racism - something I would think should be at the very heart of a biblical black theology.

The unity of the human race, for example, is a consistent emphasis in Scripture - in terms of creation (Gen. 1:28), the sin problem (Rom. 3:23), God's love for all men (John 3:16), and the scope of salvation (Matt. 28:19). The apostle Paul emphasized mankind's unity in his sermon to the Athenians: "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live" (Acts 17:26). Moreover, Revelation 5:9 tells us that God's redeemed will be from "every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Because of the unity of humanity, there is no place for racial discrimination - white, black, or otherwise - for all men are equal in God's sight. Transcending Culture In Part One, I criticized the hermeneutic of Latin American liberation theology for its inability to develop a culture-transcending theology. Black theology's hermeneutic - with its emphasis on the "black experience" - is open to the same criticism.

A passage relevant to this is John 4 where we find Jesus confronting a Samaritan woman. Here Jesus deals with the relationship between truth and culture.

The Jews considered the Samaritans an "unclean" mixed breed - with Israelite and Assyrian ancestry. Because of this, the Jews were harshly prejudiced against the Samaritans and discriminated against them. This cultural

hostility led the Samaritan woman to ask Jesus: "'You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?' (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans)" (John 4:9).

During the ensuing discussion, the woman asked Jesus about which cultural place of worship was valid: Mt. Gerizim where the Samaritans built their temple, or Jerusalem where the Jews built theirs. Anthony Evans alerts us to the significance of Jesus' response: "Jesus does not hesitate to let her know that once you bring God into the picture, the issue is no longer culture, but truth. He informs her that the question is not Mt. Gerizim or Jerusalem, that it is not according to Samaritan tradition or Jewish tradition (v. 21). In fact, He denounces her cultural heritage in relation to worship, for he told her, 'Ye worship ye know not what' (v. 22). When she began to impose her culture on sacred things, Christ invaded her cultural world to tell her she was spiritually ignorant."[54]

Jesus transcended the whole issue of culture in discussing spiritual issues with the woman. When it came to her relationship with God, the issue moved from her cultural heritage to her heart and the criteria for that relationship was truth. Jesus acknowledged cultural distinctions, but disallowed them when they interfered in any way with truth about God. A principle we can derive from this is: Culture must always take back seat to the truth of God as revealed in Scripture.

What does this passage say to the relationship of Scripture to the black experience? Evans answers: "It says that we as black people cannot base our relationship with God, or our understanding of God, on our cultural heritage. Jesus is not asking blacks to become white or whites to become Jews, but he insists that all reflect God's truth as given in Scripture. Where culture does not infringe upon the Word of God, we are free to be what God created us to be, with all the uniqueness that accompanies our cultural heritage. However, the truth from Scripture places limits on our cultural experience."[55] Reconciliation: The Better Way A biblical theology of liberation must include an emphasis on reconciliation among men, without which the theology ceases to be Christian (Eph. 2:14ff.). Black liberation theologian DeOtis Roberts (b. 1927), though committed to liberation, agrees with this and insists that black theology must speak of "reconciliation that brings black men together and of reconciliation that brings black and white men together."[56] Roberts says "it is my belief that true freedom overcomes estrangement and heals the brokenness between peoples."[57] However, Roberts argues, "reconciliation can take place only between equals. It cannot coexist with a situation of Whites over Blacks."[58]

Roberts's point is well taken. Reconciliation and racism are birds of a

different feather; they never fly together. Genuine reconciliation can come only if people - both black and white - commit to a scriptural view of their brothers of a different color, seeing all people as created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) and of infinite value to God (1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:18).

There is much more that needs to be said on this important issue, but space forbids. As the theological dialogue continues in coming years, I would like to suggest the following goal: Let us all - both black and white - seek to build a body of unified believers who are so committed to the Scriptures and to Christ that the name Christian becomes truly descriptive of who they are, and not the color of their skin. NOTES 1 William L. Banks, The Black Church in the U.S. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 12.

2 Anthony T. Evans, Biblical Theology and the Black Experience (Dallas: Black Evangelistic Enterprise, 1977), 19.

3 James W. English, "Could Racism Be Hereditary?," Eternity, September 1970, 22.

4 C. Eric Lincoln, "The Development of Black Religion in America," Review and Expositor 70 (Summer 1973):302.

5 Ibid., 303.

6 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 543.

7 James H. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power (hereafter Theology) (New York: Seabury Press, 1969), 121.

8 Emmanuel McCall, "Black Liberation Theology: A Politics of Freedom," Review and Expositor 73 (Summer 1976):330; cf. C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya, The Black Church in the African American Experience (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), 352.

9 Lindsay A. Arscott, "Black Theology," Evangelical Review of Theology 10 (April-June 1986):137.

10 Quoted by Clair Drake, Foreword to Garveyism as a Religious Movement, Randall Burkett (Metucher, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1978), 15.

11 James H. Cone, "Black Theology in American Religion," Theology Today 43 (April 1986):13.

12 Albert B. Cleage, The Black Messiah (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1969), 4.

13 Charles V. Hamilton, The Black Preacher in America (New York: William Morrow, 1972), 140.

14 James H. Cone, God of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), 3.

15 Ibid.

16 Cone, Theology, 120.

17 James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (hereafter Liberation) (Philadelphia: J. P. Lippencott, 1970), 66.

18 Ibid., 67.

19 Ibid., 17-18.

20 Ibid., 32.

21 Cone, Theology, 6.

22 James H. Cone, "Black Power, Black Theology," Theological Education 6 (Spring 1970):209.

23 James H. Cone, quoted in K. Bediako, "Black Theology," in New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 103.

24 Cone, Liberation, 32.

25 Nyameko Pityana, "What Is Black Consciousness?" Black Theology: The South African Voice, ed. Basil Moore (London: C. Hurst & Co., 1973), 63.

26 Cone, Liberation, 32.

27 Ibid., 29.

28 Ibid., 19.

29 H. Wayne House, "An Investigation of Black Liberation Theology," Bibliotheca Sacra 139 (April-June 1982):163.

30 David Ray Griffin, "Values, Evil, and Liberation Theology," in Process Philosophy and Social Thought, ed. John B. Cobb (Chicago: Center for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1981), 185. Process theology espouses a finite

God that evolves, is subject to change, and is intrinsically related to the world.

31 Cone, Theology, 35.

32 J. H. Cone, "The White Church and Black Power," in G. S. Wilmore and J. H. Cone, Black Theology: A Documentary History, 1966-1979 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979), 116-17.

33 James H. Cone, interviewed by Barbara Reynolds, USA Today, 8 November 1989, 11A.

34 Cone, Liberation, 21.

35 Ibid., 190.

36 Ibid., 227.

37 James H. Cone, "Black Theology and Black Liberation," in Black Theology: The South African Voice, ed. Basil Moore (London: C. Hurst & Co., 1973), 92, 96.

38 Cone, Liberation, 236-37.

39 Cone, Theology, 109.

40 Ibid., 123.

41 Cone, Liberation, 241-42.

42 Cone, Theology, 6.

43 Ibid., 143.

44 Lincoln and Mamiya, 178-79.

45 Ibid., 179.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid., 180.

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid., 181.

51 Cone, "Black Power, Black Theology," 214.

52 Evans, 8.

53 Tom Skinner, If Christ is the Answer, What are the Questions? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), 112-13.

54 Evans, 13.

55 Ibid., 13-14.

56 DeOtis Roberts, Liberation and Reconciliation: A Black Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 152.

57 DeOtis Roberts, "Black Theology in the Making," Review and Expositor 70 (Summer 1973):328.

58 Ibid., 327.

(An article from the Christian Research Journal, Spring 1991, page 27)Go Back to Downloadable Articles

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

"Confusion in Christian Music?"

by Ron Rhodes

Serge Denisoff, sociologist at Bowling Green University, said: "If you want to reach young people in this country, write a song, don't buy an ad" (Newsweek, 30 December 1985, p. 54). Christians have long recognized that music can be a powerful platform from which to communicate God's truth to the masses. Of course, music can also be a powerful platform for communicating wrong interpretations or misrepresentations of God's truth.

Though lyrics in most contemporary Christian songs fall within the boundaries of orthodoxy, a small but growing percentage of Christian songs have lyrics that are either shallow, confusing, doctrinally errant, or even blatantly unbiblical. To illustrate this, I will cite specific examples of lyrics which fall short in one way or another. Since I have no desire to go on a "witch hunt," however, I will not mention any Christian artist's name. I would also like to mention that some of the songs I will cite are performed by artists who - for the most part - sing perfectly orthodox songs. But singing orthodox songs most of the time is not enough.

To begin, I am seriously concerned about lyrics which portray Jesus as either less than fully divine or inferior to the Father in some way. One song declares that Jesus "was just an ordinary man--just a carpenter from Galilee." Since I am familiar with other songs by this artist, I know that he believes in the deity of Christ. In His incarnation, Christ also had a fully human nature, which is what I think this artist meant to say. But Jesus was certainly no "ordinary man." Jesus was God in the flesh!

Since Jesus is God, He is all-powerful. Yet He is often portrayed in a less-than-omnipotent way. One song - a testimonial - laments that "the Devil was in me. There wasn't enough room to let sweet Jesus in." Another song about Jesus' second coming says: "If you see a Man in sandals, please send Him down my way; It might be my Master, He's coming back some day; If you see a Man in white that's like no one you've seen before, won't you let me know, That's the man I'm looking for. And if you can remember, ask Him what's His name; And if He tells you Jesus, say, 'We're so glad you came'...Then send Him on to me." This is a description of the King of kings and Lord of lords coming in glory?

Salvation is another issue that is sometimes shortchanged. One song portrays Jesus as saying, "if you're sorry - I'll wash away your sin." There is no mention of faith even though faith is mentioned around 200 times in the New Testament as the condition of salvation. Being just sorry never saved

anyone!

Another song, performed by one of today's most popular Christian artists, seems unclear regarding the exclusivity of Christianity. Though other songs by this artist portray Christ as the "only way," this is not clear in the song under question: "There's a call to us all to love all humanity; Every race on the face of the earth come to unity; Reach a hand to the Hindu mother; And a hand to the Buddhist father in love; ('Love one another as I have loved you.') Hold the hands of the Muslim baby; And you'll see we're all created by God; (All in the image of God); Sweet salvation calls the nations with His voice; Every man who hears must make the choice; Who are we to know another's heart or mind? For God alone is judge, He loves all kinds."

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for loving people of every religion. At the same time, however, it seems to me that the highest expression of this love is displayed not by merely reaching out "a loving hand" but by sharing with them that they are totally and irrevocably lost as long as they don't have Jesus in their lives.

It is not surprising that the Positive Confession movement has also found its way into contemporary Christian music. As one popular Christian artist sings, "Let the weak say 'I am strong;' Let the sick say 'I am healed;' With words of faith confess it. And in the name of Jesus claim it. Because what you say is what you get."

And what gives us the strength to get through each day? One song tells us: "In my heart I know there's someone [Christ] who believes in me. I know that He believes in me. He believes in me. That gives me the courage to be what I must be, He believes in me." Where's the supernatural empowering of the Holy Spirit in this?

Those of us who succeed in living a life worthy of God can look forward to the Rapture, according to another song. We will be raptured "if to God we have been true, and we've lived above all sin." This "Rapture" may be a peopleless event!

Before I'm accused of being a mudslinger, let me affirm that I praise God for Christian music. I can't count the number of times I have been personally blessed by one Christian artist or another. Make no mistake about it, Christian artists have been mightily used by God to communicate His Word. And many people have come to know the Lord through such music. My point, however, is that every artist - by virtue of the enormous platform they have, commanding the attention of millions of people - must be extremely cautious to insure the doctrinal accuracy of what is said in each and every song.

Perhaps one safeguard might be for songwriters and Christian recording companies to develop working relationships with reputable theologians and Bible scholars who can glance through lyrics to insure doctrinal accuracy. At the very least, songwriters could have their pastors read through their work. I don't think this is asking too much, especially in view of the potentially enormous number of people who may be influenced by the lyrics.

(An article from the Viewpoint Column of the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1989, page 31)Go Back to Downloadable Articles

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 2526 Frisco, TX 75034

The Doctrine of the Tribulation in Relation to the Rapture

by Ron Rhodes

Why is this Doctrine Important? While some posttribulationists like Ladd and Gundry concede that there is a future unfulfilled tribulation, posttribulationists nevertheless often confuse the Great Tribulation with tribulation in general. The Use of the Word "Tribulation" The word "tribulation" means "to press" (as grapes), "to press together," "to press hard upon," and refers to "times of oppression, affliction, and distress" (BAG). thlipsis is translated variously as "tribulation," "affliction," "anguish," "persecution," "trouble," and "burden." The word has been used in relation to: Those 'hard pressed' by the calamities of war (Matt. 24:21). A woman giving birth to a child (Jn. 16:21). The afflictions of Christ (Col. 1:24). Those 'pressed' by poverty and lack (Phil. 4:14). Great anxiety and burden of heart (2 Cor. 2:4). A period known as the Great Tribulation (Rev. 7:14). General Tribulation Distinguished from the Great Tribulation Posttribulationist George Fromow believes that the Church is already passing through 'the Great Tribulation,' according to the sense of Rev. vii, vv. 13, 14, and he 'proves' this by pointing out that the word "saints'" refers to the Church.

Such a view, however, illustrates two leading characteristics upon which the conclusions of posttribulationism are built: (1) confusion of the Great Tribulation with tribulation in general; (2) confusion of the church with saints as a whole.

It is true that the church may expect general tribulation. Christ said to the disciples, "In the world ye shall have tribulation" (John 16:33). Paul and Barnabas warned that "through much tribulation" we must "enter in the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). But are we to assume that in every instance the word "tribulation" refers to such general tribulation?

That the Great Tribulation is to be distinguished from tribulation in general is established by the following facts: Scripture refers to a definite period of time at the end of the age (Matt. 24:29-35). This period is called "the great tribulation" in Rev. 7:14. It will be of such severity that no period in history past or future will equal it (Matt. 24:21).

It will be shortened for the elect's sake (Matt. 24:22), as no flesh could survive it. It is called the time of Jacob's trouble, for it is a judgment on Messiah-rejecting Israel (Jer. 30:7; Dan. 12:1-4). The nations will be judged for their sin and rejection of Christ during this tribulation (Isa. 26:21; Rev. 6:15-17). It is seven years in length (Dan. 9:24, 27). The Nature of the Tribulation A central problem for posttribulationists is that they must get the church through the tribulation relatively unscathed. But the only way they can do this is to ignore the plain teachings of the book of Revelation on this subject. Gundry is an example of one who attempts to bring the church through the Great Tribulation without experiencing great tribulation (cf. The Church and the Tribulation).

However, the nature of the Tribulation forbids such an interpretation. This period is characterized by wrath (Zeph. 1:15, 18), judgment (Rev. 14:7), indignation (Isa. 26:20-21), trial (Rev. 3:10), trouble (Jer. 30:7), destruction (Joel 1:15), darkness (Amos 5:18), desolation (Dan. 9:27), overturning (Isa. 24:1-4), and punishment (Isa. 24:20-21). Simply put, no passage can be found to alleviate to any degree whatsoever the severity of this time that shall come upon the earth. The Scope of the Tribulation Gundry's argument is further weakened by the fact that the Tribulation will come upon the whole world. Revelation 3:10 describes this period as ".. . that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell (not 'some who dwell') upon the earth" (insert mine). Isaiah writes: "Behold, the Lord lays the earth waste, devastates it, distorts its surface, and scatters its inhabitants" ((Isa. 24:1). He continues along the same line in verse 17: "Terror and pit and snare confront you, O inhabitant of the earth." Obviously, it seems impossible that the church could avoid experiencing tribulation if she indeed goes through the Great Tribulation. The Source of the Tribulation Scripture makes it clear that the Great Tribulation is a time of both divine wrath and satanic wrath. However, Gundry attempts to lessen the severity of this period in relation to believers by making it a period of satanic wrath, and not a time of divine wrath. A brief survey of Scripture shows this view to be incorrect. The Great Tribulation is a ". . . day of the Lord's wrath" (Zeph. 1:18). The earth will experience ". . . the wrath of the Lamb (Rev. 6:16-17). "The Lord maketh the earth empty. . ." (Isa. 24:1), and ". . . the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity" (Isa. 26:21). The Purpose of the Tribulation There seems to be a twofold purpose for the time of the Great Tribulation: (1) to bring to conclusion 'the times of the Gentiles' (Luke 21:24); and (2) to prepare for the restoration and the regathering of Israel in the

millennial reign of Christ following the Second Coming. Thus, the purpose of the Tribulation has nothing to do with purging the church or the discipline of believers. This supports the argument that the church will not go through the Tribulation.

Conclusions of this study as to why the church will not go through the Tribulation. The nature of the Tribulation relates to Israel and Gentiles, not the Church. No O.T. passage on the Tribulation mentions the Church. No N.T. passage on the Tribulation mentions the Church. The church is not appointed to wrath. It is promised salvation from the wrath to come. The church of Philadelphia was promised deliverance form "the hour of trial." It is characteristic of God to deliver believers before divine wrath and judgment. The rapture of the church is never mentioned in any passage dealing with the Second Coming after the Tribulation. Pretribulationism does not confuse terms like "saints" (general) with terms like "Church" (specific). The godly remnant of the Tribulation are pictured as Israelites, not members of the Church. Pretribulationism distinguishes between general tribulation and the Great Tribulation. Pretribulationism is the only view that uses a literal interpretation of all N.T. and O.T. passages on the Great Tribulation. If the Church is raptured at the end of the Tribulation, there will be no mortals left to populate the Millennial Kingdom. At the rapture, the church goes to the Father's house (John 14:3), not back to earth again as posttribulationists hold. Since the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel were subject to literal fulfillment, the final (seventieth) week will have a similar fulfillment. All seventy weeks of Daniel are totally in reference to Israel and her relation to Gentile powers and the rejection of Israel's Messiah, (i.e., no reference to the church).

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

"Esotericism and Biblical Interpretation"

by Ron Rhodes

When Jesus said, "Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness" (Matt. 6:33, NIV), was He teaching His disciples, as New Ager David Spangler argues, to seek "the state of identification with one's true individuality, the source within, the Divine center, that I AM THAT I AM?"[1]

When Jesus said, "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me" (Matt. 11:29), was He teaching His disciples, as Church Universal and Triumphant leader Elizabeth Clare Prophet argues, to "take my consciousness of my sacred labor, my Christhood bearing the burden of world karma and learn of my Guru, the Ancient of Days?"[2]

When Moses composed the creation account in Genesis, was it really his intention to communicate, as Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy argues, that the name Adam represents a dam (as in the dam at Niagara Falls) that "stands for obstruction, error, even the supposed separation of man from God?"[3]

The common link joining each of these Bible interpreters is that they all utilize an esoteric system of interpreting Scripture -- that is, each seeks hidden, secret, or inner spiritual meanings of Bible verses, especially the teachings of Jesus. If these and other esotericists are correct in their approach to Scripture, then orthodox Christians have woefully misrepresented the true meaning of Scripture for almost two full millennia. We must therefore address the question, Is the esoteric method of interpreting Scripture a legitimate method?

In answering this question, we begin with the observation that right from the first book in the Bible, there is virtually no indication that Scripture was intended to be taken esoterically. Rather, a plain (nonesoteric) reading of the text seems to be assumed throughout. A plain reading of Genesis indicates that when God created Adam in His own rational image, He gave Adam the gift of intelligible speech, thus enabling him to communicate objectively with his creator (and with other human beings) via sharable linguistic symbols called words (Gen. 1:26). Indeed, God sovereignly chose to use human language as a medium of revelational communication.

If the primary purpose of God's originating of language was to make it possible for Him to communicate with human beings, as well as to enable human beings to communicate with each other, then it must follow that He would generally use language and expect man to use it in its literal,

normal, and plain sense. This view of language is a prerequisite to understanding not only God's spoken word but His written word (Scripture) as well.

Esotericists must be made to see that the Bible as a body of literature exists because human beings need to know certain spiritual truths to which they cannot attain by themselves. Thus these truths must come to them from without -- that is, via objective, special revelation from God (Deut. 29:29). And this revelation can only be understood if one interprets the words of Scripture according to God's original design for language -- that is, according to the ordinary, plain, literal sense of each word.

Now, in contrasting esotericism with a "literal" approach to Scripture, I am not suggesting a "wooden literalism" that interprets biblical figures of speech literally. But what is understood to be a figure of speech and what is taken literally should be based on the biblical text itself -- such as when Jesus used obviously figurative parables to communicate spiritual truth.

A literal approach to Scripture also recognizes that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, each of which have certain peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in order to interpret the text properly. Biblical genres include the historical (e.g., Acts), the dramatic epic (e.g., Job), poetry (e.g., Psalms), wise sayings (e.g., Proverbs), and apocalyptic writings (e.g., Revelation). Obviously, an incorrect genre judgment will lead one far astray in interpreting Scripture. A parable should not be treated as history, nor should poetry or apocalyptic literature (both of which contain many symbols) be treated as straightforward narrative. The wise interpreter allows his (or her) knowledge of genres to control how he approaches each individual biblical text. In this way, he can accurately determine what the biblical author was intending to communicate to the reader.

Now, even though the Bible contains a variety of literary genres and many figures of speech, the biblical authors most often employed literal statements to convey their ideas. And where they use a literal means to express their ideas, the Bible expositor must employ a corresponding means to explain these ideas -- namely, a literal approach. A literal method of interpreting Scripture gives to each word in the text the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage -- whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. Without such a method, communication between God and man is impossible. LEGITIMATE AND ILLEGITIMATE INTERPRETATIONS In keeping with a literal approach to Scripture, we must emphasize that each biblical text has only one legitimate meaning and therefore only one legitimate interpretation. In 1983 the International Council on Biblical

Inerrancy (ICBI) published a small commentary on "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics," in which Article VII states: "We affirm that the meaning in each biblical text is single, definite, and fixed."[4] The commentary explains that "the affirmation here is directed at those who claim a 'double' or 'deeper' meaning of Scripture than that expressed by the authors. It stresses the unity and fixity of meaning as opposed to those who find multiple and pliable meanings."[5]

Esotericists may respond to this statement by saying that their interpretation of Scripture is just as legitimate as anyone else's. Certainly, in a sense, everyone is entitled to his or her own interpretation of the Bible. At the same time, however, we must insist that not all interpretations are equally correct. New Age analyst Douglas Groothuis comments:

You may, in fact, "interpret" the bright, large orb that irradiates the solar system as being a remarkably durable and powerful satellite constructed by Peruvian peasants in A.D. 300. You have a "right," so to speak, to interpret things that way; but that in no way makes your view correct. Your interpretation is either true or false; you are either right or wrong. Having "your own interpretation" about the Bible does not, in itself, legitimate that interpretation as truth any more than "your interpretation" of your IRS return legitimates itself before the penetrating eyes of an income-tax auditor. He goes by "the book," not your book. The it's-my-interpretation cop-out may land you a big fine or even time behind bars (which no amount of creative interpretation will dissolve).[6]

In the it's-my-interpretation approach of esotericism, the basic authority in interpretation ceases to be Scripture, but is rather the mind of the individual interpreter. And because of this, esoteric interpreters offer us irreconcilable contradictions in their interpretations of specific Bible verses.

New Ager Benjamin Creme, for example, believes that references to the second coming of Christ in the New Testament point to the coming of a single individual known as Maitreya.[7] Other New Agers, such as David Spangler, believe these same references point to an incarnation of the cosmic Christ in all of humanity, and are not fulfilled in a single individual.[8] Contradictions such as these are inevitable when the mind of the interpreter is made the authority instead of Scripture.

A plain reading of Scripture indicates that Christ Himself will physically and visibly come again in cataclysmic fashion to judge the living and the dead (Matt. 24; Rev. 19). Indeed, just as Jesus literally fulfilled hundreds of biblical prophecies dealing with His first coming -- including where He would be born (Mic. 5:2), the time of His ministry (Dan. 9:24-27), His

miracles (Isa. 35:5-6), His parables (Ps. 78:2), His death (Isa. 53; Ps. 22) and resurrection (Ps. 16:10) -- so He will personally return in literal fulfillment of the remaining prophecies regarding the Second Coming.

Now, having said this, I do not mean to imply that orthodox Bible interpreters unanimously agree on all the finer points of theology, for they clearly do not. However, their differences of opinion on relatively minor details (the nonessentials) must be seen in the broader context of their unanimous agreement on the major details (the essentials) of Christianity. This impressive widespread agreement on the essentials of Christianity stems from an objective methodology that takes the words of Scripture in their ordinary, plain sense -- just as God intended.

Unlike objective methodology, in which interpretations (of both the major and minor details in Scripture) can be rationally evaluated and tested by comparing Scripture with Scripture and by objectively weighing historical and grammatical considerations, there is no objective way to test esoteric interpretations of Scripture. By nature, esotericism is subjective and nonverifiable. There is no way to prove that a given interpretation is right or wrong since "proof" presupposes rationality and objectivity. A New Ager relying on an esoteric approach cannot know for sure, then, whether Creme or Spangler is correct (or whether either is correct) regarding the Second Coming. Addressing esotericism's nonverifiability, James Sire says that "there is no way to tell if the system that derives from esotericism is really so or merely a figment of the esotericist's imagination -- or worse -- a direct plant by the Father of Lies."[9] SEEKING THE AUTHOR'S INTENDED MEANING The objective interpreter of Scripture seeks to discover the author's intended meaning (the only true meaning). We must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers. Meaning is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers.[10]

Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text). By using eisogesis instead of exegesis, a Marxist interpreter could, for example, so skew the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that it comes out sounding like it supported socialism.[11] Esotericists have done the same type of thing with God's Word. They approach Scripture with a particular mystical preunderstanding and so skew the meaning of the biblical text that it comes out saying something entirely different than what was intended by the author.

Certainly an esoteric interpreter would object if an orthodox Christian interpreted Eastern mystical texts in such a way that they came out sounding like they support orthodox Christianity.[12] The Christian would be guilty

of reading something into the Eastern text that simply is not there, and would be rightly reprimanded by the esotericist. Groothuis thus suggests that the Golden Rule applies here: 'Interpret others' texts as you would have them interpret your own."[13]

Context. In seeking the biblical author's intended meaning, it is critical to interpret Bible statements in context. Every word in the Bible is part of a sentence; every sentence is part of a paragraph; every paragraph is part of a book; and every book is part of the whole of Scripture. There is thus both an immediate and a broader context of a given verse.

The immediate context of a statement is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. No text of Scripture is independent from the statements around it. Interpreting a text apart from its immediate context is like trying to make sense of a Rembrandt painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting, or like trying to analyze Handel's "Messiah" by listening to a few short notes. The immediate context is absolutely critical to a proper understanding of individual Scripture texts.

The broader context of any given text is the whole of Scripture. We must ever bear in mind that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point. Individual texts do not exist as isolated fragments, but as parts of a whole. The exposition of these texts must therefore involve exhibiting them in right relation both to the whole and to each other. This principle is grounded in the fact that each of the biblical writers wrote within the larger context of previous biblical teaching. And they all assumed that all of Scripture -- though communicated through human instruments -- had one Author (God) who didn't contradict Himself (2 Pet. 1:21).

History. Historical considerations are especially important as a backdrop in ascertaining the author's intended meaning. Christianity is based on historical fact. More specifically, Christianity rests on the foundation of the historical Jesus of Nazareth whose very life represents God's full and objective self-communication to humankind (John 1:18). In the empirical (experiential) world of ordinary sense perceptions, Jesus was seen and heard by human beings as God's ultimate revelation (1 John 1:1-3). This is why He could claim, "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well" (John 14:7).

The apostle Paul warned the religious men of Athens of the objective reality of the future judgment of all humanity on the basis of the objective, historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:16f.). This evidence is recorded for us in propositional statements (i.e., affirmations of specific truths) in the New Testament Gospels, documents that are based on eyewitness testimony and written very close in time to the events on

which they report. Based on how people respond to God's objective, historical revelation contained in Scripture, they will spend eternity in a real heaven or a real hell. Esoteric manipulation of truth will not be possible on the day of judgment. ILLUMINATION BY THE HOLY SPIRIT Esotericists rely on their own inner "illumination" to determine the hidden meaning of Scripture verses. Orthodox Christians, by contrast, rely on the Holy Spirit's illumination to gain insights into the plain meaning and application of Scripture (John 16:12-15; 1 Cor. 2:9-11). The Holy Spirit as the "Spirit of truth" (John 16:13) guides us so that "we may understand what God has freely given us" (1 Cor. 2:12). This is quite logical: full comprehension of the Word of God is impossible without prayerful dependence on the Spirit of God, for He who inspired the Word (2 Pet. 1:21) is also its supreme interpreter.

It is beyond the scope of this article to provide a full discussion of the Holy Spirit's ministry of illumination. Other good sources are available for this.[14] However, I do want to emphasize that this aspect of the Holy Spirit's ministry operates within the sphere of man's rational capacity, which God Himself gave man (cf. Gen. 2-3). James Sire comments that "illumination comes to the 'minds' of God's people -- not to some nonrational faculty like our 'emotions' or our 'feelings.' To know God's revelation means to use our minds. This makes knowledge something we can share with others, something we can talk about. God's Word is in words with ordinary rational content."[15]

Related to this, theologian Roy B. Zuck reminds us that the ministry of the Holy Spirit in interpretation does not mean interpreters can ignore common sense and logic. Since the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of truth" (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), "He would not teach concepts that failed to meet the tests of truth. The Holy Spirit does not guide into interpretations that contradict each other or fail to have logical, internal consistency."[16]

It must also be kept in mind that the function of the Holy Spirit is not to communicate to the minds of people any doctrine or meaning of Scripture that is not contained already in Scripture itself. The Holy Spirit makes men "wise up to what is written, not beyond it."[17] Indeed, "the function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture."[18]

One further point bears mentioning. Though esotericists claim to depend on their own "inner illumination," they are utterly blind to the possibility, as Sire has noted, that the unholy spirit -- Satan, the Father of lies -- may be behind their "illumination." that Satan is a crafty misinterpreter of God's Word. Indeed, in his attempt to bring about Christ's downfall, he quoted two passages out of context (Matt. 4:1-11). Christ responded by

quoting the Word of God in context, thus defeating Satan's purposes. However, though Satan lost in this encounter with Jesus, he is still promoting the misinterpretation of Scripture through esotericism. THE EXAMPLE OF JESUS CHRIST Esotericists would do well to consider the example set by Jesus Christ in how to properly interpret Scripture. Jesus never sought a hidden or secondary meaning when interpreting the Old Testament Scriptures. On the contrary, He consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including the Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matt. 13:35; 25:34; Mark 10:6), Noah's Ark and the Flood (Matt. 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27), Jonah and the whale (Matt. 12:39-41), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15), and the account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29). In his book The Savior and the Scriptures, theologian Robert P. Lightner notes -- following an exhaustive study -- that Jesus' interpretation of Scripture "was always in accord with the grammatical and historical meaning. He understood and appreciated the meaning intended by the writers according to the laws of grammar and rhetoric."[19]

Jesus affirmed the Bible's divine inspiration (Matt. 22:43), its indestructibility (Matt. 5:17-18), its infallibility (John 10:35), its final authority (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10), its historicity (Matt. 12:40; 24:37), its factual inerrancy (Matt. 22:29-32), and its spiritual clarity (Luke 24:25). Moreover, He emphasized the importance of each word of Scripture (Luke 16:17). Indeed, He sometimes based His argumentation on a single expression of the biblical text (Matt. 22:32, 43-45; John 10:34).

Unlike esotericists -- who say there is a hidden, spiritual meaning in Bible verses discernible only by esoteric "initiates" -- Jesus taught openly and with clarity. Recall that following His arrest, Jesus was questioned by the High Priest about His disciples and His teaching. Jesus responded: "I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said" (John 18:20, emphases added). Since Jesus had said nothing in secret, those who heard Him would be able to clearly enunciate what He had openly communicated. There were no hidden meanings beneath His words.

That Jesus taught openly and with clarity is attested by the doctrinal influence He had on His followers. Several scholars have noted that if Jesus had intended to teach esoteric Christianity, He was a failure as a teacher, for His words led those who followed Him in the precise opposite direction than He would have intended.[20] For example, instead of becoming pantheists (pantheism -- the belief that God and all things are one -- is a common belief among esotericists), Jesus' followers were theists who believed in a personal Creator God who is distinct from His creation. Jesus' followers took Him at His word, interpreting what He said plainly, just as He

interpreted the Old Testament Scriptures plainly. ESOTERICISM AND MATTHEW 13 Some esotericists may appeal to Matthew 13 in an attempt to refute the idea that Jesus taught openly and with clarity. In this chapter, Jesus is portrayed as being in front of a mixed multitude comprised of both believers and unbelievers. He did not attempt to separate the believers from the unbelievers and then instruct only the believers. Rather, He constructed His teaching in such a way that believers would understand what He said but unbelievers would not -- and He did this by using parables.

After teaching one such parable, a disciple asked Jesus: "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" (Matt. 13:10). Jesus answered: "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you [believers], but not to them [unbelievers]" (v. 11, inserts mine). What did Jesus mean by the word secrets in this verse? Was He lending support to esotericism?

By no means! The Greek word for secret simply means mystery, and is even translated this way in the New American Standard Bible. A mystery in the biblical sense is a truth that cannot be discerned simply by human investigation, but requires special revelation from God. Generally speaking, this word refers to a truth that was unknown to people living in Old Testament times, but is now revealed to humankind by God (see Matt. 13:17 and Col. 1:26). In Matthew 13, Jesus provides information to believers about the kingdom of heaven that has never been revealed before.

Some have wondered why Jesus engineered His parabolic teaching so that believers could understand His teaching but unbelievers could not. The backdrop to this is that the disciples, having responded favorably to Jesus' teaching and placed their faith in Him, already knew much truth about the Messiah. Careful reflection on Jesus' parables would enlighten them even further. However, hardened unbelievers who had willfully and persistently refused Jesus' previous teachings -- such as those set forth in the Sermon on the Mount -- were prevented from understanding the parables. Jesus was apparently observing an injunction He provided earlier in the Sermon on the Mount: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs" (Matt. 7:6). Yet there is grace even here. For, as many scholars have noted, it is possible that Jesus may have prevented unbelievers from understanding the parables because He did not want to add more responsibility to them by imparting new truth for which they would be held accountable.

That Jesus wanted His parables to be clear to those who were receptive is evident in the fact that He carefully interpreted two of them for the disciples -- the parables of the Sower (Matt. 13:3-9) and the Tares (13:24-30). He did this not only so there would be no uncertainty as to their meaning, but to guide believers as to the proper method to use in interpreting the other parables. The fact that Christ did not interpret His

subsequent parables indicates that He fully expected believers to understand what He taught by following the methodology He illustrated for them. Clearly, then, Matthew 13 does not support but rather argues against esotericism. A CLOSING CHALLENGE Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken. An esoteric reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death. Jesus' life-giving invitation is plainly open to all: "Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (John 5:24). NOTES 1 David Spangler, The Laws of Manifestation (Forres, Scotland: Findhorn Publications, 1983), 23-24.

2 Mark L. Prophet and Elizabeth Clare Prophet, The Lost Teachings of Jesus 3: Masters and Disciples on the Path (Livingston, MT: Summit University Press, 1988), 273-74.

3 Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Boston: The First Church of Christ, Scientist, 1971), 338.

4 Norman L. Geisler, Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary (Oakland, CA: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983), 6.

5 Ibid., 7.

6 Douglas Groothuis, Confronting the New Age (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 85.

7 Benjamin Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom (Los Angeles: Tara Press, 1980), 48, 55.

8 David Spangler, Reflections on the Christ (Forres, Scotland: Findhorn Publications, 1981), 86.

9 James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 113.

10 Geisler, 7.

11 Tal Brooke, When the World Will Be as One (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1989), 118.

12 I am indebted to Douglas Groothuis for this observation; 89-90.

13 Ibid.

14 E.g., Roy B. Zuck, "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics," Bibliotheca Sacra 141 (April-June 1984):120-30.

15 Sire, 17.

16 Zuck, 126.

17 Cited in Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), 14.

18 Ibid., 18.

19 Robert P. Lightner, The Savior and the Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966), 30.

20 Groothuis, 89; and Peter Kreeft, "The Most Important Argument," in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), 251.

(An article from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1992, page 28)

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Close Encounters of the Celestial Kind: Evaluating Today's Angel Craze

by Ron Rhodes

There was a time when angels were mainly relegated to Christmas cards. But not anymore. Angels have infiltrated the popular culture - big time. Indeed, interest in angels is virtually soaring across the religious spectrum in North America - from mainline Christians to New Agers who seek comfort from these heavenly helpers in a troubled and often chaotic world.

Some of today's most prominent magazines are running feature stories - even cover stories - on angels, including Time, Newsweek, Ladies' Home Journal, and Redbook magazine. Moreover, in mid-1994 ABC aired a two-hour prime time special entitled Angels: The Mysterious Messengers, hosted by Patty Duke.

Today there are angels-only boutiques, angel newsletters and magazines, angel seminars and college-level courses, angel T-shirts, calendars, postcards, sunglasses, jewelry, and an angel Broadway play. Moreover, according to Publishers Weekly, at one time during 1993 five of the ten best-selling paperback books were about angels.

Newsweek magazine asserted in late 1993 that "angels are appearing everywhere in America." The magazine noted that "those who see angels, talk to them, and put others in touch with them are prized guests on television and radio talk shows. Need inspiration? There are workshops that will assist you in identifying early angel experiences or in unleashing your 'inner angel.' Tired of your old spirit guide? New Age channelers will connect you with Michael the Archangel. Have trouble recognizing the angels among us? Join an angel focus group."

In a poll conducted by Time magazine in late 1993, 69 percent of American adults confirmed their belief in angels. Forty-six percent acknowledged a belief in their own personal guardian angels. Thirty-two percent claimed to have felt an angelic presence at some time in their lives. Such statistics may well cause one to wonder. Why Are Angels So Popular Today? Among the major contributing factors to the angel craze among Christians in the early 1990s were Frank Peretti's mega-best-selling fiction books - This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness - which graphically depict behind-the-scenes angelic intervention in the lives of believers. Regardless of what one may think about the sensationalistic nature of these books, they certainly served to bring angels to the forefront in the minds of numerous Christians. Earlier, many had received a biblical crash course on this fascinating subject by reading Billy Graham's book, Angels: God's Secret

Agents, which became one of the hottest-selling religious books of the 1970s.

New Agers have more recently become almost fanatically excited about angels because they have bought into a plethora of wildly unbiblical ideas about angels that nevertheless have great appeal in today's religious climate. One reason cited for angel popularity in New Age literature is that angels offer people a spirituality that does not involve commitment to God or His laws. Sophy Burnham, author of A Book of Angels, believes the current popularity of angels is "because we have created this concept of God as punitive, jealous, judgmental," while "angels never are. They are utterly compassionate." Or, as Time magazine put it, "For those who choke too easily on God and his rules...angels are the handy compromise, all fluff and meringue, kind, nonjudgmental. And they are available to everyone, like aspirin."

Angels can also bring meaning and purpose into our lives, New Agers tell us. Author Terry Lynn Taylor says, "These angels 'make life worth living,' so to speak. They provide us with unconditional happiness, fun, and mirth. They also help out with romance and wealth. And they help us extinguish worries that plague our lives." Angels are "heaven-sent agents who are always available to help you create heaven in your life."

Guardian angels have become especially popular among New Agers in recent years. The Los Angeles Times reports that "times have gotten so bad that guardian angels are turning up in individual's lives with increasing frequency, and people are more receptive to the heavenly beings than ever before." John Ronner, author of Do You Have a Guardian Angel? agrees: "People find a great deal of comfort in the thought that something larger than themselves and benevolent may be looking out for them."

Some New Agers believe angels in general have become popular as a direct result of their increased activity in recent years: "We are approaching the millennium. We're at the end of a century that has seen unbelievable horrors...and the angels are saying people can't be allowed to live like this any longer." Robert C. Smith, author of In the Presence of Angels, says they are here "because of the difficulties we're encountering during this time of transition. The gateways to a new period in history have opened, bringing forth fresh possibilities for higher consciousness around the world....The angels are here to help us with that passage and to protect us if all else fails."

Angel enthusiasts also assure us that angels can help us cope with death. In their encounters with angels, humans "gain experimental assurance that they, too, have a heavenly home." Burnham affirms that "we need not be afraid to die....We do not die! This I have learned. This much I have seen with my own

eyes." The angels have shown her this.

Probing deeper for a root cause, some angel enthusiasts have insightfully suggested that angels have become popular as a reaction against the secularism of Western society. "I think Americans in the '80s became weary of 20 years of materialism," Burnham muses. "We were spiritually starved and hungry for some hope and inspiration. I think that's why Angels continue to be such a success." Eileen Freeman, author of Touched by Angels, agrees: "We've come through a very materialistic period in this country. People are searching for a deeper spirituality."

Though I disagree with much of what Burnham and Freeman say in their books, I think they've made an important point here. The fact is, new religious trends and currents are not born in a vacuum; they often grow out of social and individual needs that are in themselves legitimate. The human need for transcendence is an example.

Without going into detail, it is enough to note that for many years secular humanism focused so much on the all-sufficiency of humanity that God was left entirely out of the picture. Many people experientially discovered how easily secular humanism can lead to nihilism - the belief that everything is meaningless and absurd.

As secular humanism reigned supreme, Westerners increasingly lacked a sense of the transcendent - something people yearn for in the deepest part of their being. The inadequacy of secular humanism made people crave for something more - something divine, something sacred.

What should be of concern to Christians is that in reaction to Western secularism, many today have found a new sense of the transcendent by relating not to God but to God's angels - not to the Creator but to the Creator's celestial creatures. Of course, prior to the current angel craze many found (and continue to find) a sense of the transcendent in the broader New Age movement. As we will see, the current angel craze fits comfortably under the umbrella of New Age spirituality. These "angels" seem right at home with the Ascended Masters and the "space brothers" aboard UFOs, all of whom seek to lead humankind into a New Age of enlightenment and harmony. Making Contact Today one can hardly keep up with the seemingly endless flow of New Age books setting forth different methods for making angel contact. Popular methods include channeling, prayer, meditation, visualization, crystals, writing letters, and color-coordinating one's wardrobe. Let's take a brief look at these methods.

Channeling. New Agers believe they can contact angels directly via channeling (spiritism). One representative New Age channeler offers clients

"angel listenings." A typical "listening" lasts somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes, and is really nothing more than a conversation between the counselee and his/her channeler, through whom the counselee's angel is supposedly speaking. After going into a trance, the channeler writes down everything the angel relays to him or her using a pencil and pad. The counselee never actually hears the angel speaking, though some have claimed to see a glow of light or to sense a presence in the room.

Prayer. Others prefer contacting angels through prayer. Taylor says, "Prayer is the way we talk to angels....When you pray to the angels, pray as if 'it is already done'; in other words, thank the angels in advance for taking care of your burdens." Incidentally, angel altars, which New Agers use for prayer and meditation, have become a hot item in today's angel-only stores.

Meditation/Visualization. Meditation and visualization - both used to induce an altered state of consciousness - are popular means of making angel contact. Robert C. Smith explains that "as we practice withdrawing our attention from the physical world and focusing it on the spiritual, our perception becomes less limited to materiality. The nonphysical realm becomes more real to us, and we develop the mental habit of attentiveness to it." Smith adds, "the tendency of material concerns [interferes] with our receptivity to the angelic realm."

Crystals. A "cherubic crystal" can be of great benefit for one seeking contact with angels, we are told. A cherubic crystal is one that has been "activated in meditation and which has been charged by the Cherubim." Once you have selected a suitable crystal, "hold it between the palms of your hands. Ask out loud for the wisdom vibration emanated by the Cherubim to flow through you and into your hands so that the stone will become charged with the Cherubim's vibration. Prepare the crystal once in this manner and you will never have to do it again." The crystal will then attract Cherubim angels into your life.

Writing Letters. Another (alleged) great way to communicate with angels is through writing letters to them. All one has to do is "date your letter, write 'Dear Angel,' and just let your words flow....Then sign it at the end as you would a letter to a friend." The letter can be "mailed" by placing it on a meditation altar, under one's pillow, or, perhaps, one may burn it, "sending the message up to the heavens with the rising smoke."

Angels can also communicate back to us through letters! Just "pick up another piece of paper....This time, start your letter by writing 'Dear_________,' and fill in your own name. Then relax and let your angel's words come through you in the form of a letter." (This is called "automatic handwriting.")

Wearing the Right Colors. Still another way one can hail an angel is to color-coordinate one's wardrobe. Guardian angels allegedly like rose or pink and soft green; healing angels like deep sapphire blue; seraphim angels like crimson red; cherubim angels like blue; the archangel Michael likes deep green, vivid blue, gold, and rose; and Gabriel is attracted to tans, browns, and dark greens. By wearing specific colors, one can attract specific kinds of angels into one's life. How Angels Appear Assuming one is successful in using one of the above methods to make angel contact, what form might that contact take? New Agers tell us angels can appear as animals and humans, male or female, visions or voices, and with wings or without. They can take the form of nudgings, intuition, or coincidence. They can appear as light on the water, or in clouds and rainbows.

It is also possible, we are told, for an angel appearance to be disguised in everyday events. We are therefore urged to pay attention to the subtleties in life. For example, a child may spontaneously blurt out a statement for which only you know the meaning. While thumbing through a book, a page may fall open with a clear message in the print. Headlines in the newspaper, taken out of context, might contain your message.

Regardless of what form an angelic appearance may take, the messages from angels are always said to be very positive. Burnham says the typical message is "Don't be afraid, everything is just fine. There is nothing but love." Taylor says, "The main lesson the angels have for us is that we are love, we are God on earth, and it is time to love ourselves and open our hearts." (Taylor does not explain why man as God needs to be informed of his deity. The problem for New Age pantheists is how ignorance can enter into the picture if God is everything.) The "Benefits" of Angel Contact If the current New Age literature is to be believed, angel contact reaps all kinds of benefits. Following are some notable examples.

Spiritual Guidance. New Agers believe angels have a mission "to help us grow in wisdom and love, not just so that we will survive as a race, but so we will be able to grow into what we were always intended to be - perfected beings capable of incredible energies and immense, transforming love." These angels seem similar to what New Agers call "Ascended Masters" -formerly historical persons (including Jesus, St. Germaine, Buddha, and Lao Tze) who have allegedly super-evolved and "ascended" to a higher plane of existence from which they now assist other humans to evolve.

Attainment of Goals. New Agers tell us we can make a "declaration" to the angels, who will help bring about what we desire in life: "Making a declaration to the angels means that you are openly announcing what you want

known to heaven. Declaring your goals and statements of things to come will establish a plan of action with the angels....The angels will bless the declaration and add higher inspiration and aspirations to it." This sounds like a celestial form of "positive confession" - angel-assisted "name it and claim it."

"Brain Program Editors." Angels can allegedly help our emotional and psychological state by functioning as "brain program editors." These editors are "tiny angels of light that have access to cells and neurotransmitters [in our brains] if we allow them to. They can help us transform negative beliefs to positive ones and 'addicted' cells to free cells." Hence, angels are immensely practical because they can literally change the way we think!

Comforters. If we trust the angels, they can "comfort us with invisible warm hands, and always they try to give us what we want." As well, the angels can function as a cheering squad for our higher selves. "These angels cheer with little voices, 'Don't give up....We like who you are....Everything's going to be okay....We are proud of you.'"

New Religious Experiences. Some angel writers believe that when a new angelic guide comes into a person's life, he may acquire a desire to know something about a particular culture or religion that was previously foreign to his experience. If, for example, one of this individual's angelic spiritual guides is from a Native American background, he may find himself having visions that put him in touch with Mother Earth.

Michael the Archangel is said to be a strong proponent of free thinking, and he allegedly encourages people to create their own religions. "Michael sends us inspiration that urges us to open our minds to new ways of thinking and encourages us to figure out for ourselves where we need to be and how to get there. Creating our own religion can help us free our thinking and figure things out for ourselves."

"Copilots." Angels can also "copilot" our lives. Indeed, "if you ever need them to take over, they are ready and capable....Copilots act as your invisible secretaries, arranging and ordering your days so that you don't have to make extra trips, reminding you about appointments and deadlines you are about to miss in your confusion." Therefore, we should "let go and let angels." Critiquing the Current Angel Craze The Reformer John Calvin once said that the error in much angelology is to deal with angels apart from the biblical witness. This is precisely what has happened on a popular level today. Many of the best-selling angel books contain legend, lore, and outright occultism, but pay little attention to what God's Word teaches on the subject. We will now use the Bible as our standard of truth in briefly evaluating the "angels" of the New Age.

A Faulty Foundation At the outset, let us note that an implicit assumption on the part of many angel enthusiasts today is that all angels are good. Indeed, "there is a prior assumption that angels are only good and therefore contacting them is also only good (and consequently without risk)." To New Agers, every paranormal event is a good and positive event. However, as critic Gary Kinnaman puts it so well, "Not everything that glitters is heavenly gold. Not every bright angel is from heaven."

In 2 Corinthians 11:14 the apostle Paul sternly warned that "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." Satan and his horde of demons (fallen angels) mimic God's holy angels, and they do so for a malevolent, sinister purpose - to lead people away from the true Christ and God of the Bible (see v. 3). In the process of doing this, they propagate doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Part and parcel of this system of demonic theology is today's New Age angelology.

The apostle Paul explicitly warned against accepting any "gospel" from an "angel" that goes against the inspired Word of God (Gal. 1:6-8). One would do well to remember that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, said an angel named Moroni led him to the golden plates containing the Book of Mormon. As well, Muhammad claimed he received the revelations contained in the Qur'an directly from the angel Gabriel (a demonic impostor).

Other religions involving "angelic" messengers include The Church of the New Jerusalem, founded by Emmanuel Swedenborg; Anthroposophy, founded by Rudolf Steiner; the Self Realization Fellowship, founded by Paramahansa Yogananda; and the Unity School of Christianity, founded by Charles and Myrtle Fillmore. We must not forget that true holy angels of God are not in the business of starting or promoting new religions or giving us revelations that contradict God's Word (see Ps. 103:20; Rev. 22:9). (One might also note that the above religious systems radically contradict each other at many key points of doctrine, thereby undermining the reliability of these "angels" as sources of truth.)

We know from the Scriptures that Satan and his fallen angels seek to thwart the purposes of God and Christ (Rev. 2:10; 1 Pet. 5:8; Eph. 6:11; Matt. 13:39; 1 Tim. 4:1). We also know that fallen angels seek to blind the minds of people to spiritual truth (2 Cor. 4:4; 11:14; 2 Thess. 2:9-10). Tragically, many New Agers - assuming that human experience is a reliable source of truth - have undiscerningly and gullibly accepted all "angels" at face value without seeking to "check out their credentials" or consider their motives. Human Experience as a Source for Truth Experience and intuition are the final authorities for New Agers. However, a subjective experience with an "angel" is insufficient as a ground upon which

to build our knowledge of any spiritual matter. It is too uncertain and unreliable in every way. (The contradictory nature of the above religious systems illustrates my point.)

Some in the church are said to possess a gift of "distinguishing between spirits" (1 Cor. 12:10). The need for this gift reminds us that not all spirits are good. Just because one has a seemingly positive experience with a spiritual being does not mean that that spiritual being is benign. We are therefore called to sort, sift, and test experiences (1 Thess. 5:21).

We would do well to ponder what happened to the apostle John as described in Revelation 22:8-9. According to this passage, John beheld an incredibly glorious angel, and his first inclination was to bow down in worship before it. The holy angel immediately told him to cease such an idolatrous response and to worship only God. This event points to an extremely important consideration: spiritual experiences can be overwhelmingly powerful. And without a reference point to test such experiences (i.e., the Word of God), they can all too easily be misunderstood. If John nearly went astray due to his own human weakness in the overwhelming presence of a holy angel, how much more are they in danger of going astray who find themselves in the overwhelming presence of a fallen angel (all the while mimicking a holy angel) who is bent on their destruction! We are well advised to follow Calvin's advice in making the biblical witness our absolute guiding standard. Occultism and Paranormal Information Certainly the Scriptures allow that real spirit entities can be contacted via channeling and other occultic means, and these beings are capable of divulging paranormal information (see Acts 16:16-19). However, Scripture is consistent in portraying these entities as malevolent and deceptive. As New Age critic Elliot Miller points out, the information such spirit entities give "is such a supernaturally sophisticated mixture of truth and error that their followers are incapable of sorting it out, and thus become entrapped in a web of deceit."

The current celestial web of deceit is a sinister mixture of truth and error indeed. For the angels of God do care about human spirituality - but not a spirituality without God (Rev. 22:9). Angels can give messages from God (Acts 10:3-33) - but not new "revelations" that contradict God's Word (Ps. 103:20). God may use angels to answer the prayers of believers (Acts 12:5-10) - but angels are not the object of prayer; only God is (Matt. 6:9). Angels can appear to humans (Luke 2:9) - but not "subtly" in newspaper headlines taken out of context. Angels do care about the death of believers (Luke 16:22) - but they do not propagate the idea that death is the next step in man's spiritual evolution. Angels do care about man's future (e.g., Acts 8:26; 10:1-8; 1 Pet. 1:12) - but not a future without God (or His laws) that involves a mystical and occultic New Age of enlightenment and harmony.

In view of such doctrinal deception coming from channeled entities, it is not surprising that God absolutely condemns the seeking of any paranormal information through occult means (from "angels" or any other entities) as a heinous sin that is utterly detestable to Him (Deut. 18:9-12). God will have none of it!

Note also that in Scripture we never find God's people attempting to make contact with an angel by channeling or any other means. In the Bible, the angels typically show up on the scene unexpectedly and startle the human spectator. Christian critic Timothy Jones offers this sound advice: "We should be wary of angel visits that seem to come from someone's prompting or conjuring. Any visit that comes out of someone's effort to summon an angel is likely counterfeit....Angels in the Bible caught the subjects of their visits off guard. An angel visit that seems to come out of the blue stands a better chance of being authentic." God's Angels: "Ministering Spirits" New Age angelology centers on spirit entities that can not only be invoked but also be manipulated by human beings to bring about specific desired results. Instead of God being the Sovereign, in the New Age scenario it is humanity - in the guise of being God - that is sovereign over the angels. Such a system panders to human selfishness, pride, and the perpetual desire for self-exaltation (Isa. 14:12-14; Gen. 3:5). New Agers would do well to remember, however, that God does not look lightly on human pretenders to the divine throne (see Acts 12:20-25 for a graphic example).

In contrast to New Age angelology, we get to the heart of the true identity of angels in Hebrews 1:14: "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" This brief statement is packed with meaning.

The word "ministering" comes from a Greek word meaning "serve." Angels are spirit-servants who render aid, and this aid is rendered to the heirs of salvation in the outworking of God's purposes on earth.

What form does this service take? Such ministry can involve protection (Ps. 91:11), guidance (Gen. 19:17), encouragement (Judg. 6:12), deliverance (Acts 12:7), supply (Ps. 105:40), empowerment (Luke 22:43), as well as occasional rebuke (Num. 22:32) and judgment (Acts 12:23). And angelic service is rendered largely unseen and often unrecognized (2 Kings 6:17; Heb. 13:2).

Notice that Hebrews 1:14 says angels are sent to render service to the heirs of salvation. God has specifically sent and appointed angels to carry out tasks on behalf of believers; humans do not invoke or manipulate them. We must never forget that angels assist us because God has ordained it that way. There is never any sense that the sent one is more significant than (or

takes the place of) the divine Sender.

God's angels act to carry out only God's commands. There's not a single Bible verse that portrays an elect, holy angel of God acting independently from God. Psalm 103:20 makes explicit reference to God's angels "who do his bidding, who obey his word."

Because only God sends angels on our behalf, our focus of attention must ever be on the God who sends them. God's holy angels do not seek praise or worship for the things they do. In fact, they discourage it and point to God as the only one worthy of worship (Rev. 22:9). The apostle Paul flatly condemned the worship of angels in Colossians 2:18. God Himself explicitly commands that only He is to be worshiped (Exod. 20:5-6).

This leads us to the single most important point of this article. In the words of John Calvin, "As God does not make [the angels] ministers of his power and goodness to share his glory with them, so he does not promise us his help through their ministry in order that we should divide our trust between them and him." Indeed, Calvin says, the angels "do lead us away unless they lead us by the hand straight to him, that we may look upon him, call upon him, and proclaim him as our sole helper; unless we regard them as his hands that are moved to no work without his direction; unless they keep us in the one Mediator, Christ, that we may wholly depend upon him, lean upon him, be brought to him, and rest in him."

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Important Creeds of Christendom

Throughout church history, a number of important creeds (formal statements of belief based on holy Scripture) have been formulated as statements of orthodoxy. Several of these relate to our study on the preexistence and eternality of Christ. The Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) The Council of Nicaea convened in A.D. 325 to settle a dispute regarding the nature of Christ. Arius (a presbyter of Alexandria who was the founder of Arianism) argued that the Son was created from the nonexistent, and was of a different substance than the Father. There was a time, Arius argued, when the Son was not. But Christ was the highest of all created beings. Athanasius of Alexandria, the champion of orthodoxy, stressed the oneness of God while maintaining three distinct Persons within the Godhead. He maintained that the Son was the same substance as the Father (and hence, was fully divine). Athanasius argued for the eternally personal existence of the Son. A mediating position was set forth by Eusebius of Caesarea, who argued that the Son was of a similar substance with the Father. After considerable debate, Athanasius won out and Christ was recognized by the council as being on a level with the Father as an uncreated Being. The Nicene Creed reads: I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And [I believe] in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. (This last paragraph was added in A.D. 381.) The Athanasian Creed (Date: Unknown) The Athanasian Creed is essentially an amplification of the Nicene Creed. It came to be generally adopted among the Western churches. This creed contains the words:

We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being. So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being. In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords. The Father is made by none, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made, not created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not created by the Father and the Son, nor begotten, but proceeds. Therefore, there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal to themselves. So that through all, as was said above, both unity in trinity and trinity in unity is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him thus think concerning the Trinity. The Chalcedonian Creed (A.D. 451) Eutichus (the founder of Eutichianism) argued that Christ's human and divine natures merged to form a third composite nature. "The divine nature was so modified and accommodated to the human nature that Christ was not really divine...At the same time the human nature was so modified and changed by assimilation to the divine nature that He was no longer genuinely human." Thus, according to this teaching, Christ was neither fully human nor fully divine. This view was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. The Chalcedonian Creed reads: We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days,

for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. The Westminster Confession of Faith (A.D. 1646) The Westminster Confession arose out of the stormy political scene in England during the reign of Charles I. "Charles met with resistance when he attempted to impose episcopacy on the Church of Scotland and to conform its services to the Church of England's Common Book of Prayer. A civil war erupted and Oliver Cromwell led the Puritan forces to victory. Charles I was beheaded in the process. In 1643 the English parliament commissioned the Westminster Assembly to develop the creed of the Church of England. The 121 English Puritan ministers met for 1,163 daily sessions from 1643 to 1649. The Westminster Confession of Faith, completed in 1646, affirmed a strong Calvinistic position and disavowed 'the errors of Arminianism, Roman Catholicism, and sectarianism.'" Below is the statement of God found in the Westminster Confession of Faith: I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal most just and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. II. God hath all live, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, and upon them, whatsoever Himself pleaseth. In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to

require of them. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. It must be emphasized that the above creeds (and all other creeds) are man-made documents. None of them are inspired as Scripture is inspired. Neither are they authoritative as Scripture is authoritative. Creeds are merely statements of faith that are true insofar as they accurately reflect what Scripture teaches. They are helpful "measuring sticks" for orthodoxy.

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Rightly Interpreting the Bibleby Ron Rhodes Methodology The word "method" comes from the Greek word methodos, which literally means "a way or path of transit." Methodology in Bible study is therefore concerned with "the proper path to be taken in order to arrive at Scriptural truth."

This clearly implies that improper paths can be taken. Of course, proper methodology is essential to many fields of endeavor. A heart surgeon does not perform open heart surgery without following proper, objective methodology. (Would you trust a heart surgeon to operate on you who told you that he intended to discard objective methodology, instead opting for a subjective approach - cutting you where he feels like cutting you?) Improper methodology in interpreting Scripture is nothing new. Even in New Testament times, the apostle Peter warned that there are teachings in the inspired writings of Paul "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16, insert added).

This verse tells us that mishandling the Word of God can be very dangerous. Indeed, mishandling the Word of God is a "path" to destruction.

Contrary to the practices of some false teachers in Corinth, the apostle Paul assured his readers that he faithfully handled the Word of God (2 Corinthians 4:2). Paul admonished young Timothy to follow his example: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15, italics added). A Foundational Truth: God Created Language for a Purpose A plain reading of Genesis indicates that when God created Adam in His own rational image, He gave Adam the gift of intelligible speech, thus enabling him to communicate objectively with his creator (and with other human beings) via sharable linguistic symbols called words (Genesis 1:26). God sovereignly chose to use human language as a medium of revelational communication.

If the primary purpose of God's originating of language was to make it possible for Him to communicate with human beings, as well as to enable human beings to communicate with each another, then it must follow that He would generally use language and expect man to use it in its literal, normal, and plain sense.

This view of language is a prerequisite to understanding not only God's spoken word but His written Word (Scripture) as well.

The Bible as a body of literature exists because human beings need to know certain spiritual truths to which they cannot attain by themselves. Thus these truths must come to them from without - that is, via objective, special revelation from God (Deuteronomy 29:29).

And this revelation can only be understood if one interprets the words of Scripture according to God's original design for language - that is, according to the ordinary, plain, literal sense of each word. Seeking the Author's Intended Meaning Instead of superimposing a meaning on the biblical text, the objective interpreter seeks to discover the author's intended meaning (the only true meaning). One must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers.

Meaning is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers. Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text). By using eisogesis instead of exegesis, a Marxist interpreter could, for example, so skew the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that it came out reading like a socialistic document.

Cultists have done the same type of thing with Holy Scripture.

They so skew the meaning of the biblical text that it comes out saying something entirely different than what was intended by the author. Only by objective methodology can we bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the biblical writers.

Indeed, our method of interpreting Scripture is valid or invalid to the extent that it really unfolds the meaning a statement had for the author and the first hearers or readers. The Importance of Context A woman entered the Democratic primary for governor of the state of Texas. She was convinced that the Bible had told her she would win the nomination. When she received the official list of names from the primary she saw her name printed last. Then she read in her Bible, "Many that are first will be last, and the last first" (Matthew 19:30). On the basis of that verse she thought God was telling her she would win. But she lost. This amusing story illustrates the need for interpreting Scripture in its proper context. Taken out of context, the Scriptures can be twisted to say just about anything.

Seeking the biblical author's intended meaning necessitates interpreting Bible verses in context. Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part

of the whole of Scripture.

No verse of Scripture can be divorced from the verses around it. Interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze a Rembrandt painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting, or like trying to analyze Handel's "Messiah" by listening to a few short notes.

The context is absolutely critical to properly interpreting Bible verses. In interpreting Scripture, there is both an immediate context and a broader context. The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted in interpreting Bible verses.

The broader context is the whole of Scripture. The entire Holy Scripture is the context and guide for understanding the particular passages of Scripture.

We must keep in mind that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point.

Individual verses do not exist as isolated fragments, but as parts of a whole.

The exposition of these verses, therefore, must involve exhibiting them in right relation both to the whole and to each other. Scripture interprets Scripture.

As J. I. Packer puts it, "if we would understand the parts, our wisest course is to get to know the whole." The Importance of Historical Considerations Historical considerations are especially important in properly interpreting the Word of God. The Christian faith is based on historical fact.

Indeed, Christianity rests on the foundation of the historical Jesus whose earthly life represents God's full and objective self-communication to humankind (John 1:18).

Jesus was seen and heard by human beings as God's ultimate revelation (1 John 1:1-3).

This is why He could forcefully claim, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also" (John 14:7). The apostle Paul, when speaking with the religious men of Athens, affirmed

that the reality of the future judgment of all humanity rests on the objective, historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:16f.).

This evidence is recorded for us in the New Testament Gospels, documents that are based on eyewitness testimony and written very close in time to the events on which they report.

Based on how people respond to God's objective, historical revelation contained in Scripture, they will spend eternity in a real heaven or a real hell. Making a Correct Genre Judgment A "literal" approach to Scripture recognizes that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, each of which has certain peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in order to interpret the text properly.

Biblical genres include the historical (e.g., Acts), the dramatic epic (e.g., Job), poetry (e.g., Psalms), wise sayings (e.g., Proverbs), and apocalyptic writings (e.g., Revelation).

Obviously, an incorrect genre judgment will lead one far astray in interpreting Scripture. A parable should not be treated as history, nor should poetry or apocalyptic literature (both of which contain many symbols) be treated as straightforward narrative.

The wise interpreter allows his knowledge of genres to control how he approaches each individual biblical text.

In this way, he can accurately determine what the biblical author was intending to communicate to the reader. Now, even though the Bible contains a variety of literary genres and many figures of speech, the biblical authors most often employed literal statements to convey their ideas. Where they use a literal means to express their ideas, the Bible expositor must employ a corresponding means to explain these ideas - namely, a literal approach.

A literal method of interpreting Scripture gives to each word in the text the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage - whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking.

Without such a method, communication between God and man is impossible. Interpret the Old Testament in Light of the New Testament God gave revelation to humankind progressively throughout Old and New Testament times.

He didn't just give His entire revelation for all time to our first parents, Adam and Eve, or to Moses, the Lawgiver.

Rather, as time went on - as the centuries slowly passed - God provided more and more revelation that became progressively full so that by the time the New Testament was complete, God had told us everything He wanted us to know. In view of this, a key interpretive principle is that one should always interpret the Old Testament in view of the greater light of the New Testament. The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted.

The introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before.

The Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended, and enlarged. Again, then, the Old Testament should be interpreted according to the greater light of the New Testament. The Old Testament is much clearer when approached through the lens of the New Testament. Dependence on the Holy Spirit Scripture tells us that we are to rely on the Holy Spirit's illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of Scripture (John 16:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:9-11). It is the Holy Spirit's work to throw light upon the Word of God so that the believer can assent to the meaning intended and act on it.

The Holy Spirit, as the "Spirit of truth" (John 16:13), guides us so that "we may understand what God has freely given us" (1 Corinthians 2:12). This is quite logical: full comprehension of the Word of God is impossible without prayerful dependence on the Spirit of God, for He who inspired the Word (2 Peter 1:21) is also its supreme interpreter. Illumination is necessary because man's mind has been darkened through sin (Romans 1:21), preventing him from properly understanding God's Word.

Human beings cannot understand God's Word apart from God's divine enablement (Ephesians 4:18).

This aspect of the Holy Spirit's ministry operates within the sphere of man's rational capacity, which God Himself gave man (cf. Genesis 2-3). Illumination comes to the 'minds' of God's people - not to some nonrational faculty like our 'emotions' or our 'feelings' [like a 'burning in the bosom'].

To know God's revelation means to use our minds. This makes knowledge something we can share with others, something we can talk about.

God's Word is in words with ordinary rational content. The ministry of the Holy Spirit in interpretation does not mean interpreters can ignore common sense and logic. Since the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of truth" (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), He does not teach concepts that fail to meet the tests of truth.

In other words, "the Holy Spirit does not guide into interpretations that contradict each other or fail to have logical, internal consistency." It must also be kept in mind that the function of the Holy Spirit is not to communicate to the minds of people any doctrine or meaning of Scripture that is not contained already in Scripture itself. The Holy Spirit makes men "wise up to what is written, not beyond it."

Indeed, "the function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture." The Example of Jesus Christ Jesus consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including the Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Mark 10:6),

Noah's Ark and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27),

Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:39-41),

Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), and

the account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29). In his book The Savior and the Scriptures, theologian Robert P. Lightner notes - following an exhaustive study - that Jesus' interpretation of Scripture "was always in accord with the grammatical and historical meaning. He understood and appreciated the meaning intended by the writers according to the laws of grammar and rhetoric."

Jesus affirmed the Bible's divine inspiration (Matthew 22:43),

its indestructibility (Matthew 5:17-18),

its infallibility (John 10:35),

its final authority (Matthew 4:4,7,10),

its historicity (Matthew 12:40; 24:37),

its factual inerrancy (Matthew 22:29-32), and

its spiritual clarity (Luke 24:25). Moreover, He emphasized the importance of each word of Scripture (Luke 16:17). Indeed, He sometimes based His argumentation on a single expression of the biblical text (Matthew 22:32,43-45; John 10:34). Is the Bible Alone Sufficient? That the average person can understand Scripture without having to rely upon a church for the "authoritative teaching" is evident in the fact that Jesus taught openly and with clarity, and expected His followers to each understand His meaning. Recall that following His arrest, Jesus was questioned by the High Priest about His disciples and His teaching. Jesus responded: I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said (John 18:20-21, emphases added). According to Jesus, those who heard Him would be able to clearly enunciate what He had openly communicated.

There were no confusing or obscure meanings in His words that required an "authoritative interpretation" by a church. In keeping with this, the apostle Paul instructed young Timothy: "From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15). This verse points to the complete sufficiency of Scripture in the life of a believer.

Jewish boys formally began studying the Old Testament Scriptures when they were five years of age.

Timothy had been taught the Scriptures by his mother and grandmother beginning at this age.

Clearly, 2 Timothy 3:15 indicates that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to provide the necessary wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ.

The Scriptures alone are the source of spiritual knowledge. Then, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that all Scripture is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." This verse does not say that Scripture as seen through the lens of the

Mormon church is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof," and so forth.

It is Scripture that does these things. And the reason Scripture can do these things is that all Scripture is inspired by God (vs. 16a).

The word inspired means "God-breathed." Scripture is sufficient because it finds its source in God.

It is noteworthy that the phrase thoroughly furnished ("that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished") means "complete, capable, fully furnished, proficient in the sense of being able to meet all demands."

Scripture alone makes a person complete, capable, and proficient.

Scripture furnishes all that one must know to be saved and to grow in grace. Correctly Handling the Word of Truth Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken.

A cultic reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15).

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Is Annihilationism Biblical? The doctrine of annihilationism teaches that man was created immortal. But those who continue in sin and reject Christ are by a positive act of God deprived of the gift of immortality and are ultimately destroyed. Another view, called "conditional immortality," argues that immortality is not a natural endowment of man, but is rather a gift of God in Christ only to those who believe. The person that does not accept Christ is ultimately annihilated and loses all consciousness. Some of the advocates of these doctrines teach a limited duration of conscious suffering for the wicked after death, after which time they are annihilated. There are many passages that refute annihilationism. For illustration purposes, we will select only one primary passage - Matthew 25:46: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

By no stretch of the imagination can the punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46 be defined as a nonsuffering extinction of consciousness. Indeed, if actual suffering is lacking, then so is punishment. Let us be clear on this: punishment entails suffering. And suffering necessarily entails consciousness. Bible scholar John Gerstner tells us that "one can exist and not be punished; but no one can be punished and not exist. Annihilation means the obliteration of existence and anything that pertains to existence, such as punishment. Annihilation avoids punishment, rather than encountering it." How do we know that the punishment referred to in Matthew 25:46 does not entail an extinction of consciousness and annihilation? There are many evidences. For example, consider the fact that there are no degrees of annihilation. One is either annihilated or one is not. The Scriptures, by contrast, teach that there will be degrees of punishment on the day of judgment (Matthew 10:15; 11:21-24; 16:27; Luke 12:47-48; John 15:22; Hebrews 10:29; Revelation 20:11-15; 22:12). The very fact that people will suffer varying degrees of punishment in hell shows that annihilation or the extinction of consciousness is not taught in Matthew 25:46 or anywhere else in Scripture. These are incompatible concepts. Moreover, one cannot deny that for one who is suffering excruciating pain, the extinction of his or her consciousness would actually be a blessing - not a punishment (cf. Luke 23:30-31; Revelation 9:6). Any honest seeker after truth must admit that one cannot define "eternal punishment" as an extinction of consciousness. We must emphasize that torment cannot, by definition, be anything but conscious torment. One cannot torment a tree, a rock, or a house. By its very nature, being tormented requires consciousness. Bible scholar Alan Gomes correctly points out that "a punishment [such as torment] that is not felt is not a punishment. It is an odd use of language to speak of an insensate (i.e., unfeeling), inanimate object receiving punishment. To say, 'I punished my car for not starting by slowly plucking out its sparkplug

wires, one by one,' would evoke laughter, not serious consideration." We repeat, then, that punishment entails consciousness! A critical point to make in regard to Matthew 25:46 is that this punishment is said to be eternal. There is no way that annihilationism or an extinction of consciousness can be forced into this passage. Indeed, the adjective aionion in this verse literally means "everlasting, without end." As noted earlier, this same adjective is predicated of God (the "eternal" God) in 1 Timothy 1:7, Romans 16:26, Hebrews 9:14, 13:8, and Revelation 4:9. The punishment of the wicked is just as eternal as our eternal God.

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries P.O. Box 80087 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Is Purgatory Biblical? The Roman Catholic church teaches that those who are perfect at death are admitted to heaven. Those who are not perfectly cleansed and are still tainted with the guilt of venial sins, however, do not go to heaven but rather go to purgatory where they allegedly go through a process of cleansing (or "purging"). Such souls are oppressed with a sense of deprivation and suffer certain pain. How long they stay in purgatory - and how much suffering they undergo while there - depends upon their particular state of sin. Roman Catholics also teach that a person's time in purgatory may be shortened, and his pains alleviated, by the faithful prayers and good works of those still alive. The sacrifice of the Mass is viewed as especially important in this regard. Catholics find support for this doctrine in the apocryphal book 2 Maccabees 12:42-45. That purgatory is a false doctrine is easy to prove from the Scriptures. When Jesus died on the cross, He said "It is finished" (John 19:30). Jesus completed the work of redemption at the cross. In His high priestly prayer to the Father, Jesus said, "I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do" (John 17:4). Hebrews 10:14 emphatically declares, "By one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy." Hence, those who believe in Christ are "made perfect" forever; no further "purging" is necessary. First John 1:7 says, "The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." Romans 8:1 says, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Jesus took care of "purging" our sins by His work of salvation at the cross. Hebrews 1:3 affirms, "After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Jesus provided full purification for our sins.

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries P.O. Box 80087 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Is Purgatory Biblical? The Roman Catholic church teaches that those who are perfect at death are admitted to heaven. Those who are not perfectly cleansed and are still tainted with the guilt of venial sins, however, do not go to heaven but rather go to purgatory where they allegedly go through a process of cleansing (or "purging"). Such souls are oppressed with a sense of deprivation and suffer certain pain. How long they stay in purgatory - and how much suffering they undergo while there - depends upon their particular state of sin.

Roman Catholics also teach that a person's time in purgatory may be shortened, and his pains alleviated, by the faithful prayers and good works of those still alive. The sacrifice of the Mass is viewed as especially important in this regard. Catholics find support for this doctrine in the apocryphal book 2 Maccabees 12:42-45. That purgatory is a false doctrine is easy to prove from the Scriptures. When Jesus died on the cross, He said "It is finished" (John 19:30). Jesus completed the work of redemption at the cross. In His high priestly prayer to the Father, Jesus said, "I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do" (John 17:4). Hebrews 10:14 emphatically declares, "By one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy." Hence, those who believe in Christ are "made perfect" forever; no further "purging" is necessary. First John 1:7 says, "The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." Romans 8:1 says, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Jesus took care of "purging" our sins by His work of salvation at the cross. Hebrews 1:3 affirms, "After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Jesus provided full purification for our sins. Go Back to Downloadable Articles

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries P.O. Box 80087 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Is Reincarnation Biblical? Today approximately 30 million Americans (one in four) believe in reincarnation. The word "reincarnation" literally means to "come again in the flesh." The process of reincarnation - continual rebirths in human bodies - allegedly continues until the soul has reached a state of perfection and merges back with its source (God or the "Universal Soul"). One's lot in life, according to those who believe in reincarnation, is based on the law of karma. This law says that if bad things happen in one's life, this is an outworking of bad karma. If good things happen in one's life, this is an outworking of good karma. "Karma" refers to the "debt" a soul accumulates because of good or bad actions committed during one's life (or past lives). If one accumulates good karma by performing good actions, he or she will be reincarnated in a desirable state. If one accumulates bad karma, he or she will be reincarnated in a less desirable state. In Shirley MacLaine's book Out on a Limb we are told, "Reincarnation is like show business. You just keep doing it until you get it right." Some people twist the Scriptures and say that Jesus Himself taught reincarnation or "cyclical rebirth." In Matthew 11:14, for example, Jesus said, "And if you are willing to accept it, [John the Baptist] is the Elijah who was to come." Likewise, in John 3:3 Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." But these passages, rightly interpreted, do not support reincarnation. Matthew 11:14 does not really teach that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah. Luke 1:17, an important cross reference, tells us that the ministry of John the Baptist was carried out "in the spirit and power of Elijah." Moreover, reincarnationists conveniently forget that John the Baptist, when asked if he was Elijah, flatly answered, "No!" (John 1:21). Regarding Jesus' words about being "born again" in John 3:3, the context clearly shows that Jesus was referring to a spiritual rebirth or regeneration. In fact, the phrase born again carries the idea of "born from above," and can even be translated that way. Jesus clarified His meaning by affirming that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (v. 6). There are other Scriptures that clearly debunk the notion of reincarnation. Hebrews 9:27 tells us that "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment...." Each human being lives once as a mortal on earth, dies once, and then faces judgment. He does not have a second chance by reincarnating into another body. Second Corinthians 5:8 indicates that at death the Christian immediately goes into the presence of the Lord, not into another body. Luke 16:19-31 indicates that unbelievers at death go to a place of suffering, not into another body. We must also remember that Jesus taught that people decide their eternal destiny in a single lifetime (Matthew 25:46). This is precisely why the apostle Paul emphasized that "now is the day of salvation" (2 Corinthians

6:2). Further, Jesus taught the concept of resurrection, not reincarnation. In fact, He predicted His own resurrection early in His public ministry (John 2:19). And after Jesus resurrected from the dead, He appeared to some disciples and said, "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). Jesus resurrected in the same body that went into the tomb. His body even retained the scars and wounds in His hands, feet, and side from the crucifixion (John 20:28). In addition to biblically refuting reincarnation, we must also point to some of the practical problems involved in the theory of reincarnation. For example, we must ask, Why does one get punished (via "bad karma") for something he or she cannot remember having done in a previous life? Moreover, if the purpose of karma is to rid humanity of its selfish desires (as reincarnationists say), then why has there not been a noticeable improvement in human nature after all the millennia of reincarnations on earth? Finally, if reincarnation and the law of karma are so beneficial on a practical level, as reincarnationists claim, then how do they explain the immense and ever-worsening social and economic problems - including widespread poverty, starvation, disease, and horrible suffering - in India, where reincarnation has been systematically taught throughout its history?

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries P.O. Box 80087 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Is Universalism Biblical? Universalism states that sooner or later all people will be saved. This position holds that the concepts of hell and punishment are inconsistent with a loving God. The older form of universalism, originating in the second century, taught that salvation would come after a temporary period of punishment. The newer form of universalism declares that all men are now saved, though all do not realize it. Therefore the job of the preacher and the missionary is to tell people they are already saved. Certain passages - John 12:32, Philippians 2:11, and 1 Timothy 2:4 - are typically twisted out of context in support of universalism. Such passages, interpreted properly, do not support universalism: John 12:32 says that Christ's work on the cross makes possible the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles. Notice, however, that the Lord - in the same passage - warned of judgment of those who reject Christ (v. 48). Philippians 2:10-11 assures us that someday all people will acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, but not necessarily as Savior. (Even those in hell will have to acknowledge Christ's Lordship.) First Timothy 2:4 expresses God's desire that all be saved, but does not promise that all will be. This divine desire is only realized in those who exercise faith in Christ. The Scriptures consistently categorize people into one of two classes (saved/unsaved, also called believers/unbelievers), and portray the final destiny of every person as being one of two realities (heaven or hell). In Matthew 13:30 Jesus in a parable said, "Let both [tares and wheat] grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn." Here unbelievers and believers are spoken of as tares and wheat. Two classes! In Matthew 13:49 Jesus said, "This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous." Again, two classes are mentioned - unbelievers and believers spoken of as the wicked and the righteous. In Matthew 25:32 Jesus said that following His second coming, "All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." Here believers and unbelievers are differentiated by the terms "sheep" and "goats." The sheep will enter into God's kingdom (vs. 34) and inherit eternal life (vs. 46). The goats go into eternal punishment (vs. 46). In Luke 16:26 we find Abraham in the afterlife telling the unsaved rich man: "Between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us." Hades apparently had two compartments: "paradise" for the saved, and "torments" for the unsaved - and these compartments were separated by a great chasm or gulf. Clearly, then, the Scriptures speak of two classes of people (the saved and

the unsaved) and two possible destinies (heaven for the saved; hell for the unsaved). And each respective person ends up in one of these places based upon whether or not he or she placed saving faith in Christ during his or her time on earth (Acts 16:31).

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

"Christian Revolution in Latin America: The Changing Face of Liberation Theology"Part One in a Three-Part Serieson Liberation Theologyby Ron Rhodes

In 1985, a leader of the conservative wing of the Roman Catholic church in Latin America, Bishop Hoyos, denounced liberation theologians, saying: "When I see a church with a machine gun, I cannot see the crucified Christ in that church. We can never use hate as a system of change. The core of being a church is love."[1]

Theological controversies are often confined to seminary classrooms or theological journals. But the controversy provoked by Latin American liberation theology has been public and it has been worldwide - involving the Vatican, orthodox and not-so-orthodox priests, lay people, sociologists, socialists, capitalists, economists, government leaders and their military, and much more. Liberation theology has certainly not been the passing fad some analysts thought it would be when it first emerged in the late 1960s.

Strictly speaking, liberation theology should be understood as a family of theologies - including the Latin American, Black, and feminist varieties. All three respond to some form of oppression: Latin American liberation theologians say their poverty-stricken people have been oppressed and exploited by rich, capitalist nations. Black liberation theologians argue that their people have suffered oppression at the hands of racist whites. Feminist liberation theologians lay heavy emphasis upon the status and liberation of women in a male-dominated society.

This article, the first of a three-part series on liberation theology, will focus on the Latin American variety - examining its historical roots, growth, doctrine, and present status in the world. Primary emphasis will be on how the movement has changed since its emergence in the late 1960s. In Parts Two and Three respectively, I will examine the Black and feminist varieties.

With a few notable exceptions, Latin American liberation theology has been a movement identified with the Roman Catholic church. For this reason, I shall direct most of my attention to the views of Roman Catholic liberation theologians. First, however, we must become acquainted with the roots of this controversial theology. EUROPEAN ROOTS Some of the theological roots of Latin American liberation theology can be traced directly to the writings of certain European theologians. Three of the more notable of these are Jurgen Moltmann, Johannes Baptist Metz, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Without going into detail, Moltmann has suggested that the coming kingdom gives the church a society-transforming vision of reality as opposed to a merely private vision of personal salvation. Metz has emphasized that there is a political dimension to faith, and that the church must be an institution of social criticism. Bonhoeffer has issued a call to redefine religion in a secular context. His theology emphasizes human responsibility toward others, and stresses the value of seeing the world with "the view from below" - the perspective of the poor and oppressed.

Though liberationists have borrowed from these theologians, they nevertheless charge the European theologies with being "theoretical abstractions, ideologically neutral, [and] neglecting the miserable, unjust present for some 'Christianity of the future.'"[2] The theological methodology developed by liberation theologians specifically addresses these perceived deficiencies. MARXIST INFLUENCES Marxism has also exerted a profound influence on liberation theologians. This should not be taken to mean that they have espoused Marxism as a holistic plan of political action, for they have not. Their interest has been limited to using Marxist categories for social analysis.

According to Marx, man once existed in a simple, primitive state. At that time, there was happiness and tranquility. This primitive state of happiness was disrupted, however, by the rise of economic classes where one class sought to oppress and exploit another for its own economic advantage. Marx believed all of man's problems are the direct result of this class exploitation. He portrayed capitalism as the chief culprit that gave rise to this undesirable state of affairs.

Marx was adamant that man can never be truly happy or free in a capitalistic society. Man, he said, has become an alienated being and does not feel "at home" in a capitalistic environment. However, this alienation will not last forever. Marx believed that history is inexorably moving toward a climactic day when the oppressed workers of the world, the proletariat, will rise up and overthrow their capitalistic oppressors, the bourgeoisie. In the place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms, there will be a harmonious society in which there is equity for all. THE THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION Drawing from European theologies and Marxism, Latin American theologians developed their own theology by radically reinterpreting Scripture with "a bias toward the poor." Let us now briefly survey key aspects of the theology of liberation.

Liberation theology begins with the premise that all theology is biased - that is, particular theologies reflect the economic and social classes of

those who developed them. Accordingly, the traditional theology predominant in North America and Europe is said to "perpetuate the interests of white, North American/European, capitalist males." This theology allegedly "supports and legitimates a political and economic system - democratic capitalism - which is responsible for exploiting and impoverishing the Third World."[3]

Like Bonhoeffer, liberation theologians say theology must start with a "view from below" - that is, with the sufferings of the oppressed. Within this broad framework, different liberation theologians have developed distinctive methodologies for "doing" theology.

Gustavo Gutierrez, author of A Theology of Liberation, provides us with a representative methodology. Like other liberationists, Gutierrez rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection of timeless and culture-transcending truths that remains static for all generations. Rather, theology is in flux; it is a dynamic and ongoing exercise involving contemporary insights into knowledge, humanity, and history.

Gutierrez emphasizes that theology is not just to be learned, it is to be done. In his thinking, "praxis" is the starting point for theology. Praxis (from the Greek prasso: "to work") involves revolutionary action on behalf of the poor and oppressed - and out of this, theological perceptions will continually emerge. The theologian must therefore be immersed in the struggle for transforming society and proclaim his message from that point.

In the theological process, then, praxis must always be the first stage; theology is the second stage. Theologians are not to be mere theoreticians, but practitioners who participate in the ongoing struggle to liberate the oppressed.

Sin. Using methodologies such as Gutierrez's, liberationists interpret sin not primarily from an individual, private perspective, but from a social and economic perspective. Gutierrez explains that "sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men."[4]

Liberationists view capitalist nations as sinful specifically because they have oppressed and exploited poorer nations. Capitalist nations have become prosperous, they say, at the expense of impoverished nations. This is often spoken of in terms of "dependency theory" - that is, the development of rich countries depends on the underdevelopment of poor countries.

There is another side to sin in liberation theology. Those who are oppressed can and do sin by acquiescing to their bondage. To go along passively with

oppression rather than resisting and attempting to overthrow it - by violent means if necessary - is sin.[5]

The use of violence has been one of the most controversial aspects of liberation theology. Such violence is not considered sinful if it is used for resisting oppression. Indeed, certain liberation theologians "will in some cases regard a particular action (e.g., killing) as sin if it is committed by an oppressor, but not if it is committed by the oppressed in the struggle to remove inequities. The removal of inequities is believed to result in the removal of the occasion of sin [i.e., the oppressor] as well."[6]

Salvation. Salvation is viewed not primarily in terms of life after death for the individual, but in terms of bringing about the kingdom of God: a new social order where there will be equality for all. This is not to deny eternal life per se, but it is to emphasize that the eternal and the temporal "intersect" in liberation theology. "If, as the traditional formulation has it, history and eternity are two parallel (i.e., nonintersecting) realms, our goal within history is to gain access to eternity."[7] But if history and eternity intersect, "if salvation is moving into a new order--then we must strive against everything which at present denies that order."[8]

God. Liberationists argue that the traditional Christian doctrine of God manipulates the divine being such that He appears to favor the capitalistic social structure. They claim the orthodox view of God is rooted in the ancient Greeks who saw God as a static being - distant and remote from human history. This distorted view of a transcendent deity has, they say, yielded a theology that understands God as "out there," far removed from the affairs of humankind. As a result, many Latin Americans have adopted a passive stance in the face of their oppression and exploitation.

Liberation theologians have thus tried to communicate to their compatriots that God is not impassive. Rather, He is dynamically involved in behalf of the poor and downtrodden. And because God stands against oppression and exploitation, those who follow Him must do likewise. Indeed, Gutierrez says that "to know God is to do justice."[9]

Jesus Christ. While liberation theologians do not outright deny Christ's deity, there is no clear-cut, unambiguous confession that Jesus is God. The significance of Jesus Christ lies in His example of struggling for the poor and the outcast. The Incarnation is reinterpreted to represent God's total immersion into man's history of conflict and oppression. By His words and actions, Jesus showed us how to become true sons of God - that is, by bringing in the kingdom of God through actively pursuing the liberation of the oppressed.

Most liberationists see Jesus' death on the cross as having no vicarious value; rather, Jesus died because He upset the religious/political situation of His time. Leonardo Boff says Jesus' followers fabricated the idea that Jesus' death had a transcendent, salvific significance: "The historically true events are the crucifixion, the condemnation by Pilate, and the inscription on the cross in three languages known by the Jews. The rest of the events are theologized or are pure theology developed in light of the resurrection and of the reflection upon the Old Testament."[10] Jesus' death is unique because "he historicizes in exemplary fashion the suffering experienced by God in all the crosses of the oppressed."[11] Liberationists acknowledge Jesus' resurrection, but they are not clear on its significance.

The Church. Liberation theology does not ask what the church is, but rather what it means "to be the church in a context of extreme poverty, social injustice and revolution. In the context of liberation theology the mission of the church seems to be more important than its nature."[12]

Gutierrez and other liberation theologians say the church's mission is no longer one of a "quantitative" notion of saving numbers of souls.[13] Rather, the church's mission "is at all times to protest against injustice, to challenge what is inhuman, to side with the poor and the oppressed."[14]

Related to the doctrine of the church has been the formation and growth of "ecclesial base communities," since the 1970s. These are "small, grassroots, lay groups of the poor or the ordinary people, meeting to pray, conduct Bible studies, and wrestle concretely with social and political obligations in their settings."[15]

These communities have been effective in showing workers and peasants how to organize for their own social welfare. Gutierrez says that "in most Latin American countries, the church's base communities are the only form of social action available to the poor."[16] Indeed, they have become "the major vehicle for the spread of liberation themes beyond academic circles. By 1980 there were as many as 100,000 base communities meeting in Latin America."[17] ROMAN CATHOLIC OPENNESS Since the emergence of liberation theology and its rapid growth via ecclesial base communities, divisive rifts have taken place between Vatican leadership and Roman Catholic theologians in Latin America. Over the past few decades, however, the Vatican has become progressively open to the concept of liberation.

For example, Vatican Council II - held in Rome from 1962 to 1965 - decried the wide disparity between the rich and poor nations of the world. Church leaders therefore proclaimed a "preferential option for the poor." Three

years later, the Medellin Conference of Latin American Bishops (1968) denounced the extreme inequality among social classes as well as the unjust use of power and exploitation.[18]

Pope John Paul II has for years devoted himself to establishing a balanced policy on political activism for Roman Catholic clergy. He has staunchly advocated social justice, but has also consistently warned the clergy about becoming too involved in secular affairs and about the dangers of Marxism.

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the Vatican's watchdog for doctrinal orthodoxy - issued two important statements on liberation theology. The Instruction on Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation" (1984) warned that it is impossible to invoke Marxist principles and terminology without ultimately embracing Marxist methods and goals. Marxism should therefore be avoided altogether.

Two years later (1986), the Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation affirmed the legitimacy of the oppressed taking action "through morally licit means, in order to secure structures and institutions in which their rights will be truly respected."[19] However, "while the church seeks the political, social and economic liberation of the downtrodden, its primary goal is the spiritual one of liberation from evil."[20] The statement accepted armed struggle "as a last resort to put an end to an obvious and prolonged tyranny which is gravely damaging the common good."[21]

This relative openness of the Roman Catholic church was largely responsible for liberation theology's rapid expansion. As we shall see shortly, however, the church's concerns over Marxism have proven justified in view of recent world events. Vatican leadership has breathed a collective sigh of relief that Marxist elements in liberation theology now seem to be waning. SHIFTING SANDS: 1990

Since the emergence of liberation theology in the 1960s, some aspects of the movement have remained constant. In his recent book, Liberation Theology at the Crossroads (1990), Paul E. Sigmund observes that liberation theology stills sees the world as more characterized "by conflict than compromise, inequality than equality, oppression rather than liberation. It also still retains its belief in the special religious character of the poor both as the object of God's particular love and the source of religious insights."[22] Despite these constants, however, liberation theology has also seen significant changes in recent years.

We begin with the observation that 1989 saw almost the whole of Eastern Europe rise up in revolt against Marxist ideology. The major reforms occurring in the Soviet Union and East Bloc nations represent an admission that Marxism has failed.

Michael Novak, who holds the George Frederick Jewett Chair at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., raised a penetrating question in view of recent European events: "What will become of the liberation theologians of Latin America and elsewhere who have so long praised the ideals of Marxist-Leninism, but now must see how hollow they are?"[23]

Novak argues that a close reading of the Latin American theologians suggests that they "have begun to worry that they earlier invested too much credence in the social science they picked up from the universities."[24] For this reason, he says, "liberation theologians in the last few years have become much less hopeful about social structures, and increasingly concerned with issues of spirituality. They seem to be turning less to politics, and more to faith."[25] Sigmund agrees, noting that now "the greater emphasis [is] on the spiritual sources and implications of the concept of liberation."[26] (We shall address this "new spirituality" shortly.)

The shift in perspectives on socialism is one of the most important developments in liberation theology. In the recent writings of many liberation theologians, we find the concession that "the once-favored approach of substituting socialism for dependency or capitalism simply doesn't work, as has been seen in Eastern Europe."[27] Without necessarily deserting socialism, liberationists have shown an increasing ambiguity about what socialism really means, as well as an increasing tolerance of competing systems and an acceptance of Western-style democracy as a legitimate weapon against oppression.[28] Arthur F. McGovern, a Jesuit, comments that "the new political context in many parts of Latin America has led liberation theologians to talk about building a 'participatory democracy' from within civil society. Socialism no longer remains an unqualified paradigm for liberation aspirations."[29]

Another significant development in liberation theology is that its theologians are speaking much less of dependency theory - the idea that the development of rich countries depends on the underdevelopment of poor countries. To be sure, liberation theologians are still predominantly anticapitalist, but many have recognized that dependency theory has rightfully been criticized for some of its fundamental assertions.

The fallacy of dependency theory has been demonstrated by sociologist Peter Berger of Boston University. Berger has pointed out that "the development experience of Japan and the 'four little dragons' of East Asia - Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore - represent 'empirical falsification' of the socioeconomic assumptions of dependency theory and liberation theology." On the other hand, Berger stressed, "there is simply no evidence of successful development by socialist third world nations anywhere or at anytime."[30]

Moreover, the liberationist's solution to the dependency problem - a socialist break with the capitalist world - has looked less attractive to liberation theologians because "the models of socialism either seemed to be bankrupt, or were resorting to market incentives and private enterprise, even inviting multinational investment."[31]

Besides shifts in thinking on socialism and dependency theory, many have had second thoughts about liberation theology because of the bloodshed it has provoked. A Los Angeles Times article focusing on liberation theology in El Salvador notes that "the deaths of some of those who have challenged the establishment have brought sober second thoughts about both the basis and the practice of liberation theology."[32] The article also observes that "such a violent counterrevolution here and in other Latin American nations - along with the failure of Eastern European Marxism and the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua to bring social, political and economic justice - have led to calls for a new look at liberation theology."[33] Indeed, "some of the basic analytical assumptions and practical applications of liberation theology are being questioned, not just by the conservative elements of the [Catholic] church but also by some of those thinkers who first conceived the philosophy."[34]

Sigmund has observed that in view of the bloodshed associated with the movement in recent years, liberation theologians are no longer offering the easy justifications of the necessity of "counterviolence" against the "institutionalized violence" of the political establishment.[35] He also notes that the most obvious change in liberation theology "is from an infatuation with socialist revolution to a recognition that the poor are not going to be liberated by cataclysmic political transformations, but by organizational and personal activities in Base Communities."[36]

We have already noted that liberation theologians are focusing more on issues of spirituality. First and foremost, this means that liberation theologians are deriving more of their liberationist concepts from the Bible as opposed to social theory. Early books by liberation theologians focused primarily on social analysis and had very few biblical references. Now the situation is practically reversed: recent books by liberation theologians contain many biblical references and very little social analysis. There is much more "theology" in liberation theology these days. But their methodological approach is still one of a preferential treatment to the poor.

Besides greater rootedness in the Bible, there also seems to be more interest in spiritual disciplines - such as prayer, devotions, exercising faith, and fellowshiping with other believers. Much of this takes place at a grassroots level in ecclesial base communities. Bible studies on "liberation

passages" (such as Mary's Magnificat, Luke 1:46-55) are common. The goal is to discover how Scripture applies to specific problems in the lives of the oppressed.

We have noted that liberation theology is predominantly a Roman Catholic movement. An important factor now impacting the movement in Latin America is the explosion of evangelical Protestantism there. "Latin America is no longer the Roman Catholic monolith it once was. Since the late 1960s, the number of Protestants has surged from 15 million to an estimated 40 million, about 10 percent of the population of Latin America."[37] Brazilian bishop Monsignor Boaventura Kloppenburg says that "Latin America is turning Protestant even faster than Central Europe did in the sixteenth century."[38] The overwhelming majority of these Protestants are Pentecostal.

As to why so many are presently turning to evangelicalism, one analyst suggests that "there now is a widespread recognition that liberation theology overlooked the emotional, personal message most people seek from religion. At the simplest level, liberation theologians preached salvation through social change - meaning, in effect, socialism in one form or another. The evangelicals preach individual salvation through individual change."[39]

David Martin, author of Tongues of Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America (1990), suggests that economic advancement is another underlying cause of the Protestant explosion. He argues that "evangelical religion and economic advancement often go together[they] support and reinforce one another."[40] Carmen Galilea, a sociologist in Santiago, said that the typical Pentecostal "is well-regarded. He is responsible. He doesn't drink and is better motivated and better paid. As a result, he rises economically."[41] Pentecostal preaching "puts great emphasis on the demand to develop yourself," thus contributing to the economic rise.[42]

In a recent article in Insight magazine, Daniel Wattenberg suggests that another factor linking Pentecostalism and upward mobility is "the mutual material support available within the Pentecostal faith community (the churches provide a network that often functions as a job or housing referral agency)."[43] Moreover, volunteer work in the church "utilizes peoples' talents and creates opportunities to develop new skills that may give them a sense of usefulness and fulfillment for the first time in their lives."[44] The skills learned in a church context also give an edge to church members in seeking work outside the church.

Big changes are occurring in Latin America, and it remains to be seen where it will all lead. The likelihood is that (1) Marxism will continue to wane; (2) liberation theologians will continue to focus more on issues of

spirituality; (3) the Protestant explosion will continue, with an emphasis on personal transformation; and (4) all this will probably have some positive effect on social and economic conditions in the region. THE BIBLE AND POVERTY Critics of liberation theology at times come across as though they are detached and unsympathetic to Latin American poverty. No doubt some of these critics actually do lack concern. Before offering criticisms of this controversial theology, therefore, it is important that we first affirm that there is a strong scriptural basis for helping the poor.

In the Old Testament, God gave the theocracy of Israel specific guidelines for taking care of the poor. He commanded that the corners of fields were not to be reaped so that something would be left for the needy to eat (Lev. 19:9-10).

God also promised a special blessing to all who gave to the poor (Prov. 19:17), and judgment to those who oppressed the poor (Ps. 140:12). Robbing and cheating the poor were condemned (Hosea 12:7). Widows and orphans - who were especially vulnerable to oppression - came under special protection from the law (Exod. 22:22-23).

God in the law also made provisions for poor sojourners who were not a part of Israel's theocracy. Gleanings from the harvest were to be left for them (Deut. 24:19-21), and they were ranked in the same category as widows and orphans as being defenseless (Ps. 94:6).

Jesus is very clear about our responsibility to the poor and oppressed. Christ's strong warning that eternal condemnation awaits those who do not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the prisoners (Matt. 25:31-46) shows that the disadvantaged are not merely a peripheral concern of His. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus taught that anybody in need is our neighbor (Luke 10:29f.).

The biblical view of the poor and oppressed is such that God's people everywhere should be appalled at the poverty of the people in Latin America. Liberation theologians and the people of Latin America have a legitimate gripe. Indeed, how can the church in Latin America not act to help relieve the suffering of its people?

Nevertheless, a legitimate and commendable concern for the poor and oppressed must never be used to justify a theological methodology that leads to a gross distortion of Christianity - the only true means of liberation. Evangelicals maintain that this is precisely what Latin American liberationists have done. A FAULTY FOUNDATION Inasmuch as the liberationist's views on God, Jesus Christ, the church, sin,

and salvation are an outgrowth of his or her theological methodology, it follows that the starting point for a critique of liberation theology would be its hermeneutic. We shall therefore narrow our focus to this one issue.

Method is everything when interpreting Scripture. With an improper methodology, one is bound to distort the author's intended meaning - the only true meaning (see 2 Pet. 3:16).

The word method comes from the Greek methodos, which literally means "a way or path of transit." Methodology in Bible study is therefore concerned with the proper path to be taken in order to arrive at scriptural truth. Latin American theologians have chosen a "path" intended to produce liberation. But have they distorted the author's intended meaning in the process? The Problem With Praxis Foundationally, the liberation hermeneutic (which makes praxis the first step, and theology the second) is completely without any controlling exegetical criteria. Vernon C. Grounds is right when he says that "there is no exegetical magic by which new meanings can without limit be conjured out of the Bible under the illuminating creativity of new situations."[45]

In liberation theology, the basic authority in interpretation ceases to be Scripture; it is rather the mind of the interpreter as he "reads" the current historical situation. It is one of the canons of literary (not just scriptural) hermeneutics, however, that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers. "Meaning is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers."[46]

Only after the meaning has been discovered by the reader can it be applied to the current situation. Certainly we all agree that Christians must practice their faith in daily life. But from a Scriptural perspective, the way a Christian conducts his or her life is based on the objective, propositional revelation found in Scripture. Christians must know God's will as revealed in Scripture before they can act on it. Without a preeminence of Scripture over praxis, the Christian cannot know what to believe or what to do. Evangelicals therefore reject any suggestion that "we must do in order to know, and hope that orthodoxy will arise from orthopraxis [right action]."

An examination of Jesus' use of the Old Testament shows that He interpreted it as objective, propositional revelation (see Matt. 22:23-33). His hermeneutic knew nothing of making praxis the first step for discovering theological truth. Truth that Transcends Culture and Time Evangelicals have criticized the inability of liberation theology's hermeneutic to develop a culture-transcending theology with normative authority. Liberation theologians have shown little or no recognition of the

fact that there are teachings and commands in Scripture that - owing to their divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16) - transcend all cultural barriers and are binding on all people everywhere. Key teachings of Scripture - such as man's sin, his alienation from God, his need for a personal Redeemer - speak universally to the human condition and can never be bound to particular cultures or situations.[47]

Moreover, evangelicals criticize the liberationist idea that theological truth is in a constant state of flux, changing along with the temporal conditions of society. Nunez has noted that "there are chapters of liberation theology that cannot be written at the present time, because they have to be the result of a given practice."[48] Applications of Scripture can change as the temporal conditions of society change - but the Scripture-author's intended meaning from which those applications are drawn are fixed and cannot be relativized. Alien Preunderstandings A "preunderstanding" of a preferential option for the poor is the very heart of liberation hermeneutics. Liberationists argue that "the reader of the Bible must deliberately choose his eyeglasses before he begins reading, and that the 'preferential option for the poor' means just that - a deliberate bias or perspective. Without this, the true meaning cannot be known. We must discard our North Atlantic lenses, we are told, and put on Third World ones - we must lay aside the eyeglasses of the rich to use those of the poor."[49]

Relevant to this issue is a small book published in 1983 by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Entitled Explaining Hermeneutics, Article XIX declares: "We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it. We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself."[50] The point of this article is to avoid interpreting Scripture through an alien grid or filter (liberationism, for example) which obscures or negates its true message. This article acknowledges that "one's preunderstanding will affect his understanding of a text. Hence, to avoid misinterpreting Scripture one must be careful to examine his own presuppositions in the light of Scripture."[51]

Now, we must frankly admit that all interpreters are influenced to some degree by personal, theological, ecclesiastical, and political prejudices. Evangelical scholar Emilio Nunez has rightly conceded that none of us approaches Scripture in a "chemically pure" state. This is why Article XIX above is so important: preunderstandings must be in harmony with Scripture and subject to correction by it. Only those preunderstandings that are compatible with Scripture are legitimate.

Graham N. Stanton, Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of London King's College, elaborates on the corrective nature of Scripture: "The interpreter must allow his own presuppositions and his own pre-understanding to be modified or even completely reshaped by the text itself. Unless this is allowed to happen, the interpreter will be unable to avoid projecting his own ideas on to the text. Exegesis guided rigidly by pre-understanding will be able to establish only what the interpreter already knows. There must be a constant dialogue between the interpreter and the text."[52] If this methodology is followed, "the text may well shatter the interpreter's existing pre-understanding and lead him to an unexpectedly new vantage point from which he continues his scrutiny of the text."[53]

Had liberation theologians followed this one procedure, the theology of liberation would have turned out to be a horse of a different color. Indeed, a theologian who approached Scripture with a "preferential option for the poor" would have found - upon submitting this preunderstanding to the correction of Scripture - that his preunderstanding was unbiblical. For, from a scriptural perspective, both the poor and the rich, both the oppressed and oppressors, are afflicted by sin and are in need of salvation. Romans 3:23 says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Our Lord preached the gospel of salvation to the poor (Luke 7:22) but He preached the same message to the rich (Luke 5:32; 10:1-10). God is "not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9).

Now, evangelicals concede that God has a special concern for the poor, and salvation is - by His own design - more readily accepted by the less fortunate (Matt. 19:23). Nevertheless, from Genesis to Revelation Scripture has a clear "preferential option" for the fallen.

By submitting his preunderstanding to Scripture, the liberationist would have also discovered that the gap between the rich and the poor is not the cause of man's predicament; it is merely one symptom of it (see Jer. 5:26-29). It was not primarily the bourgeoisie that needed to be overthrown; it was man's sin - his selfishness and greed - that needed conquering (1 Pet. 2:24). It was not fundamentally a political revolution that was needed, but a revolution in the human heart - something found only in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), who came not to be a model political revolutionary but to die on the cross for man's sins as the Lamb of God (Matt. 26:26-28).

We repeat, then, that if we are to understand the author's intended meaning in Scripture (the only true meaning), it is imperative that preunderstandings be in harmony with Scripture and subject to correction by it. Only then will it be possible to develop a truly biblical theology of liberation - a theology that at once emphasizes the fundamental need for liberation from sin, but at the same time stresses the biblical injunction to reach out in compassion to the poor.

A CHALLENGE TO EVANGELICALS Are evangelicals as concerned as they should be about the plight of the poor and oppressed in our world? And if they are not, is this because there is a defect in their theology that ignores the biblical emphasis on caring for the poor and the needy? If liberationists have approached Scripture with a preunderstanding that "opts" for the poor, is it possible that some evangelicals have unwittingly approached Scripture with a preunderstanding that filters out sufficient concern for the poor and oppressed?

These are difficult questions, and it is incumbent upon every Christian to examine his or her heart on this issue. Certainly, evangelicals have little right to criticize the theology of liberation if they are not prepared to criticize possible deficiencies in their own theology in regard to caring for the poor and oppressed of our world.

Scripture is clear that we have a God-appointed responsibility to take whatever steps we can to help the poor. Yet, at the same time, we as evangelicals must insist that ultimately the transformation of any society depends on the prior transformation of the individuals that make up that society. This is the Christian counterpart to "dependency theory." The revolution so earnestly sought in society will best be accomplished as greater numbers of people in that society experience the revolution of new birth and the ongoing renewal of life in Christ. NOTES 1"An Attack on Liberation Theology," Orange County Register, 1 Dec. 1985, A10.

2 Harvie M. Conn, "Liberation Theology," in New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 388.

3 Dean C. Curry, A World Without Tyranny (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 68.

4 Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1971), 175.

5 Justo L. Gonzalez and Catherine G. Gonzalez, Liberation Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1980), 23.

6 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 592.

7 Ibid., 895.

8 Gonzalez and Gonzalez, 24.

9 Jason Berry, "El Salvador's Response to Liberation Theology," The Washington Post, 4-10 Dec. 1989, 25.

10 Leonardo Boff, Jesucristo y la liberacion del hombre, 292; cited by Emilio Nunez, Liberation Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 232-33.

11 Douglas D. Webster, "Liberation Theology," in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 637.

12 Emilio Nunez, "The Church in the Liberation Theology of Gutierrez," in Biblical Interpretation and the Church, ed. D. A. Carson (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), 174.

13 Gutierrez, 150.

14 Monika Hellwig, "Liberation Theology: An Emerging School," Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1977):141.

15 Conn, 389.

16 Kenneth L. Woodward, "A Church for the Poor," Newsweek, 26 Feb. 1979, 20.

17 B. T. Adeney, "Liberation Theology," in Dictionary of Christianity in America, ed. Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 649.

18 Harvie M. Conn, "Theologies of Liberation: An Overview," in Tensions in Contemporary Theology, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and Alan F. Johnson (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979), 344.

19 Paul E. Sigmund, Liberation Theology at the Crossroads (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 11.

20 Don A. Schanche, "Vatican Document Accepts Some 'Liberation Theology,'" Los Angeles Times, 6 April 1986, 5.

21 Richard N. Ostling, "A Lesson on Liberation," Time, 14 April 1986, 84.

22 Sigmund, 181-82.

23 Michael Novak, "The Revolution That Wasn't," Christianity Today, 23 April 1990, 18.

24 Ibid., 20.

25 Ibid.

26 Sigmund, 181.

27 Kenneth Freed, "The Cross and the Gun," Los Angeles Times, 9 Oct. 1990, H8.

28 Sigmund, 196.

29 Arthur F. McGovern, Liberation Theology and Its Critics (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989), 230.

30 Dean C. Curry, "Liberation Theology in 80s: Is There Something New?" Eternity, November 1985, 13.

31 Sigmund, 179.

32 Freed, H8.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

35 Sigmund, 177.

36 Ibid.

37 Daniel Wattenberg, "Protestants Create an Altered State," Insight, 16 July 1990, 9.

38 David Neff, "God's Latino Revolution," Christianity Today, 14 May 1990, 15.

39 John Marcom Jr., "The Fire Down South," Forbes, 15 Oct. 1990, 66-67.

40 Daniel Wattenberg, "Gospel Message of Getting Ahead Inch by Inch," Insight, 16 July 1990, 16.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Vernon C. Grounds, "Scripture in Liberation Theology," in Challenges to

Inerrancy, ed. Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce Demarest (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 344.

46 Norman L. Geisler, Explaining Hermeneutics (Oakland, CA: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983), 7.

47 Ibid.

48 Nunez, in Carson, 173.

49 W. Dayton Roberts, "Liberation Theologies," Christianity Today, 17 May 1985, 15.

50 Ibid., 14-15.

51 Geisler, 15.

52 Graham N. Stanton, "Presuppositions in New Testament Criticism," in New Testament Interpretation, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), 68.

53 Ibid. Glossary exegesis: Derived from a Greek word meaning "to draw out." Refers to the obtaining of a Scripture passage's meaning by drawing the meaning out from the text rather than reading it into the text (which is eisegesis).

hermeneutics: Refers to the science of interpretation. It is that branch of theology that prescribes rules and guidelines by which the Bible should be interpreted.

normative authority: Authority that is binding upon us in terms of what we are to believe and do.

praxis: From the Greek prasso (meaning "to work"), praxis involves revolutionary action on behalf of the poor and oppressed - and out of this, theological perceptions will (liberationists believe) continually emerge. In other words, praxis refers to the discovery and formation of theological "truth" out of a given historical situation through personal participation in the struggle for the liberation of the oppressed.

propositional revelation: The view that God in the Bible has communicated factual information (or propositions) about Himself; the view that God's special revelation in Scripture has been given in propositional statements.

(An article from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1991, page 8)

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliabilityby Ron Rhodes Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.

These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.

There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).

Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability. The Variants in the New Testament Manuscripts Are Minimal In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants." This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind.

But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear.

Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy. To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever. Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.

For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty.

Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life. Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.

By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said. Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies: Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.

Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.

Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld. Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.

This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology.

By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said. Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.

We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.

If the number of [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled! There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.

Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have a documentation infinitely less solid."

Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact." Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration: No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.

The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.

The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.

The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible. From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text." Support for the New Testament from the Church Fathers As noted at the beginning of this chapter, in addition to the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are over 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the early church fathers. There are also New Testament quotations in thousands of early church Lectionaries (worship books).

There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible. In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).

The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of

manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.

The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission. A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran. Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.

The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling." From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have undeniable evidence that today's Old Testament Scripture, for all practical purposes, is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God and recorded in the Bible.

Combine this with the massive amount of manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament, and it is clear that the Christian Bible is a trustworthy and reliable book.

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work. These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word, so they went to incredible lengths to prevent error from creeping into their work.

The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to ensure accuracy. God's Preservation of the Bible The Westminster Confession declares: "The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."

The Westminster Confession makes a very important point here. The fact is, the God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture. Actually, God's preservational work is illustrated in the text of the Bible. By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament, we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries.

Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given.

Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative.

The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of the confidence in God's providential preservation of the copies and translations as substantially identical with the inspired originals. Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively.

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Enter The Dragon? Wrestling With The Martial Arts PhenomenonPart One: The Historical-Philosophical Backdropby Erwin de Castro, B. J. Oropeza and Ron Rhodes

High-flying kicks combined with deadly punches and lethal throws. A lone warrior single-handedly overpowering a band of burly attackers; An old sage imparting wisdom to a young, attentive disciple These images depict how many people perceive the martial arts (literally, the arts of warfare) - and for good reason. Such popular images of Asian-based fighting techniques stem largely from stylized portrayals on the silver screen.

Some of today's leading action stars have made it big because of the martial arts. Bruce Lee, who tragically died in 1973 of a cerebral aneurysm, popularized the martial arts movie genre in the United States with films like Enter the Dragon, which to date has grossed $150 million. Karate champion Chuck Norris, who began his film career with a string of moderately budgeted martial arts movies, now commands "nearly $2 million per film and pals around with U.S. presidents."[1] Tough guy Steven Seagal, an aikido exponent who made his screen debut in 1988, has starred in five hits - each accumulating dollar earnings in the tens of millions. Belgian-born Jean-Claude Van Damme, one of today's most popular movie heroes, also came on the scene in 1988 with a martial arts film that harvested a net sum of $19 million.

Martial arts movies have also scored big with teens and children. The first two Karate Kid films - dealing with a teenage boy coming of age under the guidance of his mentor, an elderly karate expert from Okinawa - each grossed over $100 million. Then, of course, there are the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - four pizza-eating, surf-talking, life-sized turtles - whose movies, cartoons, toys, and snacks have translated into incredible profits. Turtle merchandise alone has yielded some $500 million per year. ENTERING THE MAINSTREAM Over the past few decades the martial arts have emerged from relative obscurity - a practice reserved for a select few - to become a booming industry. One would be hard-pressed today to find a sizable city without at least one martial arts school. In fact, just between 1987 and 1991, the number of such schools in the United States jumped 50 percent - from a little over 4,600 to almost 7,000[2] - with each facility taking in an estimated $60,000 to $70,000 per year.[3]

Of the two to three million practitioners in the United States alone, about 40 percent are children between the ages of seven and fourteen.[4] With lessons running anywhere from $55 per month to well over $100 per hour - and the added expense of uniforms, protective gear, and equipment - it's easy to see how the industry as a whole has managed to generate an annual revenue topping the billion-dollar mark.[5]

Of course, the practice of the martial arts is not strictly confined to the dojos (training facilities). Military and law enforcement agencies actively incorporate martial arts techniques and armament into their regimen. Some police departments have even traded in their conventional nightsticks for nunchakus, a classical weapon from Okinawa consisting of two foot-long sticks attached by a short cord or chain,[6] or L-shaped batons modeled after yet another Okinawan martial arts weapon.

It is also common for universities, colleges, and adult education classes to offer a variety of martial arts courses - ranging from practical self-defense methods to more spiritually oriented styles such as t'ai-chi ch'uan and aikido. Even local YMCAs typically have one or more instructors teaching karate or judo, as do many health clubs.

In view of this pervasive cultural penetration, it is not surprising that many Christians are being influenced in varying degrees by the martial arts. What is surprising, however, is the reported percentage of martial artists claiming to be Christians. Scot Conway, founder of the Christian Martial Arts Foundation, estimates that in the United States between 50 and 70 percent of all martial artists - and roughly 20 percent of all instructors - consider themselves Christians.[7] (Note that these percentages reflect those who call themselves Christians, regardless of whether or not they are evangelicals.)

The martial arts are a topic of much confusion and misunderstanding today, especially within the evangelical community. Views range from those who claim the Asian martial arts are wholly incompatible with Christianity to those who say the two naturally blend.

Is the "Dragon" (Satan) finding a new entrance into our society and even the church through the popularity of the martial arts? Before arriving at a balanced conclusion on the matter, the vast differences separating the various arts must be considered. At the very least, a fundamental understanding of their historical roots, traditions, philosophies, and goals is necessary. In this first of two installments, we will lay a foundation by examining these issues as related to the martial arts in China, Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia. CHINA: THE WELLSPRING With its rich heritage, China is considered by many to be the predominant source of ideas and practices that have shaped the martial arts.[8] Unfortunately, the history of Chinese martial arts is inundated with legend and lore.

Some ascribe the confusion to the negative attitude toward the martial arts held by those formerly in control in China. According to an article in the

Journal of Asian Martial Arts, "the literate Chinese elite traditionally took a jaundiced view of physical combat and were inclined to ignore the arts." Indeed, "martial artists were, almost by definition, members of the illiterate lower classes and unable to leave written records of their own history. And, in the eyes of the elite record keepers, martial artists were not merely social inferiors - because of their frequent association with the underworld and seditious activities, they were often regarded as criminals."[9]

This does not appear to have always been the case, however. The earliest traces of the Chinese martial arts date back to the time of the Chou Dynasty (the royal lineage that ruled China from about 1122 to 255 B.C.) with descriptions of noblemen engaging in boxing, wrestling, fencing, archery, and horsemanship.[10] Archery, for one, became an integral part of the social conventions that helped insure harmony in the existing culture.

During the Warring States period (403-221 B.C.), however, the socially accepted "games" of war (scheduled battles that functioned as rituals) among the nobility of different states turned hostile, brutal, and bloody. With the decline of Chou rule, lords of separate states vied for supremacy - contracting farmers, merchants, artisans, and peasants as foot soldiers. Many of these were skilled in various arts of combat.

During this same general period, various philosophical and religious schools came into prominence that began to exert a significant influence over the developing arts of fighting. Inasmuch as a balanced Christian perspective on the martial arts depends on an awareness of these philosophical and religious schools, it is necessary that we briefly turn our attention to them before resuming our discussion of the martial arts. Philosophical and Religious Influences on the Chinese Martial Arts Taoism. The word "Taoism" refers to a Chinese philosophy based on the teachings of Lao Tzu (c. 6th-4th century B.C.) and Chuang Tzu (c. 399-295 B.C.). The central theme of Taoism has to do with harmony with the "natural flow" of the universe. Letting nature take its course is believed to be the key to happiness and fulfillment. Taoists therefore say that life should be approached with the goal of "taking no action that is contrary to Nature."[11]

To Taoists, nature is synonymous with the Tao - which makes up the entire universe; it is elusive, hidden, mysterious.[12] The Tao, in turn, is divided into two forces called yin and yang. Yin and yang represent the negative and positive aspects of the universe, each flowing into one another in a continuous cycle of change. "Yin is characterized as the negative force of darkness, coldness, and emptiness. Yang stands for the positive energy that produces light, warmth, and fullness. These alternating forces are indestructible and inexhaustible. They contradict as well as complement each

other."[13]

Taoist philosophy sees the universe as a balance between these two inseparable, opposing forces. All manifestations of the Tao, and all changes in nature, are believed to be generated by the dynamic interplay of these two polar forces.

Now, blending with the course of nature, or becoming one with the Tao, is a common goal for a number of martial artists. Attaining this is said to require something far different than mere intellectual apprehension: "The adept becomes one with the Tao by realizing within himself its unity, simplicity, and emptiness."[14] Both the Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, the oldest primary works of Taoism, set forth the notion that meditation, along with breathing exercises, greatly aids those attempting to become one with the Tao.[15]

With its emphasis on the natural, Taoism places a high premium on intuition and spontaneity, claiming that "the highest skills operate on an almost unconscious level."[16] Such intuition and spontaneity are of obvious value to the martial artist.

Religious Taoism. Various Chinese shamans and magicians incorporated into their own existing belief systems the ideas of Taoism, producing what came to be known as religious Taoism. The primary objective of religious Taoists was the attainment of physical immortality. Meditation, along with various magical practices, physical exercises, breathing exercises, and sexual practices, was considered the means of retaining vigor and achieving everlasting life.[17]

The practice of breath control (called chi kung), in particular, figured prominently not only in the quest for immortality but for control of the universe. As a backdrop, chi (sometimes written as qi or ki) was believed to be a mystical energy, a "substance surrounding and including all things, which brought even distant points into direct physical contact." Indeed, "since one single substance joined all corners of the cosmos into a single organic unity, it followed that mastery of qi was equivalent to mastery of the universe."[18]

Religious Taoists believed that breath control is the means of tapping into and controlling the chi force:

The Taoist believed that, through his own supremely concentrated breath control, he could inhale the Chi of the universe into his body and fuse it with his own self-energized Chi. This combination could only result in a healthful extension of life. This practice demands extraordinary patience and consistently deep meditation. The practitioner, after clearing his mind

of extraneous thoughts in a kind of "fast of the mind," must focus only on the constant feeling and sound of the inhalation and exhalation of his respiration. This experience will enable one, in time, to circulate and direct the power of Chi into any part of the body.[19]

Since chi is (allegedly) a force or power that can be tapped into by the martial artist, and since breath control is the means of tapping into chi, the connection between breath control and (for example) breaking boards with a single blow of the hand becomes obvious. It is believed that tapping into chi via breath control enables the martial artist to perform acts requiring great strength and power.

Bodhidharma and Zen Buddhism. Attaining strength and power was also of interest to Bodhidharma (c. A.D. 5th-6th century), an Indian monk who is said to be the originator of the Shaolin boxing tradition and the father of the martial arts.[20] Believed to have been a member of the warriors/rulers caste of India, Bodhidharma brought with him a brand of Buddhism known as Zen, which advocated mental control and meditation as means to enlightenment.

As the story goes, Bodhidharma - disturbed by the Shaolin monks' inability to remain awake during meditation - devised a set of calisthenic exercises that later formed the basis for their unique style of boxing. "Bodhidharma explained to the monks that body and soul are inseparable. This unity must be invigorated for enlightenment." Hence, "physical fitness became a part of Shaolin life with his introduction of systematized exercises to strengthen the body and mind. Not only was health perfected, but self-defense movements were devised later from Bodhidharma's knowledge of Indian fighting systems. These early calisthenics (in-place exercises only) marked the beginning of Shaolin Temple boxing."[21]

To sum up, then, Taoism (with its emphasis on blending with the course of nature), religious Taoism (with its emphasis on using breath control and meditation to tap into and control chi), and Bodhidharma's Zen Buddhism (with its emphasis on mental control, meditation, and physical discipline) serve as the philosophical/ religious foundation for the various martial arts. This will be illustrated in what follows. The Chinese Fighting Arts: Kung Fu Collectively, the Chinese fighting systems are commonly called kung fu, meaning "ability" - a generic term used for exercise that is well performed. Kung fu is typically divided into two main categories - external/hard and internal/soft systems.

The "external" or "hard" martial arts stress powerful foot and hand strikes, along with a regimen of intense hand and body conditioning.[22] While the external system advocates some use of breath control, the emphasis lies more

on generating quick movements, utilizing force in straight, linear motions, and responding to force with force.[23]

By contrast, the "internal" or "soft" martial arts focus on inner spiritual development, balance, form, and mental awareness. Besides emphasizing the importance of Taoist and Buddhist philosophical principles, stress is also placed on utilizing the chi force. Through breath control techniques, internal school practitioners seek to "collect, cultivate, and store" the chi force in the region located below the navel.[24]

Of the Chinese martial arts belonging to the internal category, the three most prominent are t'ai-chi ch'uan, hsing-i, and pa-kua. External martial arts, which comprise the majority of the Chinese fighting arts, include those from the Shaolin Temples (which later split into northern and southern styles of boxing), derivatives of the Shaolin tradition (including wing chun and hung gar), and countless other forms arising from China's military heritage. As we will see below, the Chinese martial arts had great influence far beyond China's borders. JAPAN: THE MILITARY TRADITION The ninth century A.D. marked a turning point in Japanese history with the emergence of the professional warrior (called bushi) and the subsequent rise of the military class to power. This period witnessed the decline of the (once-powerful) reigning Fujiwara family (or clan), which subsequently had to enlist the aid of certain other families/clans to enforce established laws and regulations. The Taira and Minamoto families, in particular, became so successful that they ended up ruling the land as military powerhouses. By the next century, "the military profession was fully established as a hereditary privilege,"[25] a mark of distinction.

A man by the name of Minamoto Yoritomo (A.D. 1147-1199) became the first permanent shogun (supreme military ruler) of feudal Japan when he overturned the dominant Taira clan. The military government he established was known as the Kamakura (1185-1333), named after the region where he stationed his seat of power. During the Kamakura period the professional warriors of Japan refined their "arts of warfare," most of which were derived from China and the Asian continent.[26] Japan's "Arts of Warfare" The classical Japanese "arts of warfare" (called bugei) came to include swordsmanship, archery, and various forms of combat that utilize the halberd (a spear-like weapon), the staff, the stick, and no weapon at all.[27] There are many martial arts we could examine in this category. We will limit our attention, however, to the two most popular today - jujutsu and ninjutsu.

Jujutsu. Jujutsu ("the art of flexibility") was a term coined to refer to various systems of fighting that use minimal or no weapons. It can be defined as "various armed or unarmed fighting systems that can be applied

against armed or unarmed enemies."[28]

Jujutsu has always been a "no-holds-barred" type of fighting. It properly includes methods of "kicking, striking, kneeing, throwing, choking, joint-locking, use of certain weapons, as well as holding and tying an enemy."[29] It is indeed a "flexible" art.

Ninjutsu. Ninjutsu ("the art of stealth") is said to have originated between A.D. 593 and 628 and attained wide notoriety during the Kamakura era.[30] Ninjas - practitioners of this art - were typically "warrior-mystics" in the mountainous regions of south central Japan.[31] They were contracted by Japan's professional warriors (none of whom generally practiced ninjutsu) to engage in espionage, sabotage, and disinformation.

Physical training in ninjutsu involved developing special skills in both armed and unarmed combat. Weapon training included "the use of the sword, spear or lance fighting, throwing blades, as well as fire and explosives. Unarmed self-defense methods consisted of (a) techniques for attacking the bones(b) grappling techniques(c) assorted complementary techniques including tumbling and breaking falls, leaping and climbing, as well as special ways of running and walking."[32] These techniques, incidentally, have fascinated millions of Americans as portrayed in a variety of Ninja movies and television shows.

Philosophical and Religious Influences. Along with their martial arts, Japan's professional warriors mastered cultural subjects such as flower arranging, tea ceremony, calligraphy, poetry, and painting[33] - strongly indicating the influence of Confucian ideals. (Confucianism - the philosophy introduced by Confucius [551-479 B.C.] emphasizing ethics and social order - is characterized by cultural refinements and an appreciation for scholarship and aesthetics.)

The ethical code to which these aristocratic warriors adhered is known as the "way of the warrior" (called bushido): "Bushido was never a written code, being communicated directly from leader to follower. Its early development incorporated Shinto [an indigenous Japanese religion] and Confucian ideas such as ancestor respect and filial piety. [Zen] Buddhism, with its concepts of implicit trust in fate, submissiveness to the inevitable, and stoic composure when faced with adversity, was another cultural root."[34] Japan's "Martial Ways" Many of today's familiar Japanese-based fighting systems fall under the classification of "martial ways" (called budo), forms that developed from the above-mentioned "arts of warfare" (bugei). The "martial ways" are largely products of the twentieth century and, according to one scholar, "are concerned with spiritual discipline through which the individual

elevates himself mentally and physically in search of self-perfection."[35] The "martial ways" are less combatively oriented than the "arts of warfare." Three widely popular "martial ways" are aikido, judo, and karate-do (commonly known simply as karate). Let us briefly examine the unique features of these arts.

Aikido. Aikido ("the way of harmony with ki [the chi force]") was developed in 1942 by martial arts innovator Morihei Ueshiba. His goal with this martial art was deeply religious: "The unification of the fundamental creative principle, ki, permeating the universe, and the individual ki, inseparable from breath-power, of each person."[36]

Morihei's aikido employs a series of flowing circular movements - in conjunction with locking, holding, moving, and tumbling techniques - to turn an opponent's force against himself. Various aikido techniques are showcased in the action movies of Hollywood star Steven Seagal.

Judo. Judo ("the way of flexibility") was introduced in 1882 by educator Jigoro Kano as a sport exercise based on numerous grappling and throwing techniques. Developed from jujutsu, judo focuses on timing, speed, balance, and falling.

Kano desired that judo training be undertaken not only in the training facility but also outside it. He believed that endeavoring to master the physical aspects of Judo could contribute to the progress and development of man.[37]

Judo is the first Asian martial art to become an Olympic sport (1964). This is one reason for its popularity.

Karate-Do. Karate-do ("the way of the empty hand") is a form of fighting that was secretly developed on the island of Okinawa from Chinese sources as early as the seventeenth century A.D. in response to a ban of weapons imposed by the ruling Okinawan and succeeding Japanese governments. Recognized for its devastating array of hand and foot strikes, karate is characterized by its demanding regimen of rigorous physical conditioning, concentrated breathing exercises, and repetitive rehearsals of blocking, striking, and breaking techniques (for breaking boards, bricks, and the like). Gichin Funakoshi, who introduced his brand of karate to the Japanese public in 1922, declared karate to be "a medium for character building, and the final goal of training to be the perfection of the self."[38]

The Japanese martial arts mentioned above - jujutsu, ninjutsu, aikido, judo, and karate - have thoroughly penetrated American soil. One can find schools for these arts in most major U.S. cities. One of the most explosively popular martial arts in this country, however, comes to us directly from

Korea. KOREA: THE RESILIENT KINGDOM A number of martial arts have emerged from Korea - including tae kyon, tae kwon do, hwarang do, tang soo do, hapkido, and kuk sool. Below we will focus attention primarily on tae kwon do, incontestably the most popular of the Korean martial arts. The Historical Backdrop of the Korean Martial Arts History reveals that the oldest surviving Korean style, tae kyon ("push shoulder"), originated in northern China before extending to Korea. According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts, "Probably within the past two thousand years, subak [the older version of tae kyon] spread into Korea and found rapid acceptance first in the military and then in the populace."[39] Chinese influence was also evident in that young Korean soldiers were educated in Confucian philosophy, Zen Buddhist ethics, archery, and weaponry.

In 1910 Japan occupied Korea, and the Korean arts were promptly banned in an effort to suppress Korean nationalism. Three tae kyon schools persevered, however, until Korea's liberation in 1945.[40] Tae kyon was then publicly reintroduced at a South Korean police martial arts competition in 1958. Tae Kwon Do: The National Sport of Korea During the years of Korea's suppression, General Choi Hong Hi claims to have learned tae kyon from a famous Korean calligrapher. He later studied karate in Kyoto, Japan. After the 1945 liberation of Korea, General Choi introduced tae kwon do - which he himself created - to the newly established South Korean army. He considers his style to be a hybrid of tae kyon and karate.[41] Sometimes, it is even called Korean karate.

Tae kwon do now has an international membership of over 20 million in 140 countries. In 1955 it became the national martial art of South Korea. In fact, "just as baseball can be said to be the national pastime of the U.S.A., so Taekwondo is the national pastime of South Korea."[42]

Though tae kwon do and tae kyon both emphasize high kicks and leg sweeps, there are notable differences between the two arts. Tae kwon do, for example, is more competitive and strenuous than tae kyon. Moreover, unlike tae kyon, tae kwon do does not emphasize the use of ki (or chi), adopts traditional Japanese garb, emphasizes linear movements, and responds to force with force.

As much as 80 percent of tae kwon do involves kicking.[43] Tae kwon do also uses breaking techniques that are applied to wood, tiles, and bricks as tests for proficiency. This art is known in the West primarily as a physical sport. In Korea, however, it is a way of life generating an attitude of self-discipline and "an ideal of noble moral re-armament."[44]

There is a religious side to tae kwon do, even in the West. Jhoon Rhee, who is often considered to be the father of American tae kwon do (and who claims to be Christian but believes in religious pluralism and denies the deity of Christ), says that instructors have a constitutional right to teach their respective religious beliefs in their studios.[45] Moreover, Tae Yun Kim - the first Korean woman Grandmaster of tae kwon do - teaches her followers in northern California to foster a deep relationship with the Silent Master, who is "the power of true self," contacted through meditation and visualization.[46]

Dr. Daeshik Kim, a physical education professor at the University of Austin (Texas), believes that tae kwon do, which has strong historical ties with Zen Buddhism, will help harmonize the philosophies of Zen and Christianity in the West:

Zen is coming to the Christian West and many are seeing conflict and contradiction. But how much is really there? Surely truth cannot be in conflict with truth. This meeting may serve to shake some of the acquired dross and ritual from both paths, prompting a reassessment and return to the basic importance of spiritual harmony in life. The spread of martial arts into the West has already prompted self-questioning in many Westerners who have been introduced to it and sensed the deeper undercurrents.[47]

In recent years, the popularity of the Korean arts has skyrocketed, comprising approximately 30 percent of all martial arts practiced in the United States.[48] These arts have increased as a result of good business sense, their special appeal to women and children, and the recognition of tae kwon do as an Olympic sport in 1988. SOUTHEAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY Besides China, Japan, and Korea, Southeast Asia and the Pacific have also witnessed the emergence of a number of martial arts - including muay thai kickboxing from Thailand and kali from the Philippines. Let us briefly consider some of the unique features of these representative arts.

Muay Thai Kickboxing. One of the fastest-growing martial arts today comes from Thailand. Called muay thai kickboxing, this distinctive fighting form is purported to have originated in 1560 when King Naresuen of Siam (Thailand's former name) was "captured by the Burmese and given a chance for liberty if he could defeat the Burmese champions."[49] As the story goes, King Naresuen was victorious, and from then on kickboxing was a national sport for Thailand.

Researchers believe the art is much older than the commonly accepted date of 1560, however. They say the art was probably influenced by Chinese boxing and the fighting arts of India (armed and unarmed techniques, some of which date as far back as 1500 B.C.).

The height of muay thai kickboxing occurred about two hundred years ago during the reign of Pra Chao Sua (King Tiger). Buddhist monks were the primary instructors.[50]

The rules then were very few, with no weight divisions or timed rounds of competition. With the exception of "grappling, pulling hair, biting, the use of fingers, and kicking a downed opponent,"[51] all else was permitted. At times, contenders would fight with broken glass stuck on their hands (their hands had been wrapped in cotton, horsehide, or hemp and then dipped in resin or some other sticky substance).

Following World War II, regulations were added to make the sport less brutal. Components of Western boxing have also been incorporated into the existing system. With its intense training regimen, muay thai kickboxing is one of the most physically demanding sports today.

Kali. The Philippine martial art of Kali (meaning "sword") features the use of knives and sticks along with empty-hand techniques. Historically (from the ninth century A.D.), kali was taught on three different levels: physical, mental, and spiritual. The physical level involved training both with and without weapons. Mental training was directed to an understanding of "the body, man's psychological makeup, and the role of cosmic forces." On the spiritual level, "the kali practitioner sought to become one with Bathala," believed to be God, creator, and chief deity.[52]

There is a dimension to kali devoted to the development of internal power, which employs - among other means - meditation, deep breathing exercises, chanting, mantras, prayer, and mystical visualization. Yet, as one scholar notes, "while the metaphysical and spiritual bases of the arts exist, few practitioners are either aware of or stress this dimension in their teachings."[53]

Kali's continued existence as a martial art presents us with an intriguing story. Under the edict of Spanish rule kali was banned from practice in the Philippines in 1637. In this same year, however, Spanish friars introduced a socioreligious play in the Philippines - featuring Filipino actors - which "dramatized the religious victory of the Spaniards over the natives. The mock combat portrayed in these plays served to secretly preserve the martial movements and techniques."[54] The Spaniards had no idea that kali was being preserved right under their noses by the Filipinos on stage.

The staged mock combat also led to modifications of kali which later became known as arnis ("harness") and escrima ("fencing"). Arnis pertains to fighting systems based on the use of either one or two hardwood sticks. Eskrima refers to systems based on using sword and dagger.

In arnis, the practitioner is "trained to concentrate his gaze on his opponent's forehead. A stare is developed which seems to penetrate through the opponent and creates an attitude of dominance over him. The expert is trained to stare for extended periods without winking." After all, "a wink in combat might prove fatal."[55]

It is interesting to note that, at least initially, there was much secrecy involved in learning arnis. "Training sessions were announced only to the initiated and carried out secretly in remote places. Students were sworn, under threat of death, never to reveal their knowledge."[56]

In 1900, under American rule, the Filipino martial arts returned to public prominence and were used against the invading Japanese forces during World War II.[57] The growing popularity of arnis can be seen in its establishment as a formal course by the physical education department of the Far Eastern University in Manila.[58] EVER-DEVELOPING ARTS Though each of the martial arts from China, Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia has distinctive qualities, it is important to realize - as an overarching principle - that the martial arts are dynamic; changes and development never seem to cease. There are traditionalists who try to maintain the heart and soul of their systems, but nevertheless they are willing to make modifications to meet the needs and demands of a changing society. It is highly unlikely that any but the most recent of today's fighting styles have retained every original facet devised by its originator. Chances are the "originator" himself took an already existing system and altered it for improvement.

The United States provides many examples of this dynamic element. We can point, for example, to the Americanized version of kickboxing, whose champion - Benny "the Jet" Urquidiz - is a born-again Christian. There is also the kajukenbo system devised by Adriano "Sonny" Emperado in Hawaii in 1947, which is essentially a collation of karate, judo, jujutsu, kenpo, and Chinese boxing.[59] Bruce Lee and Jeet Kune Do Perhaps of all contemporary innovators, none have received more attention than the late Bruce Lee, who formulated jeet kune do ("way of the intercepting fist"). Jeet kune do is more properly an approach to the martial arts than a distinct style all its own.

The strong Taoist undercurrent running through Lee's philosophy is clearly evident in his iconoclastic views of the traditional systems, which he felt imprisoned practitioners. "I hope to free my comrades from bondage to styles, patterns, and doctrines," he said in a 1971 interview with Black Belt magazine.[60]

In Lee's opinion, every person is different. Hence, rather than forcing an individual to conform to a style that does not "fit him," a style should be developed that suits the uniqueness of the individual. "As a result, Jeet Kune Do utilizes all ways and is bound by none," wrote Lee, "and, likewise, uses any techniques or means which serve its end."[61]

Though on the one hand very practical-oriented, Lee's jeet kune do contains a side that is deeply philosophical and mystical: "The art of Jeet Kune Do is simply to simplify. It is being oneself; it is reality in its 'isness.' Thus, isness is the meaning - having freedom in its primary sense, not limited by attachments, confinements, partialization, complexities, Jeet Kune Do is enlightenment. It is a way of life, a movement toward will power and control, though it ought to be enlightened by intuition."[62] ASSESSING THE ARTS What can we conclude from the brief survey above? For one thing, the martial arts are here to stay. They have become, in many ways, a part of the American mainstream.

Beyond this, we must recognize that the martial arts are as rich and diverse as the Asian culture from which they emerged. Their roots and traditions derive from a variety of sources, from fierce warriors and aristocrats of the past - to exceptionally skilled commoners in the arts of fighting - to Taoist and Buddhist monks in search of harmony and enlightenment.

As well, we have seen that the goals and focus of the assorted arts range from the purely pragmatic (e.g., physical fitness and self-defense) to the deeply religious and philosophical (which can lead to the esoteric and the occult). Moreover, the arts themselves continue even now to shift and adapt, as they always have, with a changing society.

For the Christian there are questions that remain to be answered: Is it right for Christians to defend themselves via the martial arts when the Bible says to "turn the other cheek?" Is it right for Christians to participate in what many consider to be a violent activity? Even if one answers yes to these questions, is it possible for a Christian to completely divorce the Eastern religious philosophy and mysticism that often accompanies the martial arts from the distinctive physical discipline?

Now that we have taken a quick survey of the arts themselves, we are in a better position to consider these and other questions that confront the Christian about the martial arts. That is precisely what we will do in the second and final installment of this two-part series. NOTES 1 John Corcoran, The Martial Arts Companion: Culture, History, and Enlightenment (New York: Mallard Press, 1992), 80.

2 Glenn Rifkin, "The Black Belts of the Screen Are Filling the Dojos," The New York Times, 16 February 1992, 10.

3 Personal interview with Marian Castinado, executive editor of M.A. Training magazine (circ. 40,000), and associate editor of Black Belt magazine (circ. 100,000), 12 July 1993.

4 Ibid.; and Rifkin, F10.

5 Personal interview with Nicholas Cokinos, chairman of the Educational Funding Company (which handles the finances of over 700 martial arts schools), 14 July 1993.

6 See "Nunchaku? No, Thank You - That's What Angry Demonstrators Are Saying to a Painful New Twist in Police Hardware," People Weekly, 28 May 1990, 105-6.

7 Personal interview with Scot Conway, Christian Martial Arts Foundation, 14 July 1993.

8 Michael Maliszewski, "Meditative-Religious Traditions of Fighting Arts and Ways," Journal of Asian Martial Arts, July 1992, 11. Scholars point to India as the other leading source.

9 Charles Holcombe, "Theater of Combat: A Critical Look at the Chinese Martial Arts," Journal of Asian Martial Arts, October 1992, 65-66.

10 Donn F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith, Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1980), 15; cf. David Chow and Richard Spangler, Kung Fu: History, Philosophy and Technique (Hollywood: Unique Publications Company, 1980), 2.

11 Wing-Tsit Chan, translator and compiler, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963), 136.

12 Tao-te Ching, 1, 4, 14, 21; cf. Herlee G. Creel, Chinese

Thought from Confucius to Mao Tse-Tung (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953), 101-2.

13 Chow and Spangler, 16-17; cf. Tao-te Ching, 42; Chan, 262-63; Creel, 172-73.

14 Stephen Schumacher and Gert Woerner, eds., The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion (Boston: Shambhala

Publications, 1989), 356.

15 See, for example, Draeger and Smith, 16, 31-33.

16 Creel, 106.

17 Schumacher and Woerner, 358.

18 Charles Holcombe, "The Daoist Origins of the Chinese Martial Arts," Journal of Asian Martial Arts, January 1993, 13. Chi is understood to be the energy and matter produced by the interaction between yin and yang (see John P. Painter, "Will the Real Yin and Yang Please Stand Up?" Inside Kung-Fu, December 1991, 39-42; cf. Chan, 784).

19 Chow and Spangler, 24-25.

20 Ibid., 7-13. A number of scholars question the veracity of this claim, asserting that "combative arts of a shaolin nature existed long before Ta Mo [Bodhidharma] came to China" (P'ng Chye Khim and Donn F Draeger, Shaolin: An Introduction to Lohan Fighting Techniques [Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1979,] 15); cf. Holcombe, "Theater of Combat," 68; and Michael F. Speisbach, "Bodhidharma: Meditating Monk, Martial Arts Master or Make-Believe?" Journal of Asian Martial Arts, October 1992, 10-26.

21 Chow and Spangler, 11.

22 Maliszewski, 15.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid. The distinctions drawn between the "external/hard" and "internal/soft" can be misleading, for elements of one sometimes find their way into the other; cf. Draeger and Smith, 17-18.

25 Donn F. Draeger, Classical Bujutsu (New York: Weatherhill, 1990), 25.

26 Draeger and Smith, 83.

27 See Draeger, Classical Bujutsu, idem. Modern Bujutsu and Budo (New York: Weatherhill, 1974); and Oscar Ratti and Adele Westbrook, Secrets of the Samurai: A Survey of the Martial Arts of Feudal Japan (Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1979).

28 Draeger and Smith, 133.

29 Ibid.

30 Maliszewski, 25.

31 Ibid. For an example of ninjutsu mysticism, see Stephen K. Hayes, Ninja, Volume Two: Warrior Ways of Enlightenment (Burbank, CA: Ohara Publications, 1981), 143-59.

32 Maliszewski.

33 Draeger and Smith, 84.

34 Ibid., 85. On Folk Shinto, see Hori Ichiro, Japanese Religion: A Survey by the Agency for Cultural Affairs [Tokyo: Kodansha International Limited, 1981], 29-45, 121-43).

35 Draeger and Smith, 91.

36 Kisshomaru Ueshiba, The Spirit of Aikido, trans. Taitetsu Unno (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1987), 15. See also Draeger, Modern Bujutsu and Budo, 137-62.

37 Draeger, Modern Bujutsu and Budo, 118-19.

38 Ibid., 131; cf. Carrie Wingate, "Exploring Our Roots: Historical and Cultural Foundations of the Ideology of Karate-do," Journal of Asian Martial Arts, 2, 3 (1993): 10-35.

39 Robert Young, "The History and Development of Tae Kyon," Journal of Asian Martial Arts 2, 2 (1993): 46.

40 Young, 54.

41 Choi Hong Hi, Taekwon-Do: The Art of Self-Defense (Seoul, Korea: Daeha Publication Company, 1968), front jacket sleeve.

42 David Mitchell, The Overlook Martial Arts Handbook (Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press, 1988), 160.

43 Scott Shuger, "The Fine Art of Kicking," Women's Sports and Fitness, January 1986, 17.

44 Choi Hong Hi, 14.

45 James William Holzer, "Martial Arts in the Name of God?" Inside Kung Fu, March 1987, 72.

46 Cassia Herman, "Tae Yun Kim: Grandmaster Martial Artist," Body Mind and Spirit, Summer 1991, 54-58.

47 Daeshik Kim, Tae Kwon Do: Volume 2 (Seoul, Korea: NANAM Publications, 1991), 138.

48 Castinado, personal interview.

49 Draeger and Smith, 162.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 Maszilewski, 31.

53 Ibid., 32.

54 Ibid., 30.

55 Draeger and Smith, 189.

56 Ibid.

57 Maliszewski, 30; cf. Dan Inosanto, The Filipino Martial Arts (Los Angeles: Know Now Publishing Company, 1980), 12-13.

58 Draeger and Smith, 190.

59 See William K. Beaver, "Kajukenbo: The Perfected Art of Dirty Streetfighting," Karate/Kung-fu Illustrated, February 1992, 16-21.

60 Quoted in Dan Inosanto, Jeet Kune Do: The Art and Philosophy of Bruce Lee (Los Angeles: Know Now Publishing Company, 1980), 10.

61 Bruce Lee, Tao of Jeet Kune Do (Burbank, CA: Ohara Publications, 1975), 12.

62 Ibid.

(An article from the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1993, page 24)

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Enter the Dragon? Wrestling with the Martial Arts Phenomenon:Part Two: A Christian Assessmentby Erwin de Castro, B.J. Oropeza, and Ron Rhodes In Part One of this series we looked at the philosophical and religious elements that have helped shape the martial arts, and briefly discussed some of the most widely known styles practiced today. In this second and final installment we will consider the key issues faced by Christians contemplating participation in the martial arts.[1] EASTERN DANGER ZONE? One of the most serious concerns regarding the Christian's possible involvement with the martial arts stems from the fact that a good majority of them originated in Asian cultures permeated by a variety of Eastern religions. As we saw in Part One, Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, and various folk myths and traditions have, in varying degrees, contributed to the development of many Asian-based systems of fighting.

As researchers involved in a discernment ministry (the Christian Research Institute), one of our greatest concerns is that Christians who participate in the martial arts - especially Christian children - might be contaminated to some extent by harmful aspects of Eastern thought. This, of course, must be avoided. There can be no compromise when it comes to one's relationship with Christ.

The question is, must one necessarily compromise his or her relationship with Christ and endanger his or her spiritual life in order to participate in the martial arts? In what follows we shall consider a number of key issues that will help us answer this important question. The Religious Root of the Problem The charge is sometimes made that the martial arts are little more than an expression of Eastern religious thought and are therefore wholly incompatible with orthodox Christianity. While concerns about Eastern influences are legitimate and should be seriously considered, we believe this type of reasoning is simplistic. It ignores the complexity of the situation by dismissing altogether every facet of the martial arts simply due to the nature of their Eastern origin.

This type of reasoning is an example of the genetic fallacy. Such thinking demands that "something (or someone) should be rejected because it (or he) comes from a bad source."[2] It attempts "to reduce the significance of an idea, person, practice, or institution merely to an account of its origin (genesis) or its earlier forms, thereby overlooking the development, regression, or difference to be found in it in the present situation."[3]

There are many ways we could illustrate the genetic fallacy. For example, when Philip (in the Bible) told Nathanael about Jesus of Nazareth, Nathanael committed the genetic fallacy by asking, "Nazareth! Can anything good come

from there?" (John 1:46). Another example relates to wedding rings. A person might argue, "You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized the ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice."[4]

Still another example is found in the science of astronomy. One might attempt to condemn astronomy simply because it originated from astrology, an occultic art condemned by God (Isa. 47:13-15). But such reasoning is clearly faulty.

Now, we must emphasize that the martial arts have undergone vast changes since their early beginnings and continue to do so even today. To dismiss all martial arts as anti-Christian simply because of the initial religious context from which they arose is to ignore the dynamic character of the arts themselves. It has been our finding that the degree to which any form of Eastern religion finds its way into regular training regimens has more to do with the approach of the individual instructors themselves, whose opinions are as varied as the arts they teach.

To be sure, there are teachers today who see the martial arts as part of a larger, comprehensive package that involves religious elements. Yozan Dirk Mosig, 8th-degree black belt and chairman of the regional directors for the United States Karate Association (USKA), makes no qualms that Eastern philosophy should be the focal point of all martial arts curricula: "Karatedo, aikido, kyudo and many others are ways of extending the meditative experience of zazen [Zen meditation] to daily life." Indeed, Mosig says, "he who practices martial arts without the mental discipline of zazen is like a fool who comes to eat without a chopstick."[5]

Yet, many disagree with Mosig. Louis Casamassa, head of the Red Dragon Karate System, is representative in saying that today "the martial arts and religion are as far apart in ideology as Albert Schweitzer is from Adolph Hitler."[6] Likewise, keichu-do karate founder Karl Marx, a 50-year veteran of the martial arts and an avowed Christian, says that "the average American [martial arts] instructor doesn't even bother with the mental/spiritual aspect of his art."[7]

Christian pastors and kung fu veterans, Raul and Xavier Ries, affirm that a number of martial arts practitioners do become entrenched in religious and mystical practices. However, the brothers are quick to point out, "We do not condone that. We do not believe that is necessary."[8] The martial arts, they contend, are just like other forms of art that can either be used to bring glory to God or abused to bring glory to oneself. Such Christian practitioners of the martial arts completely divorce the physical aspect of the arts from the Eastern religions from which they emerged. (More on this

shortly.) The Broad Spectrum of Martial Arts Given the great diversity of the Asian martial arts, it is hardly surprising that some styles tend to emphasize Eastern philosophical and religious beliefs more so than others. In fact, a broad spectrum of the various arts can be projected today, ranging from those that are purely physical and sportive in character to those steeped in mysticism. For this reason, Christians considering participation in the martial arts must be extremely discerning and select an art located only on the purely physical/sportive side of the spectrum.

Here is a good rule of thumb: generally speaking, the "internal" or "soft" martial arts - such as t'ai-chi ch'uan and aikido - tend to emphasize Eastern philosophical and religious concepts more so than the "external" or "hard" martial arts, such as kung fu and judo. Put another way, most "internal/soft" martial arts fall on the mystical side of the spectrum while most "external/hard" arts fall on the physical/sportive side of the spectrum.

The "internal/soft" arts generally focus on inner spiritual development, balance, form, and mental awareness. Besides emphasizing Taoist and Buddhist philosophical principles, stress is also placed on utilizing the chi (ki) force. By contrast, the "external/hard" martial arts typically involve an intense regimen of body conditioning, stress powerful foot and hand strikes, respond to force with force, and tend to avoid Eastern mystical elements. Hence, on the whole, the Christian should avoid participating in "internal/soft" martial arts and select an art from the "external/hard" category.

Having said this, however, we must make a few important qualifications. On the one hand, while "internal/soft" martial arts generally involve Eastern philosophical/religious elements, in some cases the physical aspect of the art may be isolated from the philosophical/religious context. This is the case with the so-called Koga method employed by several law enforcement agencies. "Drawing heavily on the ['internal/soft'] martial art aikido, the method stresses minimal force during confrontations to reduce the likelihood of injury to police officers and suspects."[9] However, common aikido concerns - such as learning to utilize the chi force, and attuning one's spirit and body with the universe - are not part of Koga, which focuses strictly on physical techniques and their proper application.

On the other hand, while most "external/hard" martial arts avoid or minimize Eastern religious elements, in some cases an "external/hard" art retains some religious trappings. The Indonesian-based style pentjak-silat, for example, is oftentimes colored by an eclectic blend of animism, shamanism, occultism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sufism.[10]

What, then, can we conclude? The "internal/soft" and "external/hard" designations can be helpful in choosing an art as a general rule, but in select cases the designations may prove problematic since elements of one occasionally overlap into the other. More often than not, the instructor of a given school - whether "external/hard" or "internal/soft" - becomes the deciding factor. The instructor might present a martial art to students as a strictly physical activity for fitness and protection, or as an all-encompassing world view that involves religious elements. Choosing the right instructor, then, becomes a critical issue in relation to the Christian's possible involvement in the martial arts. Issues of Discernment Two areas of concern for the Christian considering participation in the martial arts - both related to the Eastern origins of the arts - are meditation and the use of the so-called chi force. Because these elements surface in some martial arts today, it is critical to have a proper perspective on them.

Meditation. Within the context of the martial arts, meditation has generally referred to those practices that involve "the focusing of attention non-analytically in either a concentrated or expansive fashion, the outcome of which can lead to an alteration in consciousness, an increase in awareness and insight, or a combination of such psychological factors."[11] It is said that diligent practice of meditation "leads to a non-dualistic state of mind in which, the distinction between subject and object having disappeared and the practitioner having become one with 'god' or 'the absolute,' conventions like time and space are transcended[until] finally that stage is reached which religions refer to as salvation, liberation, or complete enlightenment."[12]

The Christian, of course, must not participate in such forms of meditation - for at least three reasons. First, its goal is to provide the practitioner a way (if not the way) to ultimate truth and freedom through sheer human effort, thus advocating a form of self-salvation over and against what the Bible explicitly teaches (Eph. 2:8-9). In so doing, it ignores man's fallen nature (Rom. 3:10-12) and denies Christ's exclusive claim as the way to salvation (John 14:6).

Second, Eastern meditation's stated goal of transforming one's state of mind into a monistic ("all is one"), if not an outright pantheistic ("all is God"), outlook lies in direct contradiction to biblical theism. The latter recognizes an eternal distinction between a personal Creator-God and His creation (Isa. 44:6-8; Heb. 2:6-8).

Third, such altered states of consciousness can open one up to spiritual affliction and deception by the powers of darkness. This alone should serve

to dissuade any Christian from participating in Eastern forms of meditation.

Fortunately, not all martial arts schools utilize such meditation. One scholar has noted that "within various schools of fighting arts, particularly in America, a very small number of practitioners value the role of formal meditation as an adjunctive method of realizing one's essential nature or attaining optimal psychological development (enlightenment)."[13] This underscores our point that choosing the right instructor is absolutely critical.

Additionally, we must note that not all martial arts instructors interpret meditation in the same way. For some, meditation involves nothing more than putting aside passing thoughts and other distractions that would otherwise cause personal disruption during practice sessions. "Meditation" of this variety is generally devoid of mysticism and differs little from the focused concentration of an athlete getting ready to shoot a basketball from the free-throw line or a golfer preparing to putt on the green.

While this latter form of "meditation" is not necessarily harmful or antibiblical, it nevertheless should be distinguished from biblical meditation. Scripture defines meditation in terms of the believer objectively contemplating and reflecting on God and His Word (Josh. 1:8; Ps. 1:2).

The Chi (Ki) Force. Various martial artists assert that learning to develop and use chi - an alleged mystical force that pervades the universe - is the ultimate means of attaining high proficiency in the fighting arts. Some believe that "in the Asian system of Martial Arts, ch'i is directed by will power to specific points of the body, resulting in apparently paranormal feats of strength and control."[14]

Practically everyone acknowledges that the traditional concept of chi is deeply rooted in Eastern religion and philosophy. "In the Orient we apply the word ki ('chi') to the state which is also the real nature of the universe," wrote leading aikido authority Koichi Tohei. "Ki has no beginning and no end; its absolute value neither increases nor decreases. We are one with the universal, and our lives are part of the life of the universal."[15] Tohei's understanding of chi, in line with traditional views of other martial artists, strongly suggests a monistic and pantheistic world view. As stated above, this is incompatible with historic Christianity.

Still, there remains the issue of explaining superhuman acts typically attributed to chi, such as the smashing of multiple slabs of ice with a single blow. Some insist that the only explanation possible is the power of chi. Those on the opposite side of the spectrum, however, believe such exhibitions are accomplished by rigorous conditioning, simple physics, and

good technique which, at times, is aided with a dash of trickery (as in the case of thawing the slabs of ice with hot wire). Some have suggested that perhaps certain biochemical reactions - such as an adrenaline surge - may also be involved.[16]

Christian martial artist Keith Yates has suggested that because such phenomenal skills developed over the centuries within Oriental cultures, "the explanation of the phenomenon is often couched in mystical, theologically pantheistic terms." In reality, Yates argues, these skills are "merely the God-given capabilities of the human mind and body harnessed."[17]

Despite such alternative explanations, we believe Christians should avoid all chi-related activities that supposedly enhance one's ability to harness, circulate, and unleash this mystical power. Ancient esoteric practices, especially those designed to improve alleged mystical powers, have no place in the Christian life. Moreover, there remains a possibility that in at least some cases, supernatural capabilities can be attributed to demonic power.

Now, we recognize that there have been attempts by some Christian martial artists to redefine chi to make it compatible with the Christian world view. (Some, for example, have claimed that chi is the Holy Spirit.) At best, however, such attempts only serve to cloud the issue. Utilizing an Eastern religious term while changing its historically understood meaning is not unlike the practice of non-Christian religions when they employ Christian terminology and pour different meanings into the words. (New Agers, for instance, redefine the Christian term "born again" to mean reincarnation.) Such semantical manipulation only serves to mask the real and present danger of involvement with chi. THE MARTIAL ARTS AND SELF-DEFENSE Besides concerns related to Eastern religion and philosophy, another issue the Christian must grapple with is, Should Christians use physical force to defend themselves? Christians have different opinions on this issue. The Path of Nonresistance Christian pacifists believe it is always wrong to injure other humans, no matter what the circumstances. And the same principles supporting pacifism carry over to nonresistance - the belief that any form of self-defense is wrong. This view is usually based on the exemplary life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

According to Christian pacifist John Yoder, Jesus rejected the existing political state of affairs and taught a form of radical nonviolence. Central to Christ's teaching, Yoder says, is His biblical mandate to "turn the other cheek" when encountering violence (Matt. 5:38-48).

In Yoder's view, the way to victorious living is to refrain from the game of sociopolitical control. Jesus exposed the futility of the violence engrafted in the present world system by resisting its inclinations even to the point of death. Hence, Christians are to refuse the world's violent methods and follow their Savior to the cross (Matt. 26:47-52).[18] "Turn the Other Cheek" Always? We do not believe pacifism (or nonresistance) is the essential point of Christ's teaching in Matthew 5:38-42. Nor do we believe Christ was teaching to "turn the other cheek" in virtually all circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (John 18:22-23).

The backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount would seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (cf. Rom. 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian's personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger, or a woman using the martial arts against a rapist.

In terms of following Christ's example, one must remember that His personal nonresistance at the cross was intertwined with His unique calling. He did not evade His arrest because it was God's will for Him to fulfill His prophetic role as the redemptive Lamb of God (Matt. 26:52-56). During His ministry, however, He refused to be arrested because God's timing for His death had not yet come (John 8:59). Thus, Christ's unique nonresistance during the Passion does not mandate against self-protection. The Biblical Case for Self-Defense Though the Bible is silent regarding the Asian martial arts, it nonetheless records many accounts of fighting and warfare. The providence of God in war is exemplified by His name YHWH Sabaoth ("The LORD of hosts" - Exod. 12:41). God is portrayed as the omnipotent Warrior-Leader of the Israelites. God, the LORD of hosts, raised up warriors among the Israelites called the shophetim (savior-deliverers). Samson, Deborah, Gideon, and others were anointed by the Spirit of God to conduct war. The New Testament commends Old Testament warriors for their military acts of faith (Heb. 11:30-40). Moreover, it is significant that although given the opportunity to do so, none of the New Testament saints - nor even Jesus - are ever seen informing a military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 3:14).

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to purchase a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Cor. 11:26-27). Here the "sword" (maxairan) is a "dagger or short sword [that] belonged to the Jewish

traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals."[19] It is perfectly clear from this passage that Jesus approved of self-defense.

Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ said, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14). When protecting one's family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.

The late Francis Schaeffer put it this way: The Bible is clear here: I am to love my neighbor as myself, in the manner needed, in a practical way, in the midst of the fallen world, at my particular point of history. This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in this poor world in which we live - this lost world - means that we desert the people who need our greatest help. What if you come upon a big, burly man beating a tiny tot to death and plead with him to stop. Suppose he refuses? What does love mean now? Love means that I stop him in any way I can, including hitting him. To me this is not only necessary for humanitarian reasons: it is loyalty to Christ's commands concerning Christian love in a fallen world. What about the little girl? If I desert her to the bully, I have deserted the true meaning of Christian love - responsibility to my neighbor.[20]

J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler likewise say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally" (emphases added).[21]

We affirm, then, that Scripture allows Christians to use force for self-defense against crime and injustice. If self-defense is scripturally justifiable so long as it is conducted without unnecessary violence, then so are the martial arts (the physical aspect only).[22] GUIDELINES FOR DISCERNMENT Because the question of whether a Christian should participate in the martial arts involves gray areas, we believe it is worthwhile to consider some guidelines for discernment. These guidelines, while not exhaustive, can help one decide whether to get involved with a martial art in the first place. If that decision turns out in the affirmative, the guidelines will then steer one away from those instructors who teach an Eastern world view and/or incorporate excessive violence. Examine Your Motives Christians must be honest with themselves, evaluating why they desire to participate in the martial arts. Negatively, some reasons might be to become

"a tough guy," to get revenge against someone, or perhaps to pridefully "show off." Positively, some reasons might relate to staying in shape physically, practicing self-discipline, or perhaps training for self-defense against muggers or rapists. The Christian should not get involved in the martial arts with unworthy motives. Examine Your Conscience Christians must realize that practicing the martial arts will teach them maneuvers, blows, and kicks that could severely injure a person when actually used in a hostile confrontation. For this reason, they must examine their consciences regarding the potential use of force against another human being. Consider the Commitment Not only is a commitment of time required to practice the martial arts, but Christians must also decide whether they will be able to endure the discipline needed to be an effective student. Such arts are generally very strenuous and demanding.

Like other sports, the martial arts can produce surprise setbacks through injuries. Breaking boards and bricks, punching, kicking, grappling, and so forth can cause arthritis, injured limbs, and other health problems in the long run. Is it worth it?

Certainly Christians should not allow a martial art to overshadow or detract from their religious commitments (Heb. 10:25). They should weigh whether they can afford to spend the time and money needed each week in practicing the martial arts. Could these resources be better spent in another endeavor? Consider the Instructor The Christian should ascertain whether the instructor under consideration is himself (or herself) a Christian, a professing Christian with an Eastern world view, a nonreligious non-Christian, or a religious non-Christian. If the trainer subscribes to an Eastern world view, this will likely carry over into his teaching of the martial arts. One should seek to discover whether the instructor encourages an Eastern concept of meditation, chi, or Eastern philosophies. Also, one should seek to ascertain whether the instructor teaches and exemplifies good sportsmanship, respect for others, humility, and avoids altercations whenever possible. We believe that the choice of the right instructor is probably the single most important consideration. Consider the Classroom of a Prospective School The Christian should keep an eye out for Eastern religious books, symbols, and the like, that might be in the training hall. This may help one discern what practices and beliefs are being espoused during training.

Many schools start new students on a trial basis. Such a trial could help the Christian solidify his or her decision.

It may also be prudent to observe an advanced class. This will help the

prospective student determine whether Eastern philosophy is taught only as the practitioner progresses. Consider Your Testimony Before Others Because this is a controversial area, the Christian must be careful not to cause a weaker Christian to stumble by practicing a martial art (Rom. 14:21). A younger Christian might become disillusioned seeing a respected brother or sister practicing the martial arts, thinking that such involvement is a compromise of the faith. Or perhaps a weaker Christian might conclude (for example) that it's okay to practice Zen meditation since his more mature brother practices the martial arts, thereby (apparently) giving approval for all that is involved in the martial arts.

In view of such possibilities, if one becomes involved in the martial arts one should be discrete as to how one exhibits his or her involvement before one's circle of friends. One must be especially careful to guard against inadvertently communicating an endorsement of more than just the physical sport aspect of the martial arts.

In the event a brother or sister becomes stumbled, one must determine specifically what issue has become the point of offense (e.g., the use of physical force, the "chi" force, or meditation). One must then address the issue, clarifying any misconceptions the person may have (e.g., physical force is to be used for self-defense only; there should be no use of "chi;" Eastern meditation is off limits). Such clarifications may sufficiently relieve the brother or sister's concern. Pray for Wisdom Scripture tells us, "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him" (James 1:5). Christians considering participation in the martial arts should pray for wisdom regarding the specific concerns raised in this article. THE BIG "IF" We have noted some of the dangers of involvement in the martial arts - particularly as related to Eastern mysticism. But we have also drawn attention to the genetic fallacy, the dynamic nature of the martial arts, and the possibility of completely divorcing the physical aspect of individual martial art styles from Eastern influences (such as Eastern meditation and use of the chi force). Further, we have set forth a biblical case for self-defense and provided guidelines for discernment.

What can we conclude? Our studied opinion is that if precautions are taken - if one studies under an instructor (preferably a Christian) who completely divorces the physical art from faith-destroying Eastern influences - if one maintains a proper Christian perspective regarding violence and the use of force - if the purpose of the instruction is primarily to learn self-defense and/or engage in physical conditioning - if one is careful not to cause a weaker brother to stumble - then it is possible for the discerning Christian

to participate in the martial arts. Such Christians would be wise to make the apostle Paul's words to the Thessalonians a permanent part of their life philosophy: "Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil" (1 Thess. 5:21-22). NOTES 1 The authors wish to thank Richard Bustillo, Scot Conway, and Wesley Tetsuji Kan for their insights.

2 Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come Let Us Reason (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 107.

3 T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 2d ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1987), 101.

4 Ibid.

5 Yonzan Dirk Mosig, "Zen Meditation and the Art of Kobudo," United States Karate Association, Forum, 1 December 1990, n.p.

6 James William Holzer, "Martial Arts in the Name of GOD?" Inside Kung-Fu, March 1987, 71.

7 Personal interview with Karl Marx, 11 January 1994.

8 Personal interview with Raul and Xavier Ries (pastors - respectively, of Calvary Chapel of Diamond Bar, California and Calvary Chapel of Pasadena, California - who hold 8th-degree black belts in kung fu, which they have been teaching for over 20 years), 29 December 1993.

9 Eric Young, "Irvine Police Learning Zen of Suspect Control," Los Angeles Times, B4, B10.

10 See James Wilson, "Chasing the Magic: Mysticism and Martial Arts on the Islands of Java," Journal of Asian Martial Arts 2 (1993): 10-43.

11 Michael Maliszewski, "Meditative-Religious Traditions of Fighting Arts and Martial Ways," Journal of Asian Martial Arts, July 1992, 8.

12 Stephan Schuhmacher and Gert Woerner, eds. The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1989), 224.

13 Maliszewski, 35.

14 Leslie A. Shepard, Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 3 vols. (Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1984), 1:224.

15 Koichi Tohei, Aikido in Daily Life (Tokyo: Rikugei Publishing House, 1966), 87.

16 See, for example, Keith D. Yates, "The Demystification of Ki," Inside Karate, March 1985, 6-7.

17 Keith D. Yates, The Demystification of Ki, master's thesis submitted to Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1983, 3.

18 John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), ch. 2, 5, 8.

19 Myrtle Langley, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 3:978.

20 Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, reprinted in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, vol. 4 (Westchester: Crossway Books, 1982), 391.

21 J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler, The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time (New York: Praeger, 1990), 135.

22 Some have claimed that the martial arts inevitably lead to violence. This viewpoint is enflamed by the violent martial arts caricatures portrayed on the silver screen. In real life, however, the martial arts are not nearly so violent. If some students become violent, it is usually not the martial arts qua martial arts that are to blame. Most trainers teach students self-control, respect for others and oneself, and the necessity of avoiding altercations whenever possible. Moreover, some studies have suggested that individuals who practice the martial arts for a prolonged period are actually less aggressive than the general population (see Michael E. Trulson, Chong W. Kim, and Vernon R. Padget, "That Mild-Mannered Bruce Lee," Psychology Today, January 1985, 79).

(An article from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994, page 24)

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

"Millennial Madness"by Ron Rhodes "Book your mountain top while there's still time," the soothsayer says. "You may find them in increasingly short supply as we draw near A.D. 2000."

Millennial madness. It swept across the world at near-epidemic levels just prior to A.D. 1000, and we will no doubt witness much of the same as we approach the turn of the second millennium. Some are predicting imminent doom, others a glorious utopia. Either way, millennial madness is on the rise and will almost certainly afflict a significant share of humanity over the next decade.

Millennial Madness: Act 1. Just before A.D. 1000, many believed the end was near. To prepare for the end, "men forgave their neighbors' debts, people confessed their infidelities and wrongdoings. The churches were besieged by crowds demanding confession and absolution. Prisoners were freed yet many remained wishing to expiate their sins before the end."[1]

As Christmas (A.D. 999) arrived, there was an outpouring of love. Stores gave away food; merchants refused payment. On December 31 the frenzy reached new heights. Pope Sylvester II held a midnight mass in the Basilica of St. Peter's in Rome. There was a standing-room-only audience - but the people weren't standing; they were on their knees.

After the mass had been said, a deathly silence fell over the congregation. Finally, as the clock uneventfully ticked past 12, church bells began ringing. Amid weeping and laughing, husbands and wives embraced. Friends exchanged "the kiss of peace." Enemies were reconciled.

But life soon resumed its normal rhythm. "Merchants ceased giving away their goods. Prisoners were captured to be placed back in the slammer. Debts were remembered. And life went on as if nothing happened."[2]

Millennial Madness: Act 2. Now it's our turn. There are growing signs that we are in for a similar outbreak of mass hysteria as we approach A.D. 2000.

New Agers are representative of those who look for a utopia. Ken Carey, author of several New Age handbooks, envisions A.D. 2000 as a kind of psychic watershed, beyond which lies "a realizable utopian society."[3] David Spangler agrees, noting that the Mayan and Aztec civilizations believed that a "cycle of dark ages" would end before A.D. 2000; following this, a New Age of harmony and wholeness will emerge.[4]

Other soothsayers have predicted doom. Shortly before his death in 1961, Carl G. Jung had a series of visions and saw worldwide catastrophe prior to A.D. 2010. In recent months, Elizabeth Clare Prophet of the Church Universal

and Triumphant has been saying that an "Ascended Master" has informed her that catastrophe awaits the world. She says Russia is about to invade the U.S. and thus has directed her followers to build large bomb shelters to house the faithful.

Millennial madness has grievously afflicted some who write about the Rapture and/or second coming of Christ. Prophecy teacher Mary Stewart Relfe claimed she received revelations indicating the Second Coming will occur in 1997.[5] Lester Sumrall said in his book, I Predict 2000 A.D.: "I predict the absolute fulness of man's operation on planet Earth by the year 2000 A.D. Then Jesus Christ shall reign from Jerusalem for 1000 years."[6]

We have witnessed only the beginning of millennial madness for the coming decade. As one observer has commented, the approach of the year 2000 will undoubtedly bring "a synergistic climb toward panic" that will produce social effects that are both "substantial" and "potentially dangerous."[7]

I can think of eight reasons Christians should maintain millennial sanity in the coming years. First, over the past 2,000 years, the track record of those who have predicted and/or expected "the end" has been 100 percent wrong. The history of doomsday predictions is little more than a history of dashed expectations. Though it is possible we are living in the last days, it is also possible that Christ's second coming is a long way off.

Second, those who succumb to millennial madness may end up making harmful decisions for their lives. Selling one's possessions and heading for the mountains, purchasing bomb shelters, stopping education, leaving family and friends - these are destructive actions that can ruin one's life.

Third, Christians who succumb to millennial madness (for example, by expecting the rapture to occur by a specific date) may end up damaging their faith in the Bible (especially prophecy) when their expectations fail.

Fourth, if one loses confidence in the prophetic portions of Scripture, biblical prophecy ceases to be a motivation to purity and holiness in daily life (see, e.g., Titus 2:12-14).

Fifth, Christians who succumb to millennial madness may damage the faith of new and/or immature believers when predicted events fail to materialize.

Sixth, millennial soothsayers tend to be sensationalistic, and sensationalism is unbefitting to a Christian. Christ calls His followers to live soberly and alertly as they await His coming (Mark 13:32-37).

Seventh, Christians who get caught up in millennial madness can do damage to the cause of Christ. Humanists enjoy scorning Christians who have put stock

in end-time predictions (especially when specific dates have been attached to specific events). Why give "ammo" to the enemies of Christianity?

Eighth, the timing of end-time events is in God's hands, and we haven't been given the details (Acts 1:7). As far as the Second Coming is concerned, I close with the sound advice of David Lewis: "It is better to live as if Jesus were coming today and yet prepare for the future as if He were not coming for a long time. Then you are ready for time and eternity."[8] Notes 1 Frederick Marten, The Story of Human Life and Doomsday, summarized in Critique, June-September 1989, 65.

2 Ibid.

3 Bill Lawren, "Are You Ready for Millennial Fever?" Utne Reader, March/ April 1990, 96.

4 Emergence, Dell, 1984, 19.

5 Economic Advisor, 28 Feb. 1983.

6 LeSEA, 1987, 74.

7 James Oberg, quoted by Lawren, 97.

8 Prophecy Intelligence Digest 6, no. 3, 3.

(An article from the Viewpoint column of the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1990, page 39)

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 2526 Frisco, TX 75034

"Recovering from the Recovery Movement"by Ron Rhodes

The words "addiction" and "recovery" have become household words in our society. The song "Addicted to Love" was a number one best seller this past year in the secular rock music world. At the time of this writing, the album "Addicted to Jesus," by Carmen, is the top selling Christian album in the United States. Today recovery experts tell us that people with various behavioral problems are addicted to those behaviors. Hence, there are not only drug and alcohol addicts, but also sex addicts, love addicts, money addicts, shoplifting addicts, child abuse addicts, fast boat addicts, successful business addicts, religious addicts, and a host of others.

Such "addicts" are in need of "recovery," we are told, and the recovery industry has virtually exploded in the past decade. One indicator of this is that the Hallmark company has recently released a "recovery" line of 51 cards. The company is also marketing recovery bookmarks, buttons, key chains, framed prints, mugs, journals, magnets, T-shirts, and even self-stick notes.

The marketing experts at Hallmark say that 15 million Americans now attend weekly support groups for chemical addictions and other problems. (Some "experts," as we shall see, place the figure much, much higher.) Another 100 million relatives are cheering on their addicted loved ones. This means that half of all Americans are either "in recovery" or helping someone who is.[1]

Statistics reveal that between 1978 and 1984 private residential treatment centers increased by 350 percent in this country and case loads quadrupled. This was largely due to the marketing savvy of the recovery industry.[2] As well, experts say that there are now as many as five hundred thousand self-help (recovery) group meetings every week in America.[3]

Citing figures much higher than Hallmark's, an article entitled "Making Room for the Recovery Boom" in a recent issue of Library Journal reports that there are now 140 different kinds of support groups in this country with approximately 45 million members. Recovery is "everywhere," the Journal reports, and "there are a plethora of titles from publishers."[4]

There are recovery groups for just about any problem one can imagine. Groups include Overeaters Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Spenders Anonymous, Debtors Anonymous, Fundamentalists Anonymous, Parents Anonymous, Child Abusers Anonymous, Workaholics Anonymous, Shoplifters Anonymous, Pills Anonymous, and Emotions Anonymous.

Many such groups teach those who attend that they are "diseased" by their addiction. Messies Anonymous, for example, teaches that messy housekeeping

is a disease. Kleptomaniacs Anonymous teaches that stealing is a disease. Compulsive Shoppers Anonymous teaches that consumerism is a disease. Even Christian recovery writers speak of behavioral problems as "diseases."[5] Apparently, we live in a very sick society.THE PAST-PRESENT CONNECTION Recovery writers tell us that a key component in recovering from behavioral "addictions" is that one's present problems are inextricably connected to past traumas. One cannot recover, we are told, without understanding and analyzing these bygone hurts. The ghosts of the past must be silenced.

In their book Love Is a Choice, Roger Hemfelt, Frank Minirth, and Paul Meier say that "our concept of family and adulthood is shaped by our childhood, and we are bound (or condemned, some would say) to repeat the family experience we remember" (emphasis in original).[6] Indeed, they say, "unresolved issues in childhood, particularly matters having to do with abuse or neglect, doom the emerging adult to recreate, to repeat, the past. This compulsive need effectively eliminates freedom of choice. It is infinitely worse for the Christian. The ability to hear and follow God's will is stifled. The compulsion becomes the guiding force."[7]

From reading the above, it is clear that Hemfelt, Minirth, and Meier (and other Christian recovery writers) place a heavy emphasis on subconscious drives, motivations, and compulsions. Stressing the importance of the subconscious mind, Hemfelt, Minirth, and Meier write: "Only a small percentage of the brain is under conscious control. We are responsible for this part of our thought processes. The vast majority of brain function is subconscious."[8] Moreover, they point out, only "twenty percent of our decisions come from the conscious, reasoning mind. The rest come from deep within."[9] By examining our past, we are told, we can resolve some of the subconscious turmoil that is disrupting our behavior in the present.

Another related assumption in the recovery movement is that a lack of self-esteem is largely responsible for much of what is wrong in our lives. A brochure for the (Christian) Rapha Hospital Treatment Centers tells us that "at the core of all emotional problems and addictive disorders is low self-worth."[10] The matching assumption is that if one's self-esteem is properly restored, then such problems can be largely corrected. The restoration of self-esteem in the "addict" is often viewed as the critical factor in helping an individual "recover."[11]CRITIQUING THE RECOVERY MOVEMENT In preparing for this article, I read over a dozen Christian recovery books. Having done this, I have no hesitation in affirming that the writers in the Christian recovery movement are committed evangelical Christians. In most of the books I found clear affirmations of the essentials of the Christian faith -- including man's sin problem, Christ's death on the cross for our sins, and the need to place faith in Christ for salvation.[12] And most

affirm that, ultimately, God is the answer to our "dependency" problems.[13] Nevertheless, I have serious reservations about certain aspects of the Christian recovery movement.The Mislabeling of Behavioral Problems Critics have argued -- correctly, in my view -- that it is illegitimate to apply labels such as "addiction" to behaviors. Dr. John Temerin at Cornell Medical School has commented that "the whole concept of addiction is in danger of becoming meaningless." He also notes that "calling any kind of compulsive habit people have trouble managing an addiction moves addiction far away from the basic meaning, which is a biological dependence."[14]

Along these same lines, an article on recovery in the New York Times cited the Psychiatric News, which said: "Addiction medicine is at risk of becoming the laughingstock of the medical community by forcing everything into a Procrustean model of addiction."[15] Procrustes was a giant in Greek mythology who seized travelers and made them all fit in a bed, either by stretching them or cutting off their legs.

Another example of mislabeling is the practice of calling behavioral problems "diseases." Now, of course, there are some mental disorders that can affect behavior -- schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease, and some forms of depression -- that are associated with physical diseases. But does this mean that behavior can be diseased?

It is critical to recognize that there is an element of volition in behavior that is not present in real, biological diseases. People do not succumb to apoplexy the way they succumb to adultery. Stanton Peele, in his book Diseasing of America: Addiction Treatment Out of Control, says that "disease definitions undermine the individual's obligation to control behavior and to answer for misconduct. They legitimatize, reinforce, and excuse the behaviors in question -- convincing people, contrary to all evidence, that their behavior is not their own."[16]

Critics thus emphasize that a "disease" is something one has; "behavior" has to do with what one does. Addressing this issue, anthropologist Melvin Konner said: "We would all like to point at an illness -- a psychiatric label -- and say of our weak or bad actions, 'That thing, the illness, did it, not me. It.' But at some point we must draw ourselves up to our full height, and say in a clear voice what we have done and why it was wrong. And we must use the word 'I' not 'it' or 'illness.' I did it. I. I."[17]

Now, to be fair, despite the fact that a number of Christian therapists have bought in to the disease model of behavioral addiction, they nevertheless emphasize personal responsibility much more than their secular counterparts.[18] They point out that one's so-called addiction to a particular behavior does not absolve him or her from being responsible for

that behavior.[19] However, I agree with those who say we should dispel with the "disease" concept of behavior altogether. Whether recovery writers want to admit it or not, calling a behavioral problem a "disease" can lessen one's sense of personal responsibility for engaging in that behavior.Roots in Humanistic Psychology Another problem I see is that, despite their Christian orientation, many Christian recovery writers have undiscerningly based much of their recovery model on assumptions rooted in the writings of humanistic and other secular psychologists -- including Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Carl Rogers, Alfred Adler, William James, Erich Fromm, and Abraham Maslow. These assumptions include the conscious-mind/subconscious-mind dichotomy, the effect of the subconscious mind on behavior, the past-present connection, and the self-esteem theory.

Now, it's not that such assumptions necessarily are false in every respect. It is possible for nonchristians -- including humanistic psychologists -- to stumble upon true principles of human behavior. And these could be integrated into a biblical framework by discerning Christians to help suffering people. However, on the basis of these assumptions, humanistic psychologists have developed larger theories on the nature of man and the method of changing man's behavior that are contrary to biblical teaching on these subjects.[20] Unfortunately, these larger theories have been uncritically accepted by many Christian writers. To illustrate my point, let us briefly consider two of the fundamental assumptions recovery writers make regarding how to change human behavior.

Self-Esteem. Is the reestablishing of self-esteem the key to "recovery?" While I believe there is a biblical basis for the Christian's sense of worth that is based on being created in the image of God and being the object of God's love (as evidenced by Christ's substitutionary death on the cross), I believe the answer to this question must be no. First, scientific studies have shown no cause-and-effect link between self-esteem and behavioral problems.[21] Moreover, when self-esteem is given priority it can easily conflict with the development of traits which the Bible accords much greater priority: self-denial and genuine humility (Mark 8:34-35; Rom. 12:3; Eph. 3:8; Phil. 2:3; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:1-5).

Related to this, based on reading a representative sampling of Christian recovery books, I don't think the doctrine of total depravity has received sufficient recognition in the recovery movement. Yes, Christian recovery leaders clearly acknowledge that people are infected by sin.[22] However, more often than not the bad in our lives is presented as being more the result of unjust social conditions or growing up in a bad environment. As one critic put it, "in place of the idea of original sin, recovery experts put forward their own first cause of all our ills -- the American [dysfunctional] family."[23]

C. K. Chesterton once observed that the doctrine of fallen man is a Christian belief for which there is overwhelming empirical evidence.[24] Indeed, as one looks at the evidence, it would seem that our psychologized society is not getting any better. If anything, it seems that people (and society) are "sicker" than ever.

We must emphasize that regardless of the attainment of self-esteem, people will continue to behave badly and suffer the consequences for their actions because they have a nature that is bent on evil. Feeling good about ourselves will not remove or alter this depravity. Hence, seeking self-esteem as a solution to inappropriate behavior seems misguided.

Focusing on the Past. I do not deny a past-present connection regarding how people behave. But I do question whether such an in-depth examination of one's past history and "resolving" childhood conflicts is a precondition to correct or appropriate behavior. I can't go along with the idea that "we are bound (or condemned, some would say) to repeat the family experience we remember" (emphasis in original), and that "unresolved issues in childhood doom the emerging adult to recreate, to repeat, the past."[25] This is too fatalistic for me. Besides, experts tell us that peoples' memories can and often do distort the facts to one degree or another.[26] Hence, a detailed investigation into the events of one's past may not yield an accurate picture of what actually happened in that distant time anyway.

The apostle Paul had a legalistic upbringing, and was guilty of severely persecuting the church prior to his conversion. But instead of focusing on the past, he declared, "Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:13-14). Should this not be our modus operandi as well?

Frankly, I like what secular writers Stan Katz and Aimee Kiu say about analyzing the past: "It's a bit like trying to drive a car while looking only in the rear view mirror. You don't get very far that way, and you run the risk of a crack-up. I prefer to check the rear view from time to time, making sure that the reflection is accurate, but concentrate most of my attention on the road ahead. Only if I see something gaining on me from behind do I stop to deal with it."[27]Recovery Groups: A Replacement for the Church? A serious problem I see with some who attend Christian recovery groups is that they come to consider the group a virtual replacement for the church, something that should never happen. An article on recovery in Christianity Today notes that "the problem comes when recovery from addictions becomes salvation in some final sense, and the therapy group becomes a church substitute."[28] Such concerns are all the more urgent when we hear

statements like that of psychologist Henry Cloud: "The recovery movement makes for a much more biblical church than we've seen so far."[29]

Dale Ryan, the executive director of the National Association for Christian Recovery, acknowledges that "support groups are by no means a replacement for the local church." But, he points out, "some go to a support group and find a level of honesty and integrity about life that is in contrast to what they experience in church. They wonder why one seems real and one seems pretend. It can be very confusing."[30]

Certainly, the church must take its failures seriously and remedy its past ineffectiveness in helping people deal with behavioral problems. But the church must remain the central institution for the gathering and helping of God's people, not a treatment center that involves thousands of dollars in expenses (even for minimal treatment).

Related to the above, it seems that the recovery movement has, to some extent, undermined the authority of pastors and others who minister in the local church. In a Christianity Today article, Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton College notes that "overpromotion of professional [psychological] services has undermined the confidence of clergy and laypersons in their capacity to minister effectively in the name of Christ."[31]

This undermining is reflected in a 1991 Christianity Today survey: "29 percent of readers have received counseling for themselves or a close family member within the past three years; they were three times more likely to receive it from a professional counselor or psychologist than from a pastor." For readers of Today's Christian Women, the percentage was even higher: 38 percent.[32] These statistics reveal an alarming lack of confidence in the abilities of local pastors to counsel church members, a phenomenon due in no small part to the marketing efforts of those in the recovery movement.BIBLICAL RECOVERY From my perspective, the pastor of the local church should be the primary counselor for the Christian. This is not to say that a biblically oriented recovery group is never warranted. Sometimes it may be. But why not make the pastor -- who interprets life's problems through the lens of Scripture -- the first step in the recovery process? Through a solid course of biblical (nonhumanistic) counseling from the pastor, the counselee may obtain all he or she needs to deal with his or her particular behavior problem.

Such biblical counseling should include:

An emphasis on the importance of becoming biblically literate. Biblical doctrine enables us to develop a realistic world view, without which we are doomed to ineffectual living (Matt. 22:23-33; Rom. 12:3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4).

Moreover, doctrine can protect us from false beliefs that can lead to destructive behavior (1 Tim. 4:1-6; 2 Tim. 2:18; Tit. 1:11).

An emphasis on what the Bible says about the nature of man -- including his soul (1 Pet. 2:11), his spirit (Rom. 8:16), his heart (Heb. 4:12), his conscience (1 Pet. 2:19), his mind (Rom. 12:2), as well as his sin nature and its effects (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:18; Rom. 1:18--3:20). An accurate understanding of man's nature is a prerequisite for prescribing the correct treatment for a particular behavioral problem.

A thorough understanding of man's sin nature is especially important. Too often, recovery experts speak of getting rid of "character defects" in the patient. However, the whole "old" self is defective or depraved (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:18; Rom. 1:18--3:20) and must go. As one critic put it, we do not need a tune-up in our lives. We need a brand new engine.

An emphasis on the threefold enemy of the Christian -- (1) the world (including the things of the world, which are expressions of "the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes, and the boasting of what he has and does," 1 John 2:16); (2) the flesh (the sinful nature itself, which is bent on sexual immorality, impurity, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy, and drunkenness, Gal. 5:20-21); and (3) the Devil (who seeks to tempt us [1 Cor. 7:5], deceive us [2 Cor. 11:14], afflict us [2 Cor. 12:7], and hinder us [1 Thess. 2:18]). All three of these "enemies" have some bearing on human behavior.

An emphasis on dependence upon the Holy Spirit. Scripture tells us that self-control is the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). And as we "walk" in the spirit (habitually depend upon the Spirit) (v. 25), such fruit will inevitably grow in our lives.

An emphasis on the sufficiency of God's grace in the midst of trying circumstances (2 Cor. 12:9-10). As the apostle Paul discovered, God's grace enables us to cope with difficulties that can be overwhelming when approached through human strength alone.

An emphasis on the role faith plays in the midst of trying circumstances (Heb. 11). Scripture says that without faith it is impossible to please God (v. 6). It is also true that without faith in God it is impossible to effectively deal with behavioral problems and live victorious Christian lives (cf. Acts 15:9; 1 Thess. 5:8).

A counseling regimen based on these and other practical truths may completely solve the counselee's problem. (There are a number of good materials available for those interested in a truly biblical method of counseling.[33]) But if, during the course of biblical counseling, it is

determined that a biblically oriented (nonhumanistic) recovery group would be helpful, then that becomes an option at this point.

I'm convinced that small groups can be beneficial -- if the purpose of the small group is to console, compassionately listen, empathize, and share experiences with one another. These are the hallmarks of true friendship, and such activity can contribute greatly to the healing of an individual who has been ravaged in some way in our impersonal and often callous world.

During the time the counselee is attending the group, however, I believe he or she should continue to meet with the pastor so that progress can be monitored. This way, the pastor can still play a significant role in the recovery process and continue to offer instructive counsel and prayer support. And once the person has recovered, he or she can then serve as a shining example to others of the truth of Paul's inspiring affirmation: "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me" (Phil. 4:13).NOTES 1 Marilyn Gardner, "The Marketing of 'Recovery,'" The Christian Science Monitor, 19 May 1992, 12.

2 Melinda Blau, "Adult Children Tied to the Past," American Health, July-August 1990, 61.

3 Robert Hemfelt, Richard Fowler, Frank Minirth, Paul Meier, The Path To Serenity (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), 4.

4 Alice Dowd, "Making Room for the Recovery Boom," Library Journal, 1 May 1992, 49.

5 Hemfelt, Fowler, Minirth, and Meier, 8; Alfred Ells, One-Way Relationships (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990), 53; Stephen Arterburn, Addicted to "Love" (Ann Arbor, MI: Vine Books, 1991), 215; Grant Martin, When Good Things Become Addictions (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 24.

6 Robert Hemfelt, Frank Minirth, and Paul Meier, Love Is a Choice (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990), 27.

7 Ibid., 135.

8 Hemfelt, Fowler, Minirth, and Meier, 62.

9 Ibid., 65.

10 "Road to Recovery," Rapha Hospital Treatment Centers, Houston, TX.

11 Pat Springle, Learning More about Codependency (Dallas, TX: Rapha

Publishing/Word, 1991), 2, 3, 20.

12 Hemfelt, Minirth, and Meier, 277-78; Hemfelt, Fowler, Minirth, and Meier, 77-78, 126, 233; Martin, 166; Arterburn, 136.

13 E.g., Arterburn, 136.

14 Daniel Goleman, "As Addiction Medicine Gains, Experts Debate What It Should Cover," New York Times, 31 March 1992, B6.

15 Ibid.

16 Stanton Peele, Diseasing of America: Addiction Treatment Out of Control (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1989), 27-28.

17 Melvin Konner, "The I of the Storm," Los Angeles Times Magazine, 8 October 1989, 17.

18 E.g., Springle, 59.

19 Arterburn, 113-14.

20 Martin and Deidre Bobgan, critics of Christian psychology, met with Christian Research Institute's research staff and gave convincing evidence for this position. While I do not agree with everything the Bobgans set forth in their books, I believe they are right on this point.

21 Andrew M. Mecca, Neil J. Smelser, and John Vasconcellos, eds., The Social Importance of Self-Esteem (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989).

22 E.g., Arterburn, 113.

23 Michael Vincent Miller, "How We Suffer Now," The New York Times Book Review, 17 May 1992, 43.

24 William K. Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), 40.

25 Hemfelt, Minirth, and Meier, 27, 135.

26 Stan J. Katz and Aimee E. Kiu, The Codependency Conspiracy (New York: Warner Books, 1991), 105-23.

27 Ibid., 106.

28 Tim Stafford, "The Hidden Gospel of the 12 Steps," Christianity Today, 22 July 1991, 19.

29 Tim Stafford, "Franchising Hope," Christianity Today, 18 May 1992, 26.

30 Michael G. Maudlin, "Addicts in the Pew," Christianity Today, 22 July 1991, 21.

31 Stanton L. Jones, "Demonizing the Head Doctors," Christianity Today, 16 September 1991, 21.

32 Stafford, "Franchising Hope," 24.

33 Write the author at Christian Research Institute for a bibliography of suggested materials.

(An article from the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1992, page 8)

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 2526 Frisco, TX 75034

"Recovering from the Recovery Movement"by Ron Rhodes

The words "addiction" and "recovery" have become household words in our society. The song "Addicted to Love" was a number one best seller this past year in the secular rock music world. At the time of this writing, the album "Addicted to Jesus," by Carmen, is the top selling Christian album in the United States. Today recovery experts tell us that people with various behavioral problems are addicted to those behaviors. Hence, there are not only drug and alcohol addicts, but also sex addicts, love addicts, money addicts, shoplifting addicts, child abuse addicts, fast boat addicts, successful business addicts, religious addicts, and a host of others.

Such "addicts" are in need of "recovery," we are told, and the recovery industry has virtually exploded in the past decade. One indicator of this is that the Hallmark company has recently released a "recovery" line of 51 cards. The company is also marketing recovery bookmarks, buttons, key chains, framed prints, mugs, journals, magnets, T-shirts, and even self-stick notes.

The marketing experts at Hallmark say that 15 million Americans now attend weekly support groups for chemical addictions and other problems. (Some "experts," as we shall see, place the figure much, much higher.) Another 100 million relatives are cheering on their addicted loved ones. This means that half of all Americans are either "in recovery" or helping someone who is.[1]

Statistics reveal that between 1978 and 1984 private residential treatment centers increased by 350 percent in this country and case loads quadrupled. This was largely due to the marketing savvy of the recovery industry.[2] As well, experts say that there are now as many as five hundred thousand self-help (recovery) group meetings every week in America.[3]

Citing figures much higher than Hallmark's, an article entitled "Making Room for the Recovery Boom" in a recent issue of Library Journal reports that there are now 140 different kinds of support groups in this country with approximately 45 million members. Recovery is "everywhere," the Journal reports, and "there are a plethora of titles from publishers."[4]

There are recovery groups for just about any problem one can imagine. Groups include Overeaters Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Spenders Anonymous, Debtors Anonymous, Fundamentalists Anonymous, Parents Anonymous, Child Abusers Anonymous, Workaholics Anonymous, Shoplifters Anonymous, Pills Anonymous, and Emotions Anonymous.

Many such groups teach those who attend that they are "diseased" by their addiction. Messies Anonymous, for example, teaches that messy housekeeping

is a disease. Kleptomaniacs Anonymous teaches that stealing is a disease. Compulsive Shoppers Anonymous teaches that consumerism is a disease. Even Christian recovery writers speak of behavioral problems as "diseases."[5] Apparently, we live in a very sick society.THE PAST-PRESENT CONNECTION Recovery writers tell us that a key component in recovering from behavioral "addictions" is that one's present problems are inextricably connected to past traumas. One cannot recover, we are told, without understanding and analyzing these bygone hurts. The ghosts of the past must be silenced.

In their book Love Is a Choice, Roger Hemfelt, Frank Minirth, and Paul Meier say that "our concept of family and adulthood is shaped by our childhood, and we are bound (or condemned, some would say) to repeat the family experience we remember" (emphasis in original).[6] Indeed, they say, "unresolved issues in childhood, particularly matters having to do with abuse or neglect, doom the emerging adult to recreate, to repeat, the past. This compulsive need effectively eliminates freedom of choice. It is infinitely worse for the Christian. The ability to hear and follow God's will is stifled. The compulsion becomes the guiding force."[7]

From reading the above, it is clear that Hemfelt, Minirth, and Meier (and other Christian recovery writers) place a heavy emphasis on subconscious drives, motivations, and compulsions. Stressing the importance of the subconscious mind, Hemfelt, Minirth, and Meier write: "Only a small percentage of the brain is under conscious control. We are responsible for this part of our thought processes. The vast majority of brain function is subconscious."[8] Moreover, they point out, only "twenty percent of our decisions come from the conscious, reasoning mind. The rest come from deep within."[9] By examining our past, we are told, we can resolve some of the subconscious turmoil that is disrupting our behavior in the present.

Another related assumption in the recovery movement is that a lack of self-esteem is largely responsible for much of what is wrong in our lives. A brochure for the (Christian) Rapha Hospital Treatment Centers tells us that "at the core of all emotional problems and addictive disorders is low self-worth."[10] The matching assumption is that if one's self-esteem is properly restored, then such problems can be largely corrected. The restoration of self-esteem in the "addict" is often viewed as the critical factor in helping an individual "recover."[11]CRITIQUING THE RECOVERY MOVEMENT In preparing for this article, I read over a dozen Christian recovery books. Having done this, I have no hesitation in affirming that the writers in the Christian recovery movement are committed evangelical Christians. In most of the books I found clear affirmations of the essentials of the Christian faith -- including man's sin problem, Christ's death on the cross for our sins, and the need to place faith in Christ for salvation.[12] And most

affirm that, ultimately, God is the answer to our "dependency" problems.[13] Nevertheless, I have serious reservations about certain aspects of the Christian recovery movement.The Mislabeling of Behavioral Problems Critics have argued -- correctly, in my view -- that it is illegitimate to apply labels such as "addiction" to behaviors. Dr. John Temerin at Cornell Medical School has commented that "the whole concept of addiction is in danger of becoming meaningless." He also notes that "calling any kind of compulsive habit people have trouble managing an addiction moves addiction far away from the basic meaning, which is a biological dependence."[14]

Along these same lines, an article on recovery in the New York Times cited the Psychiatric News, which said: "Addiction medicine is at risk of becoming the laughingstock of the medical community by forcing everything into a Procrustean model of addiction."[15] Procrustes was a giant in Greek mythology who seized travelers and made them all fit in a bed, either by stretching them or cutting off their legs.

Another example of mislabeling is the practice of calling behavioral problems "diseases." Now, of course, there are some mental disorders that can affect behavior -- schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease, and some forms of depression -- that are associated with physical diseases. But does this mean that behavior can be diseased?

It is critical to recognize that there is an element of volition in behavior that is not present in real, biological diseases. People do not succumb to apoplexy the way they succumb to adultery. Stanton Peele, in his book Diseasing of America: Addiction Treatment Out of Control, says that "disease definitions undermine the individual's obligation to control behavior and to answer for misconduct. They legitimatize, reinforce, and excuse the behaviors in question -- convincing people, contrary to all evidence, that their behavior is not their own."[16]

Critics thus emphasize that a "disease" is something one has; "behavior" has to do with what one does. Addressing this issue, anthropologist Melvin Konner said: "We would all like to point at an illness -- a psychiatric label -- and say of our weak or bad actions, 'That thing, the illness, did it, not me. It.' But at some point we must draw ourselves up to our full height, and say in a clear voice what we have done and why it was wrong. And we must use the word 'I' not 'it' or 'illness.' I did it. I. I."[17]

Now, to be fair, despite the fact that a number of Christian therapists have bought in to the disease model of behavioral addiction, they nevertheless emphasize personal responsibility much more than their secular counterparts.[18] They point out that one's so-called addiction to a particular behavior does not absolve him or her from being responsible for

that behavior.[19] However, I agree with those who say we should dispel with the "disease" concept of behavior altogether. Whether recovery writers want to admit it or not, calling a behavioral problem a "disease" can lessen one's sense of personal responsibility for engaging in that behavior.Roots in Humanistic Psychology Another problem I see is that, despite their Christian orientation, many Christian recovery writers have undiscerningly based much of their recovery model on assumptions rooted in the writings of humanistic and other secular psychologists -- including Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Carl Rogers, Alfred Adler, William James, Erich Fromm, and Abraham Maslow. These assumptions include the conscious-mind/subconscious-mind dichotomy, the effect of the subconscious mind on behavior, the past-present connection, and the self-esteem theory.

Now, it's not that such assumptions necessarily are false in every respect. It is possible for nonchristians -- including humanistic psychologists -- to stumble upon true principles of human behavior. And these could be integrated into a biblical framework by discerning Christians to help suffering people. However, on the basis of these assumptions, humanistic psychologists have developed larger theories on the nature of man and the method of changing man's behavior that are contrary to biblical teaching on these subjects.[20] Unfortunately, these larger theories have been uncritically accepted by many Christian writers. To illustrate my point, let us briefly consider two of the fundamental assumptions recovery writers make regarding how to change human behavior.

Self-Esteem. Is the reestablishing of self-esteem the key to "recovery?" While I believe there is a biblical basis for the Christian's sense of worth that is based on being created in the image of God and being the object of God's love (as evidenced by Christ's substitutionary death on the cross), I believe the answer to this question must be no. First, scientific studies have shown no cause-and-effect link between self-esteem and behavioral problems.[21] Moreover, when self-esteem is given priority it can easily conflict with the development of traits which the Bible accords much greater priority: self-denial and genuine humility (Mark 8:34-35; Rom. 12:3; Eph. 3:8; Phil. 2:3; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:1-5).

Related to this, based on reading a representative sampling of Christian recovery books, I don't think the doctrine of total depravity has received sufficient recognition in the recovery movement. Yes, Christian recovery leaders clearly acknowledge that people are infected by sin.[22] However, more often than not the bad in our lives is presented as being more the result of unjust social conditions or growing up in a bad environment. As one critic put it, "in place of the idea of original sin, recovery experts put forward their own first cause of all our ills -- the American [dysfunctional] family."[23]

C. K. Chesterton once observed that the doctrine of fallen man is a Christian belief for which there is overwhelming empirical evidence.[24] Indeed, as one looks at the evidence, it would seem that our psychologized society is not getting any better. If anything, it seems that people (and society) are "sicker" than ever.

We must emphasize that regardless of the attainment of self-esteem, people will continue to behave badly and suffer the consequences for their actions because they have a nature that is bent on evil. Feeling good about ourselves will not remove or alter this depravity. Hence, seeking self-esteem as a solution to inappropriate behavior seems misguided.

Focusing on the Past. I do not deny a past-present connection regarding how people behave. But I do question whether such an in-depth examination of one's past history and "resolving" childhood conflicts is a precondition to correct or appropriate behavior. I can't go along with the idea that "we are bound (or condemned, some would say) to repeat the family experience we remember" (emphasis in original), and that "unresolved issues in childhood doom the emerging adult to recreate, to repeat, the past."[25] This is too fatalistic for me. Besides, experts tell us that peoples' memories can and often do distort the facts to one degree or another.[26] Hence, a detailed investigation into the events of one's past may not yield an accurate picture of what actually happened in that distant time anyway.

The apostle Paul had a legalistic upbringing, and was guilty of severely persecuting the church prior to his conversion. But instead of focusing on the past, he declared, "Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:13-14). Should this not be our modus operandi as well?

Frankly, I like what secular writers Stan Katz and Aimee Kiu say about analyzing the past: "It's a bit like trying to drive a car while looking only in the rear view mirror. You don't get very far that way, and you run the risk of a crack-up. I prefer to check the rear view from time to time, making sure that the reflection is accurate, but concentrate most of my attention on the road ahead. Only if I see something gaining on me from behind do I stop to deal with it."[27]Recovery Groups: A Replacement for the Church? A serious problem I see with some who attend Christian recovery groups is that they come to consider the group a virtual replacement for the church, something that should never happen. An article on recovery in Christianity Today notes that "the problem comes when recovery from addictions becomes salvation in some final sense, and the therapy group becomes a church substitute."[28] Such concerns are all the more urgent when we hear

statements like that of psychologist Henry Cloud: "The recovery movement makes for a much more biblical church than we've seen so far."[29]

Dale Ryan, the executive director of the National Association for Christian Recovery, acknowledges that "support groups are by no means a replacement for the local church." But, he points out, "some go to a support group and find a level of honesty and integrity about life that is in contrast to what they experience in church. They wonder why one seems real and one seems pretend. It can be very confusing."[30]

Certainly, the church must take its failures seriously and remedy its past ineffectiveness in helping people deal with behavioral problems. But the church must remain the central institution for the gathering and helping of God's people, not a treatment center that involves thousands of dollars in expenses (even for minimal treatment).

Related to the above, it seems that the recovery movement has, to some extent, undermined the authority of pastors and others who minister in the local church. In a Christianity Today article, Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton College notes that "overpromotion of professional [psychological] services has undermined the confidence of clergy and laypersons in their capacity to minister effectively in the name of Christ."[31]

This undermining is reflected in a 1991 Christianity Today survey: "29 percent of readers have received counseling for themselves or a close family member within the past three years; they were three times more likely to receive it from a professional counselor or psychologist than from a pastor." For readers of Today's Christian Women, the percentage was even higher: 38 percent.[32] These statistics reveal an alarming lack of confidence in the abilities of local pastors to counsel church members, a phenomenon due in no small part to the marketing efforts of those in the recovery movement.BIBLICAL RECOVERY From my perspective, the pastor of the local church should be the primary counselor for the Christian. This is not to say that a biblically oriented recovery group is never warranted. Sometimes it may be. But why not make the pastor -- who interprets life's problems through the lens of Scripture -- the first step in the recovery process? Through a solid course of biblical (nonhumanistic) counseling from the pastor, the counselee may obtain all he or she needs to deal with his or her particular behavior problem.

Such biblical counseling should include:

An emphasis on the importance of becoming biblically literate. Biblical doctrine enables us to develop a realistic world view, without which we are doomed to ineffectual living (Matt. 22:23-33; Rom. 12:3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4).

Moreover, doctrine can protect us from false beliefs that can lead to destructive behavior (1 Tim. 4:1-6; 2 Tim. 2:18; Tit. 1:11).

An emphasis on what the Bible says about the nature of man -- including his soul (1 Pet. 2:11), his spirit (Rom. 8:16), his heart (Heb. 4:12), his conscience (1 Pet. 2:19), his mind (Rom. 12:2), as well as his sin nature and its effects (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:18; Rom. 1:18--3:20). An accurate understanding of man's nature is a prerequisite for prescribing the correct treatment for a particular behavioral problem.

A thorough understanding of man's sin nature is especially important. Too often, recovery experts speak of getting rid of "character defects" in the patient. However, the whole "old" self is defective or depraved (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:18; Rom. 1:18--3:20) and must go. As one critic put it, we do not need a tune-up in our lives. We need a brand new engine.

An emphasis on the threefold enemy of the Christian -- (1) the world (including the things of the world, which are expressions of "the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes, and the boasting of what he has and does," 1 John 2:16); (2) the flesh (the sinful nature itself, which is bent on sexual immorality, impurity, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy, and drunkenness, Gal. 5:20-21); and (3) the Devil (who seeks to tempt us [1 Cor. 7:5], deceive us [2 Cor. 11:14], afflict us [2 Cor. 12:7], and hinder us [1 Thess. 2:18]). All three of these "enemies" have some bearing on human behavior.

An emphasis on dependence upon the Holy Spirit. Scripture tells us that self-control is the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). And as we "walk" in the spirit (habitually depend upon the Spirit) (v. 25), such fruit will inevitably grow in our lives.

An emphasis on the sufficiency of God's grace in the midst of trying circumstances (2 Cor. 12:9-10). As the apostle Paul discovered, God's grace enables us to cope with difficulties that can be overwhelming when approached through human strength alone.

An emphasis on the role faith plays in the midst of trying circumstances (Heb. 11). Scripture says that without faith it is impossible to please God (v. 6). It is also true that without faith in God it is impossible to effectively deal with behavioral problems and live victorious Christian lives (cf. Acts 15:9; 1 Thess. 5:8).

A counseling regimen based on these and other practical truths may completely solve the counselee's problem. (There are a number of good materials available for those interested in a truly biblical method of counseling.[33]) But if, during the course of biblical counseling, it is

determined that a biblically oriented (nonhumanistic) recovery group would be helpful, then that becomes an option at this point.

I'm convinced that small groups can be beneficial -- if the purpose of the small group is to console, compassionately listen, empathize, and share experiences with one another. These are the hallmarks of true friendship, and such activity can contribute greatly to the healing of an individual who has been ravaged in some way in our impersonal and often callous world.

During the time the counselee is attending the group, however, I believe he or she should continue to meet with the pastor so that progress can be monitored. This way, the pastor can still play a significant role in the recovery process and continue to offer instructive counsel and prayer support. And once the person has recovered, he or she can then serve as a shining example to others of the truth of Paul's inspiring affirmation: "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me" (Phil. 4:13).NOTES 1 Marilyn Gardner, "The Marketing of 'Recovery,'" The Christian Science Monitor, 19 May 1992, 12.

2 Melinda Blau, "Adult Children Tied to the Past," American Health, July-August 1990, 61.

3 Robert Hemfelt, Richard Fowler, Frank Minirth, Paul Meier, The Path To Serenity (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), 4.

4 Alice Dowd, "Making Room for the Recovery Boom," Library Journal, 1 May 1992, 49.

5 Hemfelt, Fowler, Minirth, and Meier, 8; Alfred Ells, One-Way Relationships (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990), 53; Stephen Arterburn, Addicted to "Love" (Ann Arbor, MI: Vine Books, 1991), 215; Grant Martin, When Good Things Become Addictions (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 24.

6 Robert Hemfelt, Frank Minirth, and Paul Meier, Love Is a Choice (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990), 27.

7 Ibid., 135.

8 Hemfelt, Fowler, Minirth, and Meier, 62.

9 Ibid., 65.

10 "Road to Recovery," Rapha Hospital Treatment Centers, Houston, TX.

11 Pat Springle, Learning More about Codependency (Dallas, TX: Rapha

Publishing/Word, 1991), 2, 3, 20.

12 Hemfelt, Minirth, and Meier, 277-78; Hemfelt, Fowler, Minirth, and Meier, 77-78, 126, 233; Martin, 166; Arterburn, 136.

13 E.g., Arterburn, 136.

14 Daniel Goleman, "As Addiction Medicine Gains, Experts Debate What It Should Cover," New York Times, 31 March 1992, B6.

15 Ibid.

16 Stanton Peele, Diseasing of America: Addiction Treatment Out of Control (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1989), 27-28.

17 Melvin Konner, "The I of the Storm," Los Angeles Times Magazine, 8 October 1989, 17.

18 E.g., Springle, 59.

19 Arterburn, 113-14.

20 Martin and Deidre Bobgan, critics of Christian psychology, met with Christian Research Institute's research staff and gave convincing evidence for this position. While I do not agree with everything the Bobgans set forth in their books, I believe they are right on this point.

21 Andrew M. Mecca, Neil J. Smelser, and John Vasconcellos, eds., The Social Importance of Self-Esteem (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989).

22 E.g., Arterburn, 113.

23 Michael Vincent Miller, "How We Suffer Now," The New York Times Book Review, 17 May 1992, 43.

24 William K. Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), 40.

25 Hemfelt, Minirth, and Meier, 27, 135.

26 Stan J. Katz and Aimee E. Kiu, The Codependency Conspiracy (New York: Warner Books, 1991), 105-23.

27 Ibid., 106.

28 Tim Stafford, "The Hidden Gospel of the 12 Steps," Christianity Today, 22 July 1991, 19.

29 Tim Stafford, "Franchising Hope," Christianity Today, 18 May 1992, 26.

30 Michael G. Maudlin, "Addicts in the Pew," Christianity Today, 22 July 1991, 21.

31 Stanton L. Jones, "Demonizing the Head Doctors," Christianity Today, 16 September 1991, 21.

32 Stafford, "Franchising Hope," 24.

33 Write the author at Christian Research Institute for a bibliography of suggested materials.

(An article from the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1992, page 8)

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available free resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 2526 Frisco, TX 75034

Summary of Problems with Posttribulationismby Ron Rhodes The Problem of Imminency The problem for posttribulationists is that all the Rapture passages seem to indicate an imminent Rapture, while the Second Coming is preceded by specific events. The difficulty is in reconciling these two distinct events into one single event. Posttribs try to solve this problem by redefining imminence as merely indicating that Christ will return soon, and argue against the idea that the Rapture could occur at any moment.

It should be noted that in several instances, Paul exhorted believers on the basis of the imminency of the Lord's return without even the slightest warning of an impending great tribulation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51-58). Every passage that clearly refers to the Rapture has this unusual feature of exhortation which is based on the imminency of the rapture and the absence of any warning of an intervening great tribulation. The Problem of the Comforting Hope The problem here is in harmonizing the comforting hope of 1 Thessalonians 4 with a literal great tribulation. The hope of the Rapture was extended to the Thessalonian Christians as a comfort. Paul did not warn them of a coming great tribulation.

Obviously, the Thessalonians would not have experienced much 'comfort' or 'hope' if they had to go through the great tribulation before being translated. Posttribulationists generally try to get around this by minimizing the sufferings of the saints, and somehow insulating them from the judgments of the great tribulation. The Problem of the Restrainer Posttribs have not adequately dealt with the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2. They usually argue from silence by stating that Paul surely would have asserted pretribulationism if it were an established truth. Their logic seems to be: 'Since Paul didn't come right out and say that there would be a pretribulational Rapture, posttribulationism (by the process of elimination) must be correct.' However, if the restrainer is the Holy Spirit, as pretribs believe, then Paul in fact did argue for a pretrib Rapture. The Problem of the Wheat and the Tares Posttribulationists support their view by citing Matthew 13:30, where the tares are taken up first before the wheat. However, this contradicts the posttrib sequence of events. In their view, the wicked are not dealt with finally before the rapture. Subsequently, Matthew 13:30 does not support posttribulationism. The Problem of Intervening Events on Earth The tribulation is a period of preparation for the Millennium. Since all believers are translated at the Rapture, this period of time is necessary to make possible a new generation of believers who will populate the Millennium in their mortal bodies.

The Problem of the Judgment of the Nations The unbelievers (goats) are cast into everlasting fire by means of physical death whereas believers (sheep) enter the kingdom prepared for them - the Millennial Kingdom. The judgment of the nations is an individual judgment. It results in the purging of unbelievers out from among believers and leaves believers untouched. (Note that no one is translated or resurrected).

If there had been a posttribulational Rapture, then believers would already be separated from unbelievers. This judgment would then be unnecessary. The Problem of the "First Resurrection" Posttribulationists call attention to the expression "first resurrection" in Revelation 20:4-6 in support of their argument. They ask how a posttribulational resurrection could be 'first' if a Rapture had actually taken place before the tribulation? The answer is that the resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20:4-6 actually occurs after the second coming of Christ and therefore contradicts the idea that the Rapture (in the posttribulational view) is a part of the second coming of Christ from heaven to earth. Even a posttribulationist would have to recognize that in his order of events, the resurrection of Rev. 20:4-6 is not 'first.' The Problem of Terminology Similar terminology is used for the Rapture and the Second Coming. Posttribs thus conclude that these two events must be one. They use nontechnical terms like coming, appearing, and revelation in a technical way.

The answer to this is simply that the context must always be taken unto consideration in determining how these words are to be interpreted. It is faulty logic to assume that a word must always be used in exactly the same way whenever it is used. The Problem of the Book of Revelation Posttribulationists have no uniform interpretation of this book. Most posttribs spiritualize the great judgments in Revelation 6-19. The widely conflicting and contradictory interpretations that Posttribs hold to in regard to this book is ample testimony to their inadequate hermeneutics. The Problem of Transition from the Tribulation to the Millennium This problem has been touched on earlier. The basic problem is, How can saints go into the Millennium in their natural bodies if, in fact, they were raptured while Christ was coming from heaven to earth? Their bodies would have already been glorified. Additional Problems which are the Result of an Incorrect and Inconsistent Hermeneutic: Disagreement on the Millennium Posttribs do not agree as to whether premillennialism, postmillennialism, or amillennialism is the correct view. Thus posttribulationism does not lend itself to a single eschatological system of interpretation. Disagreement on the Nature of the Judgments at the Second Coming of Christ The main disagreement among posttribs is in regard to the time and the order

of these judgments. Gundry holds that the judgment of the nations and the judgment seat of Christ take place at the end of the Millennium. However, posttribs usually lump the various judgments together at the Second Coming. If they are premil, they place the judgments before the Millennium. Disagreement as to a Specific Order of Events at the Time of the Second Coming Posttribulationists rarely offer a specific sequence of events in connection with the Second Coming of Christ. What little order they do give, they disagree with one another (e.g., compare classic, semiclassic, futurist, and dispensational posttribulational interpretations). The Problem of Classic Posttribulationism The problem here is the impossibility of explaining all the predicted events leading up to the Second Coming of Christ as either past or contemporaneous. The Problems of Semiclassic Posttribulationism Those who hold to this view are not agreed as to how far to interpret prophecy literally.

Those who hold to this view have failed in attempting to affirm any reasonable sequence of events relating to the Second Coming. The Problems of Dispensational Posttribulationism Gundry regards the tribulation as a time of satanic wrath but not a time of divine wrath. However, Rev. 6:16 says it is a time of the "wrath of the lamb."

Gundry places the judgments at the end of the Millennium. The motivation for this seems to be that it is impossible to have a judgment of the sheep and the goats following the Second Coming of Christ if, as a matter of fact, the Rapture has taken place shortly before at the Second Advent itself. The Problem of the Distinction between the Church and Israel Most posttribs include in the church the saints of all ages. They must spiritualize scripture to accomplish this. They argue that since "saints" are in the great tribulation, the church must apparently go through it.

Gundry is the exception to this in that he attempts to distinguish between the church and Israel. (Cf. separate handout on Gundry). The Problem of Daniel Posttribulationism destroys the unity of Daniel's seventieth week, and also confuses Israel's program with that of the church. The Problem of Titus 2:13 Posttribulationists have not adequately dealt with this passage where believers are exhorted to look for "the glorious appearing" of Christ to His own. If the Rapture follows the Tribulation, believers would then look for signs instead of His coming. The Problem of Purification Believers are exhorted to purify themselves (1 Jn. 3:2, 3) in light of the fact that the Lord could appear at "any moment." It would not make sense for

a believer to purify himself for the tribulation (which would be the case if posttribulationism were correct). The Problem of John 14:1-3 At the Rapture, the church goes to the Father's house, and not back to earth again as posttribulationists hold.

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement VersusUnlimited Atonementby Ron Rhodes The following discussion of limited atonement versus unlimited atonement has been put together because many people have contacted me for more information regarding what this debate is all about - and why I (Ron Rhodes), in particular, hold to unlimited atonement.

The following discussion is intended as a brief summary. Not every argument for limited atonement has been listed; not every argument for unlimited atonement has been listed. But the major arguments for both positions are set forth in a brief fashion. I also quote from advocates of both positions.

Though I strongly believe in unlimited atonement, I have many friends who believe in limited atonement. We do not divide over this issue; neither should you.

My position is known in theological circles as "4-point Calvinism."

As a backdrop, "5-point Calvinists" hold to T-U-L-I-P: Total Depravity.

Unconditional Election.

Limited Atonement.

Irresistible Grace.

Perseverance of the Saints. As a 4-point Calvinist, I hold to all the above except limited atonement.

I point this out simply because it has been the habit of some of the limited atonement persuasion to say that all who hold to unlimited atonement are Arminian in their theology. This simply is not so. The Issue Defined Theologian Walter Elwell summarizes the debate over the extent of the atonement this way: "Although there are variations as to the basic ways in which this subject can be addressed, the choices boil down to two: either the death of Jesus was intended to secure salvation for a limited number or the death of Jesus was intended to provide salvation for everyone. The first view is sometimes called 'limited atonement' because God limited the effect of Christ's death to a specific number of elect persons, or 'particular redemption' because redemption was for a particular group of people. The second view is sometimes referred to as 'unlimited atonement' or 'general redemption' because God did not limit Christ's redemptive death to the elect, but allowed it to be for mankind in general."

LIMITED ATONEMENT Definition of Limited Atonement: "A reference to the view that Christ's atoning death was only for the elect."

Louis Berkhof says: "The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, and the elect only. This is equivalent to saying that He died for the purpose of saving only those to whom He actually applies the benefits of His redemptive work." Representative Passages Offered in Support of Limited Atonement Matthew 1:21: "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

Matthew 20:28: "...the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Matthew 26:28: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

John 10:15: "...and I lay down my life for the sheep."

Acts 20:28: "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."

Ephesians 5:25: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

Hebrews 9:28: "So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."

John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Arguments Set Forth in Favor of Limited Atonement The Bible speaks of a limited extent of the atonement.

The Bible says Christ died for a specific group of people - "the church," "His people," "His sheep." Louis Berkhof says: "Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called 'His sheep,' John 10:11, 15, 'His Church,' Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27, 'His people,' Matt. 1:21, and 'the elect,' Rom. 8:32-35." Since the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world, how can Christ honestly be said to have died for all men? Put another way, how could Christ design that which by virtue of His omniscience He knew would never

come to pass? Reformed scholar Charles Hodge explains the problem this way: "If God from eternity determined to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal reference to both portions; that the Father sent his Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He gave Him up for those whom He had chosen to make the heirs of salvation." The argument seems to be that "it would have been a waste and a lack of foresight on the part of God to have Christ die for those whom he had not chosen to salvation."

It is argued that the nature of ransom is such that, "when paid and accepted, it automatically frees those for whom it is intended. No further obligation can be charged against them. Now, if the death of Christ was a ransom for all alike, not just for the elect, then it must be the case that all are set free by the work of the Holy Spirit." Some advocates of limited atonement say that Christ is defeated if He died for all men and all men aren't saved. If Christ died for all people, as unlimited atonement advocates say, then God would be unfair in sending people to hell for their own sins. It is argued that "no law court allows payment to be exacted twice for the same crime, and God will not do that either." Christ paid for the sins of the elect; the lost pay for their own sins.

Since Christ didn't pray for everyone in His High Priestly prayer in John 17, but only for His own, Christ must not have died for everyone. It is argued that since the intercession is limited in extent, the atonement must be too.

As Louis Berkhof puts it, "Why should He limit His intercessory prayer, if He had actually paid the price for all?" In the Middle Ages such scholars as Prosper of Aquitaine, Thomas Bradwardine, and John Staupitz taught limited atonement. It is claimed that even though John Calvin did not explicitly teach the doctrine, it seems implicit in some of his writings. Calvin's successors then made limited atonement explicit and included it in Reformed confessions of faith like the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Though terms like "all," "world," and "whosoever" are used in Scripture in reference to those for whom Christ died (e.g., John 3:16), the terms are to be understood in terms of the elect. In other words:

"All" refers to "all of the elect" or "all classes of men (Jew and Gentile)." Louis Berkhof says "the word 'all' sometimes has a restricted meaning in

Scripture, denoting all of a particular class, 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph. 1:23, or all kinds of classes, Tit. 2:11."

What does the Bible mean when it says Christ is the "Savior of all men"? Charles Hodge answers: "What is meant is that He is our Savior, the Savior of men rather than of angels, not of Jews exclusively nor of the Gentiles only, not of the rich or of the poor alone, not of the righteous only, but also of publicans and sinners...." "World" refers to "world of the elect" or to people without distinction (Jews and Gentiles). Louis Berkhof says the unlimited atonement position is based "on the unwarranted assumption that the word 'world'...means 'all the individuals that constitute the human race.'....When it is used of men, [the word] does not always include all men, John 7:4; 12:19; 14:22; 18:20; Rom. 11:12, 15."

Berkhof also says: "There are passages which teach that Christ died for the world....In the passages referred to it may simply serve to indicate that Christ died, not merely for the Jews, but for people of all the nations of the world." In keeping with the above, the word "whosoever" is interpreted to mean "whosoever of the elect."

Such universal terms simply show that Jesus died for all men without distinction (that is, all kinds of people, and people from among both the Jews and Gentiles), not that Jesus died for all men without exception (i.e., every lost sinner). UNLIMITED ATONEMENT Definition of Unlimited Atonement: "A reference to the doctrine that Christ's redemptive death was for all persons." Representative Passages Offered in Support of Unlimited Atonement (Note: To clarify my position on a few of these verses, I have added some expositional text and quotations from various biblical scholars.)

Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (The "lost" seems to refer to the entire world of lost humanity, not just the lost elect.)

John 1:29: "The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'" What is the "world" here? Exegete B. F. Westcott says: "The fundamental idea of kosmos [world] in St. John is that of the sum of created being which belongs to the sphere of human life as an ordered whole, considered apart from God....the world comes to represent humanity in its fallen state, alienated from its Maker."

John Calvin says of this verse: "He uses the word sin in the singular number for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race."

Ryle similarly states: "Christ is...a Savior for all mankind....He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind....What Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam....I hold as strongly as anyone that Christ's death is profitable to none but the elect who believe in His Name. But I dare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us....I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man....The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied and enjoyed by none but believers." John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The Greek lexicons are unanimous that "world" here denotes humankind, not the "world of the elect." John 3:16 cannot be divorced from verses 14-15, wherein Christ alludes to Numbers 21 with its discussion of Moses setting up the brazen serpent in the camp of Israel, so that if "any man" looked to it, he experienced physical deliverance. In verse 15 Christ applies the story spiritually when He says that "whosoever" believes on the uplifted Son of Man shall experience spiritual deliverance. John Calvin says: "He has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world which He formerly used [God so loved the world]; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception [not merely 'without distinction'] to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life." John 4:42: "They said to the woman, 'We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'" It is certain that when the Samaritans called Jesus "the Savior of the world," they were not thinking of the world of the elect.

Likewise, when Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world" (John 8:12), He was not thinking of Himself as the Light of the world of the elect. "The sun in the heavens shines on all men, though some, in their folly, may choose to withdraw into dark caves to evade its illuminating rays."

When Jesus called His disciples "the light of the world" (Matt. 5:14), He

did not mean they were the "light of the elect."

Likewise, the "Savior of the world" in John 4:42 cannot be limited to the elect. Acts 2:21: "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Romans 5:6: "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly."

2 Corinthians 5:14-15: "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."

1 Timothy 2:3-4: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time."

1 Timothy 4:10: "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." The word "everyone" is better translated "each."

Henry Alford comments: "If it be asked, why pantos (each) rather than panton (all), we may safely say that the singular brings out, far more strongly than the plural word, the applicability of Christ's death to each individual man." 2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

1 John 2:2: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (Note the distinction between "ours" and "the whole world.")

1 John 4:14: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."

Arguments Set Forth in Favor of Unlimited Atonement There are certain Scripture passages that seem very difficult to fit within the framework of limited atonement. For example: Romans 5:6 says: "At just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly." It doesn't make much sense to read this as saying that Christ died for the ungodly of the elect.

Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." Regarding this verse, John Calvin says: "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."

Regarding the two occurrences of the phrase "all men," E. H. Gifford comments: "The words all men [in v. 18] must have the same extent in both clauses." 1 John 2:2 says: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." A natural reading of this verse, without imposing theological presuppositions on it, seems to support unlimited atonement.

Isaiah 53:6 says: "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). This verse doesn't make sense unless it is read to say that the same "all" that went astray is the "all" for whom the Lord died.

"In the first of these statements, the general apostasy of men is declared; in the second, the particular deviation of each one; in the third, the atoning suffering of the Messiah, which is said to be on behalf of all. As the first 'all' is true of all men (and not just of the elect), we judge that the last 'all' relates to the same company."

Theologian Millard Erickson comments: "This passage is especially powerful from a logical standpoint. It is clear that the extent of sin is universal; it is specified that every one of us has sinned. It should also be noticed that the extent of what will be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent of sin. It is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that just as everyone sins, everyone is also atoned for." 1 Timothy 4:10 says: "...we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." There is a clear distinction here between "all men" and "those who

believe."

Erickson notes that "apparently the Savior has done something for all persons, though it is less in degree than what he has done for those who believe." In 2 Peter 2:1, it seems that Christ even paid the price of redemption for false teachers who deny Him: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves." Millard Erickson notes that "2 Peter 2:1 seems to point out most clearly that people for whom Christ died may be lost....there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved." John 3:17 says: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." Regarding this verse John Calvin says: "God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because He has appointed His Son to be the salvation of the world."

Calvin also stated: "The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keeps the road of faith."

Many passages indicate that the Gospel is to be universally proclaimed, and this supports unlimited atonement. Matthew 24:14: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."

Acts 1:8: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Acts 17:30: "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." In view of such passages, it is legitimate to ask: "If Christ died only for the elect, how can the offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved? Is it not improper to offer salvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone?"

"How can God authorize His servants to offer pardon to the non-elect if

Christ did not purchase it for them? This is a problem that does not plague those who hold to General [Unlimited] Redemption, for it is most reasonable to proclaim the Gospel to all if Christ died for all."

Those who deny unlimited atonement cannot say to any sinner, "Christ died for you." (After all, he may be one of the non-elect.) Reformed counselor Jay Adams comments: "As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom he died."

Louis Berkhof, a defender of limited atonement, admits: "It need not be denied that there is a real difficulty at this point."

Theologian Robert Lightner comments: "Belief in limited atonement means that the good news of God's saving grace in Christ cannot be personalized. Those who hold to such a position cannot tell someone to whom they are witnessing that Christ died for him because that one may, in fact, not be one for whom Christ died." Such Christians believe the gospel must be presented in very general terms, such as: "God loves sinners and Christ died for sinners."

"To believe that some are elect and some nonelect creates no problem for the soulwinner provided he is free in his convictions to declare that Christ died for each one to whom he speaks. He knows that the nonelect will not accept the message. He knows also that even an elect person may resist it to near the day of his death. But if the preacher believes that any portion of his audience is destitute of any basis of salvation, having no share in the values of Christ's death, it is no longer a question in his mind of whether they will accept or reject; it becomes rather a question of truthfulness in the declaration of the message." 2 Peter 3:9 says: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." How can this be if Christ died only and exclusively for the elect?

Romans 5 indicates that through Adam's act of disobedience the entire human race became the recipients of sin. And through one act of obedience the last Adam made provision for the gracious gift of righteousness for the entire human race. The disobedience of the one was co-extensive with the obedience of the other.

Scripture says that Christ died for "sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 5:6-8). The word "sinner" nowhere is limited to the elect or to the church. It is used exclusively in the Bible of lost humanity. Scripture tells us that Christ died for sinners, not penitent sinners, and for the ungodly, not for just

some of them.

Seemingly restrictive references can be logically fit into an unlimited scenario more easily than universal references made to fit into a limited atonement scenario. "The problem that both groups face is the need to harmonize passages that refer to limited redemption with passages that refer to unlimited redemption. To the unlimited redemptionist the limited redemption passages present no real difficulty. He believes that they merely emphasize one aspect of a larger truth. Christ did die for the elect, but He also died for the sins of the whole world. However, the limited redemptionist is not able to deal with the unlimited redemption passages as easily."

The two sets of passages noted earlier - one set seemingly in support of limited atonement, the other in support of unlimited atonement - are not irreconcilable. As Elwell puts it, "It is true that the benefits of Christ's death are referred to as belonging to the elect, his sheep, his people, but it would have to be shown that Christ died only for them. No one denies that Christ died for them. It is only denied that Christ died exclusively for them."

Millard Erickson likewise says that "statements about Jesus loving and dying for his church or his sheep need not be understood as confining his special love and salvific death strictly to them....It does not follow from a statement that Christ died for his church, or for his sheep, that he did not die for anyone else, unless, of course, the passage specifically states that it was only for them that he died....Certainly if Christ died for the whole, there is no problem in asserting that he died for a specific part of the whole. To insist that those passages which focus on his dying for his people require the understanding that he died only for them and not for any others contradicts the universal passages. We conclude that the hypothesis of universal atonement is able to account for a larger segment of the biblical witness with less distortion than is the hypothesis of limited atonement."

Robert Lightner similarly argues: "The task of harmonizing those various Scriptures poses a far greater problem for those who hold to a limited atonement than it does to those who hold to an unlimited position. Those who hold to an unlimited atonement recognize that some Scriptures emphasize the fact that Christ died for the elect, for the church, and for individual believers. However, they point out that when those verses single out a specific group they do not do so to the exclusion of any who are outside that group since dozens of other passages include them. The 'limited' passages are just emphasizing one aspect of a larger truth. In contrast, those who hold to a limited atonement have a far more difficult time explaining away the 'unlimited' passages."

The fact is, the Scriptures do not always include all aspects of a truth in any one passage. "If these texts are used in isolation to 'prove' that Christ died only for the elect, then it could be argued with equal logic from other isolated passages that Christ died only for Israel (cf. John 11:51; Isa. 53:8), or that He died only for the Apostle Paul (for Paul declares of Christ, 'Who loved me, and gave himself for me,' Gal. 2:20). As well might one contend that Christ restricted His prayers to Peter because of the fact that He said to Peter, 'But I have prayed for thee' (Luke 22:32)." Let us examine in greater detail some passages that speak of Christ being the Savior of the Israelites. Acts 13:23 says: "From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised." This verse indicates that Jesus was the proffered Savior to Israel, not that every Israelite had placed faith in Christ and was saved by the Savior.

"What ground have we for thinking that all of these persons received the salvation? None, whatever. Yet, plainly, it was put within their reach." In Matthew 1:21 we are told that Jesus "will save his people from their sins." Throughout the Old Testament God speaks of the Israelites as "My people."

Seven times God tells the Pharaoh, "Let My people go" (Exod. 5:1; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:13).

(I urge the reader to check a concordance to see for himself that God continues to refer to the Israelites as "My people" throughout the entire Old Testament.)

The last occurrence is Zechariah 13:9: "They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The LORD is our God.'"

Now, in Luke 1:68 Zacharias said: "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come and has redeemed his people." Zacharias is using the phrase "his people" in the standard Old Testament sense.

In Matthew 1:21, when an angel told Joseph, "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins," the words "his people" seem to be referring specifically to the people of Israel, not the entire company of God's elect (which includes non-Israelites or Gentiles). Yet, as Norman Douty asks, "Who believes that the Jewish people have a monopoly on Christ's

saving grace? All hold that it goes beyond their confines to the Gentile world as well." Likewise we read in John 11:50: "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation [i.e., Israel] perish." In none of these passages do the advocates of limited atonement insist that the Jewish people exclusively are the objects of God's saving grace. Similarly, when Christ is said to have purchased the church with His blood (Acts 20:28), we cannot limit Christ's atoning work to the church alone. Galatians 2:20 declares that Christ loved Paul and gave Himself for him ("The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me"). But this does not mean that Christ gave Himself only for Paul. To sum up, Christ did not give Himself in the atonement only for Paul, or only for Israel, or only for the church, but for all men. Universal terms like "world" should not be restricted in contexts which speak of the atonement. It is true that words like "all" and "world" are sometimes used in the Bible in a restricted sense. But context is always determinative. Robert Lightner comments: "Those who always limit the meaning of those terms in contexts that deal with salvation do so on the basis of theological presuppositions, not on the basis of the texts themselves."

A word study of the word "world" - particularly in the apostle John's writings, where it is used 78 times - indicates that the world is God-hating, Christ-rejecting, and Satan-dominated. Yet this is the world that Christ died for. Particularly in John's writings, interpreting "world" as "world of the elect" seems a great distortion of Scripture.

Among the scholarly lexicons, encyclopedias, and dictionaries that know nothing of the meaning "world of the elect" for the biblical word "world" (kosmos) are: Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament.

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Souter's Pocket Lexicon of the New Testament.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

The New Bible Dictionary.

Baker's Dictionary of Theology.

Arndt and Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute, observes: "John the Apostle tells us that Christ gave His life as a propitiation for our sin (i.e., the elect), though not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)....[People] cannot evade John's usage of 'whole' (Greek: holos). In the same context the apostle quite cogently points out that 'the whole (holos) world lies in wickedness' or, more properly, 'in the lap of the wicked one' (1 John 5:19, literal translation). If we assume that 'whole' applies only to the chosen or elect of God, then the 'whole world does not 'lie in the lap of the wicked one.' This, of course, all reject."

We must also ask, How can the Holy Spirit have a ministry to the whole world in showing men their need of Jesus Christ (John 14-16) if the death of Christ does not make provision for the whole world? John 16:8-11 says: "But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned."

Notice in this passage that "the world" is clearly distinguished from "you" and "your."

Yet the Holy Spirit is said to bring conviction on the world. And one of the things the Spirit convicts "the world" of is the sin of not believing on Christ (v. 9).

We are not to conclude that "the world" that is convicted of unbelief is the world of the elect, are we? (If so, then Satan, the "prince of this world" [v. 11, same context], must be the "prince of the elect.") Calvin says of this passage that "under the term world are, I think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and reprobate." Though God is completely sovereign over all things, this does not mean He brings into reality everything He "desires." Norman Douty offers this insight: "Consider the beginnings of human

history. God told our first parents to refrain from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Did He want them to eat of it, or did He not? Plainly, He did not want them to do so. Yet they ate of it. Was He frustrated? Of course not. He was not frustrated because, by His efficient grace, He could have induced them to refrain. Yet He chose to withhold that grace and to permit the fall. Nevertheless, the full responsibility for that sin belonged to Adam and Eve, who had sufficient grace to refrain, but did not use it."

Consider Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." What Christ desired was not what came about.

Douty concludes: "As God could have induced our first parents to refrain from eating of the tree, so He could have induced...the resistant Jews of Christ's time to have received His gracious ministry of salvation. But He did not choose to effect these desirable ends. Yet this in no wise means that He wanted evil to befall any. He merely allowed the violation of His desires in order to carry out a hidden purpose He had in mind."

One further example relates to Jesus, who told some Jews in John 5:34: "I say these things that you may be saved." But "saved" they were not. Why? Because Christ added in verse 40, "You are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life." Here is a clear case of "but ye would not," despite the clear offer of salvation.

"There are reasons which are based on the Scriptures why our sovereign God might provide a redemption for all when He merely purposed by decree to save some. He is justified in placing the whole world in a particular relation to Himself so that the gospel might be preached with all sincerity to all men, and so that on the human side men might be without excuse, being judged, as they are, for their rejection of that which is offered to them." That one rejects limited atonement does not in any way mean that one lessens or diminishes the clear scriptural doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Any who make such an allegation are simply uninformed.

"Without the slightest inconsistency the unlimited redemptionists may believe in an election according to sovereign grace, that none but the elect will be saved, that all of the elect will be saved, and that the elect are by divine enablement alone called out of the state of spiritual death from which they are impotent to take even one step in the direction of their own salvation. The text, 'No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him' (John 6:44), is as much a part of the one system of doctrine as it is of the other."

Matthew 26:28 says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." The reference to "many" in Christ's words do not support limited atonement but rather support unlimited atonement. One must keep in mind that earlier in Matthew Jesus had said that few find eternal life (Matt. 7:14) and few are chosen (22:14). But Christ did not say His blood was poured out for a few, but for many.

John Calvin thus declares of this verse: "By the word many He means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race."

This is the same meaning as in Romans 5:15: "For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Note that the "many" of verse 15 is clearly defined in verse 18 as "all men": "...just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

Notice that in this verse Paul speaks of Adam's sin, and of the resultant death coming upon all his descendants. But then the apostle goes on to speak of the grace of God and of its resultant gift (of life), abounding to the same company.

I say, "to the same company," because "the many" in the second clause of the verse is coextensive with "the many" in the first clause. Answers to Three Common Questions 1. If Christ died for those who go to hell, what benefit have they from His death? Answer: "We may as well ask, What good did the bitten Israelites get from the brazen serpent to which they refused to look? None, of course, but God got the glory of being a God generous enough to provide for them."

2. If satisfaction has been made for all, how can any go to hell? Answer: "Though God has provided atonement for all, He has also stipulated that none get the good of it, except through repentance and faith. Deliverance from doom was not contingent on the atonement itself but on the reception of it. Men can starve in the presence of a free feast, if they refuse to partake of it."

3. Why would God have Christ die for those whom He, in His omniscience, knew would never receive His provision? Answer: "Why did God richly endow the angels who subsequently sinned, when He knew they would not use His gifts to their everlasting good? Why did He bestow valuable gifts on our first parents, to be employed for their and our advantage, when He knew they would not so employ them? Why did He send Noah to preach to people He knew would not receive His message? And why did He send the prophets to Israel, when He

knew they would continue in their apostasy? There is such a thing as the divine benevolence." Reply to Some Criticisms Made By Proponents of Limited Atonement The charge that unlimited atonement leads to universalism is special pleading. "Just because one believes that Christ died for all does not mean all are saved. One must believe in Christ to be saved, so the fact that Christ died for the world apparently does not secure the salvation of all. Those who assert this are simply wrong." God makes the provision of salvation for all men, but it is conditioned by faith. Thus, salvation becomes actual only for the elect, although it is potential and available to all. "Our inheriting eternal life involves two separate factors: an objective factor (Christ's provision of salvation) and a subjective factor (our acceptance of that salvation)."

Moderate Calvinists distinguish between the provisional benefits of Christ's death and the appropriation of those benefits by the elect.

Although the provision of atonement is unlimited, yet the application of it is limited.

In his book The Death Christ Died, Robert Lightner explains: "[Moderate Calvinists] believe the cross does not apply its own benefits but that God has conditioned His full and free salvation upon personal faith in order to appropriate its accomplishments to the individual. This faith which men must exercise is not a work whereby man contributes his part to his salvation, nor does faith, in the moderate Calvinist view, improve in any way the final and complete sacrifice of Calvary. It is simply the method of applying Calvary's benefits which the sovereign God has deigned to use in His all-wise plan of salvation." God is not unfair in condemning those who reject the offer of salvation. He is not exacting judgment twice. "Because the nonbeliever refuses to accept the death of Christ as his own, the benefits of Christ's death are not applied to him. He is lost, not because Christ did not die for him, but because he refuses God's offer of forgiveness."

The electing purpose of God is not complete until the elect are in glory. Since this is true, and since the cross provides salvation dependent on faith for its reception, and since the cross does not secure salvation apart from that faith, there is no contradiction with God's sovereignty.

Unlimited atonement has been held by a majority of scholars throughout church history. Millard Erickson points out that unlimited atonement has been "held by the vast majority of theologians, reformers, evangelists, and fathers from the beginning of the church until the present day, including virtually all the writers before the Reformation, with the possible exception of Augustine.

Among the Reformers the doctrine is found in Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Latimer, Cranmer, Coverdale, and even Calvin in some of his commentaries....Is it likely that the overwhelming majority of Christians could have so misread the leading of the Holy Spirit on such an important point?"

Robert Lightner addresses Calvin's position on the issue: "Those who subscribe to a limited atonement generally argue that that is the position espoused by Calvin. But it is highly debatable that he did, in fact, hold that view....Whereas some scholars have attempted to show that there is harmony between Calvin and later orthodox Calvinism, others have argued that contemporary Calvinism has veered significantly from Calvin's teaching, including his teaching on the extent of the atonement." (The reader will recall that a number of Calvin's citations in this paper show him favorable to unlimited atonement.) Quotations from the Early Church Fathers Clement of Alexandria (150-220): "Christ freely brings...salvation to the whole human race."

Eusebius (260-340): "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race."

Athanasius (293-373): "Christ the Son of God, having assumed a body like ours, because we were all exposed to death [which takes in more than the elect], gave Himself up to death for us all as a sacrifice to His Father."

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "Do not wonder if the whole world was ransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God."

Gregory of Nazianzen (324-389): "The sacrifice of Christ is an imperishable expiation of the whole world."

Basil (330-379): "But one thing was found that was equivalent to all men....the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all."

Ambrose (340-407): "Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit." He also said, "Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as He brought a remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who...are unwilling to be healed."

Augustine (354-430): Though Augustine is often cited as supporting limited atonement, there are also clear statements in Augustine's writings that are supportive of unlimited atonement. For example: "The Redeemer came and gave

the price, shed His blood, and bought the world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price: what is of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?" He also stated, "The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins."

Cyril of Alexandria (376-444): "The death of one flesh is sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God the Father."

Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in 463): "As far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption." He also said, "The Savior is most rightly said to have been crucified for the redemption of the whole world." He then said, "Although the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it." Quotations from the Reformers of the 16th Century Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...take hold upon Christ."

Philip Melanchton (1497-1560): "It is necessary to know that the Gospel is a universal promise, that is, that reconciliation is offered and promised to all mankind. It is necessary to hold that this promise is universal, in opposition to any dangerous imaginations on predestination, lest we should reason this promise pertains to a few others and ourselves. But we declare that the promise of the Gospel is universal. And to this are brought those universal expressions which are used constantly in the Scriptures."

Other people involved to some degree in the Reformation who held to unlimited atonement include: Hugh Latimer, Myles Coverdale, Thomas Cranmer, Wolfgang Musculus, Henry Bullinger, Benedict Aretius, Thomas Becon, Jerome Zanchius, David Paraeus, and, as noted earlier, John Calvin. Quotations from Other Luminaries from Recent Church History Philip Schaff: "His saving grace flows and overflows to all and for all, on the simple condition of faith....If, by the grace of God, I could convert a single skeptic to a childlike faith in Him who lived and died for me and for all, I would feel that I had not lived in vain."

B. F. Westcott: "Potentially, the work of Christ extends to the whole world." And "the love of God is without limit on His part, but to appropriate the blessing of love, man must fulfill the necessary condition of faith."

A. T. Robertson: [The word "world" in John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world" - means] "the whole cosmos of men, including the Gentiles, the whole human race," and adds that "this universal aspect of God's love appears also in II Cor. 5:19; Rom. 5:8." MY CONCLUSION In this brief outline, we have looked at both sides of the debate regarding the extent of the atonement. I believe that when one considers all the scriptural evidence collectively, the correct view is unlimited atonement.

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

"The Christ of the New Age Movement"Part One in a Two-Part Series on New Age Christologyby Ron Rhodes

"Who do you say I am?" (Luke 9:20, NIV) The question was first asked of Peter by Christ nineteen centuries ago, and has continued since then to the present day to be the litmus test of spiritual authenticity. Perhaps never in the history of the Christian church has this question been more relevant than it is today. One reason for this is that New Agers have taken the New Testament sculpture (if you will) of Christ, crafted an esoteric/mystical chisel, and hammered away at this sculpture until a completely new image has been formed.

The new sculpture is one that fits nicely on a display shelf with sculptures of Buddha, Krishna, and other "holy men." This Christ is broad-minded and nonjudgmental. He is a "Master" among "Masters," who - with the others - is leading the human race into a New Age of enlightenment and harmony.

Fundamental to any discussion of New Age Christology is the recognition that New Agers distinguish between Jesus (a mere human vessel) and the Christ (variously defined, but always divine, and often a cosmic, impersonal entity). Part One of this series will therefore focus on the Christ of the New Age, and will provide a brief history of the various views as to his (or its) identity, his purpose, how he aims to accomplish this purpose, and his relationship to humanity. Part Two will focus on the Jesus of the New Age, and will address such issues as the "lost years" of Jesus (as described by Levi Dowling, Edgar Cayce, and others), his supposed training in Eastern/occultic concepts, his "attunement" to the Christ, and his "New Age teachings."

Regarding methodology, this article will anchor on two reference points - one primary and one secondary - from which the history of New Age Christology will be traced. The primary reference point will be Theosophy; the secondary reference point will be the teachings of Phineas Parkhurst Quimby. We might liken Theosophy and Quimby's teachings to two trees which grew side by side, having been planted close to the same time (the mid to late 1800s) in the same soil, fertilized with common ingredients (nineteenth-century transcendentalism, the philosophy of Emmanuel Swedenborg, the influx of Hindu monism, etc.). Certainly, in many respects these two have distinct beliefs and different goals, but they both took root and flourished in the same mystical climate. Taken together, these represent an appropriate starting point for a study in New Age Christology. THEOSOPHY AND ITS OFFSHOOTS Theosophy, founded in 1875 by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, teaches that each human being evolves through seven planes of existence (the physical plane, the astral plane, the mental plane, etc.). Each plane a person evolves

through brings him or her ever closer to union with the Absolute (God). Theosophists reason that this process can take a very long time, hence requiring innumerable reincarnations.

According to "revelations" received by Blavatsky, it is not only individuals who evolve; the human race as a whole also evolves. So far there have allegedly been three races: the Lemurian, the Atlantean, and the Aryan. Each of these three (which Theosophists call "rootraces") are divided into "subraces." Mankind is now in the third rootrace - the Aryan rootrace - and is about to enter the sixth subrace of the Aryan rootrace.

Theosophy teaches that at the beginning of each subrace, the Supreme World Teacher (also known as "the Christ," the bestower of divine wisdom) enters the body of a disciple in order to assist and guide the spiritual evolution of man. Each "incarnation" reveals more to man about God than the previous one. The five incarnations of Christ in the five subraces of the Aryan rootrace were Buddha (in India), Hermes (in Egypt), Zoroaster (in Persia), Orpheus (in Greece), and Jesus (at the River Jordan, where the Christ came upon Jesus at His baptism).[1]

Jesus is said to have volunteered his body for use by the Christ. Annie Besant, who took over Theosophical leadership when Blavatsky died, said: "For Him [the Christ] was needed an earthly tabernacle, a human form, the body of a man. The man Jesus yielded himself a willing sacrifice, 'offered himself without spot' to the Lord of Love, who took unto Himself that pure form as tabernacle, and dwelt therein for three years of mortal life."[2]

Theosophists reject any suggestion that Jesus died on the cross to pay for man's sins. Man saves himself through continual reincarnations. This spiritual evolution leads men further and further away from the physical plane and closer and closer to spiritual planes of existence. Because of this process, every human being - regardless of race or religion - is a potential "Christ."

Human beings who continue to evolve through reincarnation eventually become "Masters." This is a group of formerly historical persons who have finished their earthly evolutions and voluntarily help lesser-evolved human beings to reach their level.

Because Theosophists believe the fifth subrace of the Aryan rootrace (the subrace of intellectual man) is about to give way to the sixth subrace (the subrace of spiritual man), they believe another incarnation of the Christ will soon take place. Note that since this will be the sixth appearance of the Christ in the Aryan rootrace, it is not spoken of as the "second coming."

Annie Besant first announced the coming of this Messiah in 1906. Her aim was to groom Jiddu Krishnamurti for the role of World Teacher or Messiah. In 1925 she claimed for this young Indian man the title of "Messianic Leader and Reincarnation of the World Teacher." But by 1929, Krishnamurti became convinced it was all a mistake. On November 20 of that year, he "refused to receive further adoration [saying frankly], 'I am not an actor; I refuse to wear the robes of a Messiah; so I am again free of all possessions.'"[3] Theosophy's Christ remains to appear.

Under the leadership of Annie Besant, dissension took its toll on Theosophy. The result of growing discontent within the Society was a four-pronged theological fork in the road. Theosophy continued along its traditional path (the first prong). But Rudolf Steiner broke away to form the Anthroposophical Society in 1912 (the second prong); Alice Bailey broke away to establish the Arcane School in 1923 (the third prong); and Guy and Edna Ballard broke away to lead the "I AM" movement in the 1930s (the fourth prong). Each "prong" has made an impact on New Age Christology. The Christ of Anthroposophy Dr. Rudolf Steiner was an active member of the Theosophical Society and headed the German charter of the group. However, when a Theosophical subgroup, the "Order of the Star of the East," began promoting Krishnamurti as the new incarnation of the Christ, Steiner threatened to expel any member of the German charter who joined the Order. Annie Besant retaliated by canceling Steiner's charter. Steiner then founded the Anthroposophical Society in 1912, and most of the German membership of Theosophy joined with him.

Steiner's emphasis represents a significant departure from his Theosophical roots. Instead of arguing for a Christ who periodically incarnates into individuals as each new "subrace" begins, Steiner's emphasis is on what the Christ accomplished through his decisive "incarnation" in the human Jesus.

Steiner's Christology is based on his investigation into the "Akashic Records." Occultists believe that the physical earth is surrounded by an immense spiritual field known as "Akasha" in which is impressed - like a celestial tape recording - every impulse of human thought, will, and emotion. It therefore constitutes a complete record of human history. Steiner claimed to be able to "read" the Akashic Records, thus enabling him to investigate human history without use of written records. Based on this, he discovered that the descent of the Christ on the human Jesus was the absolutely central event of human evolution.

In Steiner's theology, the Christ's descent on Jesus became necessary because man's consciousness had progressively become too focused on the material realm and had completely lost touch with the spiritual nature behind physical reality. The danger was that this situation could become

permanent.

To prevent this, the Christ's initial goal was to "incarnate" into a human being (Jesus) so he could accomplish his greater goal of "incarnating" from Jesus into the "etheric earth." Occultists believe an etheric earth exists behind the physical earth. The etheric earth is thought to be made up of a fine energy substance from which is created the mold for every form that is manifested in the physical plane. Every material object on the physical plane has an etheric counterpart. All material forms in the physical universe find their ultimate source in this energy substance of the etheric realm. The Christ desired to enter this etheric earth so he could bring about spiritual changes among people living on the physical earth. But in order to transfer from his spiritual realm to the etheric realm, he needed a human instrument through which to work. This instrument was found in Jesus.

The Christ "incarnated" into Jesus, and three years later was crucified. At the crucifixion, the Christ left Jesus' body and "incarnated" into the etheric earth:

The blood flowed from the wounds of Jesus Christ. This blood must not be regarded simply as chemical substance, it must be recognized as something altogether unique. When it flowed from His wounds and into the earth, a substance was imparted to our earth which, in uniting with it, constituted an event of the greatest possible significance; this blood passed through a process of 'etherization'...since the Mystery of Golgotha, the etherized blood of Christ Jesus has lived in the ether of the earth. The etheric body of the earth is permeated by what the blood that flowed on Golgotha became.[4]

Because of this, "ever since the Mystery of Golgotha man lives in a spiritual environment, an environment that has been Christianized because it has absorbed the Christ impulse."[5]

Having mystically entered the etheric earth via his "etherized" blood, the Christ now seeks to "mass incarnate" into all humanity. This will lead to man's redemption. Steiner says that the "Christ impulse will penetrate humanity. He belongs to the whole earth and can enter all human souls, regardless of nation and religion."[6] This, says Steiner, is the true "second coming." The Christ of the Arcane School Alice Bailey had been an active member in the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society (an inner group of trusted members who faithfully practiced Theosophy). But she eventually became critical of the organization's policy that one could not become a disciple of a Master (which Bailey believed she already was) unless one was notified by Annie Besant (who seemed to have overlooked Bailey in this). This led to her

dismissal from the Society, and shortly thereafter in 1923, she and her husband Foster founded the Arcane School.

Like Theosophy and Anthroposophy, Bailey believed that Jesus was a medium who allowed the Christ to use his body. But Bailey distinguished her beliefs from Anthroposophy by arguing that the "second coming" referred to the Christ coming in a single Avatar, not in all humanity.[7] According to Arcane thought, the Christ - along with his disciples, the Masters - will draw closer and closer to humanity and eventually appear on the physical plane. Bailey said this return necessitated three conditions that either have already come or are currently coming to pass: (1) catastrophic planetary conditions; (2) a spiritual awakening; and (3) a steadily mounting invocative prayer. This last condition involves use of The Great Invocation, a prayer which is intended to speed the reappearance of the Christ.

Preparation for the Second Coming is hence the responsibility of "attuned" human beings. Those who know about this Coming are to help create conditions of "spiritual alignment" which will ultimately draw the Christ forth into our midst. Without this, the Christ is impotent to act.

Bailey believed the Christ will come again in a way which will create no divisions or separations between men, either religious, social, or ideological. When he comes, it will be to establish through precept and example (in world service) the principles on which an interdependent world may create a new civilization.

While Bailey taught that the Second Coming will be in a single Avatar, she also affirmed that he will be mystically manifested in humanity: "There is a growing and developing belief that Christ is in us, as He was in the Master Jesus, and this belief will alter world affairs and mankind's entire attitude to life."[8] The Christ of the "I AM" Movements Guy and Edna Ballard were Theosophists up until Guy was contacted by Saint Germain, an "Ascended Master" who allegedly appeared to him in a physical body. Saint Germain informed him that he lived on Mount Teton with ninety-eight other Ascended Masters.

Saint Germain appointed Guy, Edna, and their son Donald as the only "accredited" spokespeople for the Ascended Masters. Saint Germain also taught Guy about the "Great Creative Word" (I AM). The "I AM Presence" is said to be in each person and represents a point of contact with divine reality. One can attune to the I AM Presence by chanting I AM decrees. Such chanting reportedly brings about dramatic results in the life of the one chanting.

The Ballards' Christology is distinct in that Saint Germain is considered

more important (in the dawning Aquarian Age) than Jesus, and is the primary object of worship among "I AM" devotees. Jesus - himself an "Ascended Master" - allegedly said that Saint Germain is "the Greatest Blessing that has ever come to mankind."[9] The reason for this devotion to Saint Germain is that he has brought the Violet Consuming Flame: "The conscious use of the Violet Consuming Flame is the only means by which any human being can free himself or herself from his or her own human discord and imperfection."[10] The I AM presence is invoked by chanting decrees, and this in turn activates the Violet Flame. The Violent Flame then burns away undesirable conditions in one's life. Of course, this nullifies any need for Jesus' work on the cross. THE NEXT GENERATION Having discussed the foundation for New Age Christology in Theosophy, Anthroposophy, the Arcane School, and the "I AM" movement, this article will now examine three representative contemporary New Age leaders to illustrate how this Christology has progressed historically. Benjamin Creme and his Arcane Roots From 1977 to the present Benjamin Creme has traveled around the world proclaiming that the coming of Maitreya (the Christ) is imminent. Maitreya, says Creme, is the leader of the Planetary Hierarchy and has been living incognito among human beings since 1977 when his consciousness entered a specially created body of manifestation, the "Mayavirupa."

Creme originally claimed that by the end of spring 1982, Maitreya would reveal himself via worldwide television on the "Day of Declaration," after which time would begin a new era of planetary happiness. This Christ would come not as a religious, political, or social leader, but as an "educationalist" who would solve all the world's problems in these areas and usher in the New Age of love, peace, and shared wealth.

Obviously 1982 has come and gone and the Christ remains to appear. The most common explanation for the Christ's no-show is that the media prevented it. Since the media represents humanity, the media's apathy is indicative of the broader apathy of humanity. And since the Christ's manifestation cannot occur against man's wishes, his "declaration" has been delayed.

Some of Creme's ideas are noticeably similar to Theosophy. For example, he divides the world and humanity into astral, ethereal, and physical planes. He also subscribes to the idea that the Christ inhabited the body of Jesus for three years.

But despite some Theosophical overtones, his ideas are primarily a reflection of Alice Bailey's writings, particularly her book The Reappearance of the Christ. In this book are found almost everything Creme was later to propagate: the Age of Aquarius, world service, The Great Invocation, "overshadowing" (the occult means used by a Master to inhabit a

human disciple's body), and "transmission groups" (enlightened groups who "transmit" spiritual energy to the minds of other people in order to raise the Christ-consciousness of the planet).[11]

Despite such similarities, there are at least three notable differences between Creme and Bailey. First, Creme is a date-setter regarding Maitreya's coming (i.e., spring 1982). Bailey was convinced the Christ would appear - and she had some idea about the general timing (sometime after 2025) - but she refused to set exact dates. She wrote: "It is not for us to set the date for the appearance of the Christ or to expect any spectacular aid or curious phenomena. If our work is rightly done, He will come at the set and appointed time."[12]

Second, Bailey used the term "Christ" to refer to a person whereas Creme uses it in reference to an office or function. The present holder of this office, says Creme, is the Lord Maitreya, who has held it now for 2,600 years. It was Maitreya who - while holding this office - manifested himself through his disciple, Jesus, by the occult method of overshadowing.

Third, Christ and Buddha are the central figures in Bailey's theology, while Maitreya is supreme in Creme's thinking. Bailey mentions Maitreya on occasion, but never as the leader of the Hierarchy, as does Creme.

Creme's following has understandably declined since 1982. David Spangler and his Anthroposophic Roots Like Rudolf Steiner, David Spangler understands Christ to be a cosmic spirit who utilized Jesus' body to make the transfer from His own realm (the spiritual realm) to Jesus' realm (the realm of matter).

Spangler sees the Christ as a cosmic principle: "Any old Christ will not do, not if we need to show that we have something better than the mainstream Christian traditions. It must be a cosmic Christ, a universal Christ, a New Age Christ."[13] The Christ is not so much a religious figure, "but rather a cosmic principle, a spiritual presence whose quality infuses and appears in various ways in all the religions and philosophies that uplift humanity and seek unity with spirit."[14]

Spangler believes a central purpose of the Christ is to act as a "universal educator." He uses "educate" in the sense of the Latin root educare, which means "to lead out." Most often he speaks of the Christ "leading out" man's "inner divinity."[15] The "universal Presence that calls out of form and spirit the higher potentials of Divine life waiting to be released into expression, is the Christ."[16]

Like Steiner, Spangler believes the Christ entered the etheric earth at the crucifixion. By so doing, the Christ was able to reverse man's "downward

trend" toward a physical-oriented consciousness. The Christ is thus an "occult savior."[17]

Spangler utilizes Christian terms to describe what the Christ accomplished through Jesus. For example, Spangler says that the Christ was occultly crucified (which resulted in placing his cosmic presence within the cross of matter, space, and time). The Christ was laid in a tomb (the tomb representing a level of life characterized by "great density" [i.e., the physical world], as opposed to the "low density" spiritual realm he was accustomed to). There he would stay until the resurrection (the outflowing of Christ-energies from the etheric earth) and ascension (the ascension of Christ-consciousness in humanity). Through this sacrifice, the cosmic Christ became a savior in that he no longer stood outside the evolution of the earth, but entered into that evolution by becoming incarnate into the earth.[18] There he would function as a guide of man's spiritual evolution.

Like Steiner, Spangler believes the Christ is now incarnating into humanity from the etheric realm. This is not unlike what occurred in Jesus 2,000 years ago, for Jesus "was the prototype or the expression of the reality of the Christ consciousness which is inherent in us all."[19] Spangler concludes that human beings can actually become "the Word made flesh." In fact, he says that the Word will eventually be made all flesh.[20] Elizabeth Clare Prophet and her "I AM" Roots While the Ballards' "I AM" movement has considerably declined since its heyday in the 1930s, another "I AM" movement has achieved high visibility and much popularity in New Age circles. This is the Church Universal and Triumphant, founded in 1958 by Mark Prophet and now headed by his widow, Elizabeth Clare Prophet.

Foundationally, certain aspects of the Prophets' theology can be traced directly to Theosophy. These beliefs include (1) Masters who guide man's spiritual evolution; (2) revelations to man from these Masters; (3) the Christ's use of Jesus' body; (4) human evolution through progressive stages; and (5) the belief that Blavatsky's revelations marked the beginning of the Aquarian Age.

Beyond these similarities, the Prophets derived most of their theology from the Ballards. This is seen not only in their emphasis on the I AM Presence, but also on the prominent role of Saint Germain.

Elizabeth Clare Prophet says the I AM Presence has become hopelessly distorted within man due to negative energies from within and without. These negative energies impede spiritual progress, but are effectively combated by the "Violet Consuming Flame" which is poured out on the world by Saint Germain. This Flame changes negative energy into positive energy. It is therefore an antidote to sin.

This makes Jesus' work on the cross unnecessary. In fact, Mark and Elizabeth Prophet dismiss the idea of Jesus' atonement on the cross as an "erroneous doctrine which he himself never taught."[21] Like the Ballards, the Prophets believe that Jesus attained Christhood as did other Ascended Masters. The "Christ" of "I AM" theology represents the divinity within all men: "God dwells in every man and not alone in His son Jesus the Christ. The only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth, is the Christ whose Image the Lord has reproduced over and over again as the Christ-identity of every son and daughter who has come forth from the infinite Spirit of the Father-Mother God."[22] The Prophets conclude that "to become the Christ, then, is the goal of every child of God."[23] PHINEAS PARKHURST QUIMBY Unquestionably, Theosophy and the groups that emerged from it are the source of many of the essential tenets of New Age Christology. But Phineas Parkhurst Quimby (who died in 1866) and the "metaphysical" groups his philosophy spawned also played a significant role.

Quimby espoused the metaphysical idea that the source of physical healing lies in the mind. He was convinced that physical diseases were caused by wrong thinking or false beliefs. These false beliefs are remedied by "the Christ."

Like other metaphysical writers, Quimby distinguished Jesus from the Christ. Quimby credited Jesus with discovering the "Truth" of how to correct the error of sickness. "Not that He as a man was any better," said Quimby, "but He was the embodiment of a higher Wisdom, more so than any man who has ever lived."[24] This "Truth" or "higher Wisdom" discovered by Jesus was an impersonal mind-principle Quimby called "the Christ." Quimby's metaphysical concept of the Christ spawned several important movements. New Thought New Thought developed slowly during the nineteenth century after Quimby's death in 1866. Quimby did not create an organization himself. But individuals he helped adopted his ideas and passed them on to others, adding to or modifying them along the way. Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science is a major example of this, though this tradition is too exclusive to meld with today's New Age movement. However, several smaller, more inclusive metaphysical groups also emerged, and in the 1890s the term "New Thought" surfaced as a way of describing them.

The Christ of New Thought was an outgrowth of Quimby's metaphysics. The Christ was considered not a person but an impersonal Divine Nature or Principle. Jesus was believed to have embodied or appropriated the Christ-principle as no human had before. He had fully realized his Christ-nature. But Jesus was not a savior to mankind; he was merely a "way-shower." Salvation is based not on Jesus but on the recognition of the

Divine Nature or Christ-principle within. Unity School of Christianity The Unity School of Christianity, an offshoot of New Thought, was founded by Charles and Myrtle Fillmore in 1891. They are distinguished from mainstream New Thought by their belief in reincarnation.

In Unity, salvation is attained by "at-one-ment" with God - a reuniting of human consciousness with God-consciousness. Jesus attained this; all men can: "The difference between Jesus and us is not one of inherent spiritual capacity, but in difference of demonstration of it. Jesus was potentially perfect, and He expressed that perfection; we are potentially perfect, [but] we have not yet expressed it."[25] United Church of Religious Science The United Church of Religious Science, another offshoot of New Thought, was founded by "Dr." Ernest Holmes who wrote The Science of Mind in 1926. This book later became the textbook for Religious Science. Holmes was extremely eclectic, attempting to syncretize the metaphysical ideas he sifted from New Thought with psychology, philosophy, and the various world religions.

His ideas about Jesus, the Christ, and mankind are similar to other New Thought groups: "Every man is a potential Christ. From the least to the greatest the same life runs through all, threading itself into the patterns of our individuality. He is 'over all, in all and through all.'"[26] Jesus was merely a way-shower who embodied the impersonal Christ. NOTABLE MENTIONS The groups and individuals described above have all contributed to the emergence of a mystical and esoteric theological climate. This has paved the way for numerous other individuals and groups to hop on the New Age bandwagon and offer their own reinterpretations of the person and work of Christ. Two of the more notable developments are the following:

A Course in Miracles. According to this New Age textbook, the "Son of God" was created by God in a state of "wakefulness." Later, however, the Son fell asleep and had a dream of being separate from God. In the dream, the Son denied that he was created by God, asserting instead that he created himself. This usurping of God's role as Creator marked the beginning of ego, and led the Son to conceive of himself as being separate from God.

God then created and commissioned the Holy Spirit to awaken the Son. But the Son wrongly interpreted the coming of the Holy Spirit as judgment from God because the Son thought he was guilty of usurping God's role as Creator.

The Son's ego then fragmented into myriads of egos with physical bodies (i.e., human beings), each believing themselves separate from each other and from God. Humanity's basic problem then is its belief in being separate from God. The solution to the problem is a rediscovery of one's Christhood.[27]

The Course sets out to help people attain this.

Matthew Fox and the Institute in Culture and Creation Spirituality. The mystical orientation of Matthew Fox, a Dominican priest, leads him to suggest that we abandon any further quest for the "historical Jesus" and refocus our attention on a quest for the cosmic Christ. He provides several definitions of the cosmic Christ, the most important being "the pattern that connects."[28] The Cosmic Christ connects "heaven and earth, past and future, divinity and humanity, all of creation."[29] This definition of Christ makes it possible for Fox to call for a "deep ecumenism," by which he means a genuine coming together of all persons of all religions at a mystical level.[30] Thus, through Fox a New Age view of Christ has made significant inroads into orthodox (mostly Catholic, but also some Protestant) circles. AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN RESPONSE In responding to New Age claims about Christ, it is best to focus on several key issues rather than attempting to debate every nuance of New Age thought. The following represents a starting point for an orthodox rebuttal of New Age Christology.

An esoteric system of interpreting the Bible is unreliable. The primary problem with this kind of system (which seeks hidden, inner meanings in Bible verses) is that it bypasses rationality in favor of mysticism. In such a system, there is no way to prove that a given interpretation is right or wrong since "proof" presupposes rationality and objectivity. James Sire comments that "there is no way to tell if the system that derives from esotericism is really so or merely a figment of the esotericist's imagination - or worse - a direct plant by the Father of Lies."[31] Incidentally, Jesus - whom New Agers claim to revere as a Master - clearly believed in a literal interpretation of Scripture (cf. Matt. 5:18).

Jesus was not a mere enlightened Master. The New Agers' rendition of Jesus as an "enlightened Master" in a class with Buddha, Zoroaster, and others is a radical distortion of the Jesus found in Scripture (which is to say, the Jesus of historical record rather than the Jesus of the mystical Akashic Records). The Jesus found in Scripture clearly believed and taught that He alone among men is God (John 8:58; 10:30; 14:9-10). Douglas Groothuis comments: "If Jesus thought he was uniquely God incarnate but he wasn't, he was far less than 'an enlightened master' - he didn't even know who he was! If he knew he was not uniquely God incarnate, but said he was, he was a flaming fraud, and in no sense was he an 'enlightened master.' Worse yet, he would have been a deceiver, leading a multitude astray."[32]

Jesus alone is the Christ. New Agers typically say "the Christ" came upon Jesus at His baptism and departed three years later at the cross. But even as a babe in Bethlehem - decades before His baptism - Jesus is called

Immanuel, "God with us" (Matt. 1:23). When the angel announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds he identified Jesus this way: "Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). Simeon, who was filled with the Holy Spirit, recognized the babe Jesus as Christ, in fulfillment of God's promise to him that "he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Christ" (Luke 2:26).

John's first epistle warns us: "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist - he denies the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22). This doesn't mean that David Spangler, for example, is the Antichrist, but certainly Spangler (like other New Age teachers) is an antichrist.

The Incarnation is personal and permanent. Contrary to the typical New Age scenario (a three-year incarnation of an impersonal Christ in a human Jesus), Scripture asserts that Jesus Christ - personal and eternal God - became incarnate via the virgin birth, and this incarnation lasts forever.

Of course, the real miracle here is not the virgin birth, but the virgin conception. Mary is told: 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:35). This is when the Incarnation occurred.

Moreover, the Incarnation was not a temporary arrangement. After Christ resurrected He made numerous appearances, proving beyond any doubt the continuance of his human-divine union. Jesus ascended bodily into heaven after the resurrection (Luke 24; John 20:22-28; Acts 1:1-11; 7:56). When Christ returns in glory, He will sit on the throne as the Son of Man: "You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 26:64).

Jesus is uniquely and exclusively man's only means of coming into a relationship with God. Jesus asserted: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me" (John 14:6). A bold Peter proclaimed that "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). And recall that previous to the birth of Jesus, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph saying, "you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He [emphatic] who will save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). Paul likewise affirms that "there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Jesus Christ will come again in glory. In contrast with the New Age idea that the coming of Christ is contingent on man's ability to prepare the earth spiritually for this coming, Scripture says that Christ is coming as

King of kings and Lord of lords, and man has power neither to invoke His coming nor to prevent it (Rev. 19:16). The phrase "King of kings and Lord of lords" emphasizes His supreme sovereignty and authority over mortal, weak man.

In conclusion, the true Christ is the Christ of the gospels. The many miraculous signs He performed attested to His supreme identity, not some divine potential we all possess: "These [miraculous signs] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). NOTES 1 H. P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine (Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House, 1966), 168-89.

2 Annie Besant, Esoteric Christianity (Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House, 1953), 90-91.

3 Cited by Jan Karel Van Baalen, Chaos of the Cults (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956), 52.

4 Rudolf Steiner, The Reappearance of the Christ in the Etheric (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1983), 127-28.

5 Rudolf Steiner, Jesus and Christ (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1976), 16-17.

6 Rudolf Steiner, The Four Sacrifices of Christ (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1944), 19-20.

7 Alice A. Bailey, The Externalization of the Hierarchy (New York: Lucis Publishing Co., 1957), 222.

8 Ibid., 592.

9 Mrs. G. W. and Donald Ballard, Purpose of the Ascended Masters "I AM" Activity (Chicago: Saint Germain Press, 1942), 110.

10 Ibid., 35.

11 Benjamin Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom (North Hollywood, CA: Tara Center, 1980), 47.

12 Alice Bailey, The Reappearance of the Christ (New York: Lucis Publishing Co., 1979), 188.

13 David Spangler, Reflections on the Christ (Forres, Scotland: Findhorn

Publications, 1981), 107.

14 David Spangler, Conversations with John (Middleton, WI: Lorian Press, 1983), 5.

15 David Spangler, Revelation: The Birth of a New Age (Middleton, WI: Lorian Press, 1976), 117.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid., 141.

18 Ibid., 121.

19 Spangler, Reflections on the Christ, 14-15.

20 Ibid., 86.

21 Mark and Elizabeth Prophet, Climb the Highest Mountain (Los Angeles: Summit University Press, 1974), 279-80.

22 Ibid., 228.

23 Ibid., 160.

24 Phineas P. Quimby, The Quimby Manuscripts, ed. Horatio W. Dresser (New Hyde Park, NY: University Books, 1961), 283.

25 Elizabeth Sand Turner, What Unity Teaches, Lee's Summit, MO: Unity School of Christianity, n.d., 3.

26 Ernest Holmes, What Religious Science Teaches (Los Angeles: Science of Mind Publications, 1975), 20.

27 Dean C. Halverson, "A Course in Miracles: Seeing Yourself as Sinless," SCP Journal 7, 1 (1987):18-27.

28 Matthew Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988), 133-35.

29 Ibid., 134.

30 Ibid., 228.

31 James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 113.

32 Douglas Groothuis, Confronting the New Age (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 121. Glossary of Key Terms Avatar. One who "descends" into human form from above, never having gone through reincarnation. Such a one is considered a manifestation of divinity and seeks to reveal divine truths especially important to a particular age.

Christology. The doctrinal study of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Esoteric. A word used to describe knowledge that is possessed or understood only by a few.

Esoteric Christianity. A mystical interpretation of Christianity which sees its "core truth" as identical to that of every other religion (i.e., man is divine). This approach seeks hidden or inner meanings in Scripture.

Karma. Refers to the "debt" a soul accumulates as a result of good or bad actions committed during one's life (or past lives). If one accumulates good Karma, he or she will be reincarnated in a desirable state. If one accumulates bad Karma, he or she will be reincarnated in a less desirable state.

Mass Incarnation. An incarnation of the Christ in all humanity. Some say this incarnation is now taking place on a planetary scale, and is not unlike the incarnation of the cosmic Christ in the body of Jesus, 2000 years ago.

Medium. Traditionally, the word refers to an occultist through whom disembodied spirits communicate. New Agers use the word of Jesus acting as a bodily vehicle for the Christ.

Metaphysics. A branch of philosophy which focuses on the ultimate nature of reality. In New Age circles, the term has become synonymous with the "mind science" school of thought developed by P. P. Quimby (see article) and with New Age philosophy in general.

Monism. A metaphysical theory which sees all reality as a unified whole. Everything is seen as being composed of the same substance.

(An article from the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1989, page 9) The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

The Debate Over Feminist Theology: Which View Is Biblical?Part Three in a Three-Part Series on Liberation Theologyby Ron Rhodes

The woman is "in all things inferior to the man," said first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.[1] Rabbi Judah, a contemporary of Josephus, said "a man must pronounce three blessings each day: 'Blessed be the Lord who did not make me a heathen; blessed be he who did not make me a woman; blessed be he who did not make me an uneducated person.'"[2]

Jewish Rabbis in the first century were encouraged not to teach or even to speak with women. Jewish wisdom literature tells us that "he that talks much with womankind brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Law and at the last will inherit Gehenna [hell]."[3] One reason for the avoidance of women was the belief that they could lead men astray: "From garments cometh a moth and from a woman the iniquities of a man" (Ecclus. 42:13). Indeed, men were often viewed as intrinsically better than women, for "better is the iniquity of a man than a woman doing a good turn" (Ecclus. 42:14).[4]

In view of this low status of women, it is not surprising that they enjoyed few legal rights in Jewish society. Women were not even allowed to give evidence in a court of law. Moreover, according to the rabbinic school that followed Rabbi Hillel, a man could legally divorce his wife if she burned his dinner.

It was in this oppressive context that Christianity was born. Many people - both men and women - have hailed Jesus as a feminist because of His elevation of women in a male-chauvinist society. Moreover, Paul's statement in Galatians 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (NIV) - has been called "the Magna Carta of humanity."[5] Because of the Christian's standing in Christ, it is argued, the subordination of women that was (allegedly) caused by the Fall (Gen. 3) has been replaced with total equality of the sexes in Christ. Any apparent biblical teaching of the need for female submission today is based on misinterpretations by male scholars.

Feminism. To some the word represents liberation and long-awaited justice; to others, divisiveness. Emotions have run feverishly high in the debate over women's rights, and the past few decades have seen the debate move into the theological mainstream. Today, women are increasingly being ordained as ministers in many Christian denominations; Bibles are being published using "inclusive language;" and those who stand against either of these often find themselves branded as chauvinists.

Certainly no one can deny that women have suffered abuse at the hands of

males throughout history. This has caused theologian Duane Litfin to ask some penetrating questions:

What follower of Jesus could ignore the fundamental injustice of laws that work to the disadvantage of women as women? Who could fail to be outraged at the prospect of a woman being paid a fraction of what a man earns for doing the same work? What fair-minded person is not dismayed when reminded that it has only been within the life spans of many living Americans that women have been thought worthy of the vote? And what believer has not discovered blind spots within his own perspective that, on closer inspection, caused embarrassment and repentance? Any who are willing to see can find much in the feminist movement to be praised and supported.[6]

I think Litfin is right. But alas, as Litfin also notes, "the worthy goals of the movement do not stand alone."[7]

In this article, my focus will be limited to examining how evangelical feminists are arguing their case from the Bible. I will then show why traditionalists reject this variety of liberation theology. First, however, it is necessary to distinguish evangelical feminism from three other varieties of feminism. VARIETIES OF FEMINISM The different subgroups among feminists have been categorized variously. For my purposes, I have chosen to classify them as secular feminists, New Age feminists, liberal Christian feminists, and evangelical feminists. These subgroups should not be viewed as having clearly defined lines of demarcation; rather, they are more like clusters along the theological-philosophical continuum. Along this continuum, it is possible that a feminist may fall between the clusters, thereby sharing some of the characteristics of two different groups.[8]

Secular feminists are humanists who disallow God, revelation, and religion in the discussion of feminism. They view the Bible as a major source of chauvinist ideas and a relic of antiquity that has no relevance to the ongoing debate over the roles of men and women in modern society.

New Age feminists are pagans who are typically involved in the worship of a feminine deity or goddess. (The upcoming Fall issue of the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL will feature an article by Norman L. Geisler on neopaganism and feminism.)

Liberal Christian feminists operate within a Christian framework but approach feminism (and theology in general) from a very liberal perspective. They believe the Bible writers were simply men of their times and were limited in their perspectives. Liberal Christian feminists employ a "hermeneutic of suspicion" - that is, they "systematically assume that the

Bible's male authors and interpreters deliberately covered up the role of women in early Christianity."[9] Using such a hermeneutic, it is easy to sift out from the Bible anything one finds offensive to one's feminist tastes.

Evangelical feminists are those who generally (not always) hold to conservative views on the Bible and theology but who nevertheless embrace the feminist ideal of abolishing gender-based roles in society, church, and home. They believe the Bible is authoritative and, rightly understood, supports their feminist views.

Historically, the first widely publicized book on the role of women in the church that hinted at the formulation of a specific feminist theology was published in 1968: The Church and the Second Sex, by Mary Daly.[10] Following the publication of this book, the market was virtually flooded with books and articles on feminist theology, all of which challenged the idea that female subordination was ordained by God.

In 1975, a conference of evangelical feminists was held in Washington, D.C., that attracted 360 participants from across the United States. The conference formally endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment and established the Evangelical Women's Caucus (EWC), a grassroots "consciousness-raising" organization with chapters in many major cities.[11]

Some traditionalists believe that the emergence of evangelical feminism may be an example of the negative influence of trends in the wider culture on contemporary Christianity. However, Christian feminist Virginia Mollenkott rejects this assessment: "We did not become feminists and then try to fit our Christianity into feminist ideology. We heralded the feminist movement because we were convinced that the church had strayed from a correct understanding of God's will for women."[12]

Has the church strayed from a correct understanding of God's will for women? We shall now examine how evangelical feminists argue their case from Scripture. To simplify the task, I shall focus primary attention on the writings of only a few of the major evangelical feminists. Moreover, because of space limitations, I shall examine only the major arguments and the major Scripture passages they cite in support of their position. EVANGELICAL FEMINISM: AN OVERVIEW We begin with the observation that evangelical feminists react against the idea that the male of the human species is most truly representative of God. E. Margaret Howe, one of the more prominent feminist theologians today, notes that this idea is largely based on Old Testament imagery that represents God as "Father," and ignores the Scriptures which typify God as "Mother." The Lord, for example, is portrayed as a nursing mother (Isa. 49:15), midwife (Ps. 22:9-10), and a female homemaker (Ps. 123:2).

In view of the tendency to view God as a male, Howe says the sexuality of God has often been stressed rather than His personhood. But "we are in the realm of mythology," she retorts, "when we conceptualize God as male, rather than female, just as we would be if we considered him to be female rather than male. The being of God transcends the limitations of sexuality."[13]

Jesus Was a Feminist. As noted earlier, many people have hailed Jesus as being a feminist in a first-century, male-chauvinist society. That Jesus considered women on an equal plane with men is clear, we are told, from the manner in which He taught women. Consider His visit to the home of Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42): Martha took the typical woman's role: "Martha was distracted with much serving." Mary, however, took the supposedly "male" role: she "sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching." Martha apparently thought Mary was out of place in choosing the role of the "intellectual," for she complained to Jesus. But Jesus' response was a refusal to force all women into the stereotype: he treated Mary first of all as a person who was allowed to set her own priorities, and in this instance had "chosen the better part." And Jesus applauded her: "it is not to be taken from her."[14] Feminist Gretchen Hull calls Luke 10:38-42 "the most significant encounter because it taught that women should prefer studying theology over a preoccupation with domestic chores."[15]

Aida Spencer, another feminist writer, discounts the fact that Jesus chose twelve men to be disciples. "If Jesus' choice of twelve male [Jewish] disciples signifies that females should not be leaders in the church, then, consistently, his choice also signifies that Gentiles should not be leaders in the church."[16] But, Spencer argues, since Gentiles are allowed to be leaders in the church, the same should be true for women.

Feminists also cast Jesus in the role of a feminist in His first resurrection appearance. Mollenkott notes that "women were considered too frivolous and untrustworthy to be witnesses in a court of law, or to teach children - let alone men; yet Jesus commissioned women to be the first witnesses of His resurrection and sent them to teach the male disciples that He was risen."[17]

And because of what Jesus accomplished in His death and resurrection, it is argued, women have been delivered from the male domination that was caused by the Fall (Gen. 3).

Female Subordination: A Result of the Curse. Evangelical feminists argue that male headship and female subordination in the marital relationship is a part of the curse. Indeed, in Genesis 3:16 God pronounced judgment against the woman: "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain

you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Mollenkott argues that "sin enters the human condition in Genesis 3. Only after Adam and Eve have substituted their will for God's will does the specter of male supremacy and female subordination enter the picture."[18] Feminist Gilbert Bilezikian thus argues that "it is proper to regard both male dominance and death as being antithetical to God's original intent in creation. Both are the result of sin, itself instigated by Satan. Their origin is satanic."[19]

The good news, feminists say, is that in Christ "the life-giving law of the Spirit has set you free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2). "Theologically speaking," Howe argues, "the death of Christ released humanity from the curse brought about by sin. Woman is no longer to be subjugated under male headship. The mutual and complementary relationship that Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall may now be restored."[20]

Equal in Christ (Galatians 3:28). One might say that the theme verse for evangelical feminism is Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Evangelical feminists argue that Paul is not speaking in this verse about the equality of men and women in their spiritual standing before God, but of the practical outworking of that standing in society. Richard and Joyce Boldrey assert that "Galatians 3:28 does not say 'God loves each of you, but stay in your places'; it says that there are no longer places, no longer categories, no longer differences in rights and privileges, codes and values."[21] Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty suggest that in view of Galatians 3:28, "all social distinctions between men and women should [be] erased in the church."[22]

Mutual Submission. Ephesians 5:21-24 instructs men and women: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

How can this passage be interpreted to fit the feminist ideal? Feminists generally make verse 21 - which calls for husbands and wives to "submit to one another" - the governing verse of the entire passage. Because of what Christ accomplished at the Cross, the male domination brought about by the Fall has been done away with, and now there is to be mutual submission between husbands and wives in Christ.

(Traditionalists, however, often argue that the Greek pronoun allelous ["one another"] may carry the meaning "some to others" [Rev. 6:4; Gal. 6:2].

Understood this way, Ephesians 5:21 - as an introduction to verses 22-24 - may be paraphrased: "Those who are under authority should be subject to others among you who have authority over them."[23])

Ephesians 5:22-24 - which calls for wives to submit to their husbands - is problematic for feminists. They explain these verses in any one of several ways. Some argue that a hierarchical model of male/female roles may have been appropriate for New Testament times, but such a model is no longer binding on twentieth-century Christians. Indeed, "an interpretation that 'absolutizes a given historical social order' is unacceptable."[24] Scanzoni and Hardesty suggest that "passages which are theological and doctrinal in content [should be] used to interpret those where the writer is dealing with practical local cultural problems. Except Galatians 3:28 [which is theological in nature], all of the references to women in the New Testament are contained in passages dealing with practical concerns about personal relationships or behavior in worship services."[25] Thus, passages such as Ephesians 5:22-24 must give way to Galatians 3:28.

Other feminists say that while Paul taught a hierarchical model of male/female relations in Ephesians, this was based on his rabbinic training and he was wrong. Mollenkott is an example of this line of thought and says that passages that teach a hierarchical model should be seen as "distorted by the human instrument."[26]

Still other feminists deal with these verses by appealing to another possible meaning of the word "head." It is argued that Ephesians 5:23 - "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" - has nothing to do with the exercise of authority. Rather, the Greek word for "head" in this verse must mean source, a meaning supported by two pieces of ancient literature: Herodotus 4.91 and Orphic Fragments 21a.[27]

The meaning of source for "head" is certainly compatible with the Genesis account, it is argued, for indeed the woman does have her source in man.[28] Hence, as Herbert and Fern Miles argue, "there is nothing in the fifth chapter of Ephesians that would even remotely indicate" that wives are responsible to submit to their husbands.[29]

(However, New Testament scholar Wayne Grudem researched 2,336 instances of the word "head" [Greek: kephale] in all the major writings of the classical and Hellenistic Greek periods, and found no clear instances of such a usage. He says the two pieces of ancient literature cited by feminists - which predate the New Testament by 400 years - are not convincing. Moreover, "all the major lexicons that specialize in the New Testament period give [the] meaning ['authority over'], whereas none give the meaning 'source.'"[30])

Speaking in the Church. Evangelical feminists eagerly point out that Paul

allowed women to prophesy in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 11:2-16). However, the apostle Paul added a qualification: "Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head; the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (1 Cor. 11:5, 10). Howe takes this to mean that Paul's only concern in 1 Corinthians 11 was that women maintain their sexual identity as women, and that this should be reflected in their manner of dress. "A woman appointed to a leadership position in the church is not adopting a male role; nor, on the other hand, does she stand before the congregation as a sex object. Her hair and shoulders are to be covered because in the redemptive order she stands before God as man's equal, not as the object of man's desire. Thus the veil is a symbol of her 'authority,' authority invested in her by God as a result of the redemptive work of Christ in whom 'there is neither male nor female' (Gal. 3:28)."[31]

In light of these careful instructions, Howe argues, "it would be presumptuous to argue that Paul's later comments in this letter (14:34-35) preclude a woman from ordination on the basis that she is not permitted to speak in the church."[32]

Silence in the Church. In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the apostle Paul said that "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Most Christian feminists say the word "speak" in 1 Corinthians 14:34 refers only to general talking or idle chatter and does not include formal lectures, exhortation, or teaching. Hence, women were prohibited by Paul from chattering or disturbing the meeting, but not from formal public teaching or leading.

A more difficult passage for feminists is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, where the apostle Paul said: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." One popular feminist theory for explaining this passage is that Paul was prohibiting women from speaking or teaching because they had not been properly educated.[33] Hence, "because twentieth-century women are better trained and qualified to teach, Paul's directive doesn't apply. His prohibition was meant to gradually fade away along with the disappearance of social distinctions between men and women."[34]

Other feminists interpret Paul's prohibition as pertaining to women who were teaching error or false doctrine in the church. Seen in this light, the prohibition was not intended to be universally applied. Paul was simply dealing with a specific local problem in Corinth in which some misled women were leading others astray.

The Feminist Approach. From our brief survey above, we may conclude that evangelical feminists sometimes argue their case from the biblical text (e.g., Gen. 3:16; Gal. 3:28). Other biblical texts, they say, deal with local cultural situations of the first century and thus must not be seen as normative for modern society (e.g., Eph. 5:21-24; 1 Cor. 14:33b-36; 1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Evangelical feminists marshal many other arguments besides those we have cited to support their case. But the above is sufficient to illustrate their basic approach. We shall now turn our attention to how traditionalists respond to this brand of liberation theology. A CRITIQUE Feminist liberation theology has without doubt made some important, positive contributions. I can only mention a few of the more notable here. First, feminist theology has called attention to the invaluable role women have played in the church throughout Christian history. Second, feminist theology has rightly pointed to the failure of many men in fulfilling their God-appointed roles of loving their wives as Christ loved the church. If Christian husbands through the centuries had been consistently faithful in following this one injunction, the controversy over gender-based roles in the church could have been avoided (or at least substantially diminished). And third, feminist theology serves as an indictment against the abuse and oppression that women have all too often suffered at the hands of chauvinist men. I consider these contributions important and extremely relevant.

Despite these contributions, however, there are some serious problems that must be addressed. Space limitations regrettably do not allow for a response to each of the passages cited above. I shall therefore limit my critique to a pivotal premise of feminist theology - that is, that female subordination is a result of the Fall, and that in Christ all social hierarchy has been obliterated. If this premise is shown to be in error, then the feminist position on many New Testament passages - including 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:33b-36, Galatians 3:28, and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 - is in serious jeopardy.

Feminists appeal to God's judgment against the woman in Genesis 3:16 - "[man] will rule over you" - in their attempt to prove that female subordination was caused by the Fall. A more thorough look at the biblical evidence reveals, however, that this is not the case. Male headship is clearly established in the creation account in Genesis 2 - before the Fall even took place. Man was created first. And the woman was created from Adam's rib to be his helper (Gen. 2:18). Certainly, both male and female were created in God's image and were accorded personal dignity, but God in the creation narrative set them in a nonreversible relation to one another - male in loving headship over the female.

Adam's headship is illustrated in many ways in the creation account. For example, as soon as the woman was created, Adam named the woman: "She shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man" (Gen. 2:23). This is significant, because to name someone or something in ancient times implied having authority over the one named (e.g., Gen. 17:5; 2 Kings 23:34; Dan. 1:7).

It is also highly revealing that when God gave instructions about moral responsibility, He gave these instructions to Adam (Gen. 2:16-17). And after the Fall, God first summoned Adam, not Eve, even though she was the one who had led him into sin. "Adam, where are you?" God said immediately following the Fall (Gen. 3:9). In Romans 5:12, Adam was held solely responsible for the Fall, even though Eve played a significant role.

Certainly one of Adam's failures in the Fall was his abdication of responsibility for leadership. Instead of obeying God and leading his wife, he disobeyed God and followed his wife's lead (by eating the fruit). For this reason, God begins His sentence against Adam, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife" (Gen. 3:17). In the Fall, therefore, God's intended order of authority was reversed. As Gordon Wenham puts it, "Eve listened to the serpent instead of Adam; Adam listened to Eve instead of God."[35]

In view of all this, God's judgment against the woman in Genesis 3:16 cannot be viewed as the source of hierarchical social order. Rather it points to the reality that with the entrance of sin the hierarchical order remains (having been established in Genesis 2), but sin's effect will now be experienced within that order. Hence, God's statement in Genesis 3:16 was simply a divine description of what would occur (male domination and oppression as opposed to loving headship), not a mandate which obedient servants of God should attempt to carry out.

Equal in Christ (Gal. 3:28). When Paul says "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female" in Christ (Gal. 3:28), he seems to be alluding to the morning prayer of Jewish men in which they thanked God that they were not born a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.[36] These three classes had severely limited privileges in society.

Contextually, the verses that precede Galatians 3:28 pertain to justification by faith and how a person comes to be included in the blessings promised in the Abrahamic covenant (vv. 15-25). Then, in verse 26, Paul says "you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." For Paul, the term son implies heir (cf. 4:7, 31). "In society these three pairs - none of which were ontologically unequal by creation [that is, they were not unequal in their essence or being as created by God] - are unequally

privileged, but in Christ's offer of salvation, Paul argued, there is no distinction. So then, in Galatians 3:26-28, Paul was saying that no kind of person is excluded from the position of being a child of Abraham who has faith in Jesus Christ."[37] That Paul was referring solely to one's position in Christ is evident in the words "sons of God," "Abraham's seed," and "heirs according to the promise." It takes a great leap in logic to say that positional equality must necessitate functional equivalence.

Elimination of gender-based roles is therefore not a legitimate inference from Galatians 3:28. Ontological equality and social hierarchy are not mutually exclusive. The doctrine of the Trinity illustrates this: Jesus is equal to the Father in terms of His being, but He voluntarily submits to the Father's leadership. There is no contradiction in affirming both an equality of being and a functional subordination among the persons in the Godhead. Likewise, there is no contradiction in Paul saying that "there is neither male nor female in Christ" and "wives, submit to your husbands."

The question we must now address (though very briefly) is, How does the hierarchical order established at creation relate to the "female subordination" passages: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 14:33b-36, and 1 Timothy 2:11-15?

Speaking in the Church. 1 Corinthians 4:8-10 tells us that the Corinthians had made much of their newfound freedom in Christ. It is possible that the Christian women in Corinth felt that their new position in Christ was incompatible with wearing a "sign of authority" on their heads in church services when praying or prophesying.

Paul emphasized in chapter 11, however, that the woman's spiritual equality with the man does not in any way do away with the male headship and female subordination established at the Creation. In arguing his case, Paul stated that man "is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Cor. 11:7-9). Paul based his argument for female subordination on the order of creation and the purpose of the woman's creation - not on God's declaration to Eve at the Fall. He indicated that the woman brings honor to the man by fulfilling her role of functional subordination, while man brings glory to God by fulfilling the functional role of leader.

In view of this, Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11:2-11 may be summarized as follows: (1) Man is the head of the woman, just as Christ is the head of the church, and as God is the head of Christ. (2) Thus, every woman who prays or prophesies in church must do so in a way that preserves the hierarchical social order given by the Creator, and this is to be accomplished by wearing a "sign of authority" on her head.

Silence in the Church (1 Cor. 14:33b-36). How do we relate 1 Corinthians 11, in which Paul allows for women praying and prophesying in the church, with chapter 14, in which Paul commands women to be silent in church? We noted earlier that many feminists say Paul in chapter 14 was merely forbidding disorderly chatter. Seen in this light, Paul was not prohibiting orderly preaching by women.

This interpretation, however, does not fit the context. Paul instructed women to remain silent because they were women, not because they were engaged in idle chatter or were disorderly. In order to be subordinate, Paul said, women must be silent - just as the law says. Scholars differ as to what passage(s) Paul may have been referring to with the word "law,"[38] but that is beside the point. The important factor is that Paul was clearly using this word in reference to Scripture - whether he was speaking of the Mosaic law (Rom. 7:22, 25; 1 Cor. 9:9) or to the Old Testament as a whole (Rom. 3:10-19; 1 Cor. 14:21).

Paul's appeal to the law therefore shows that he was not simply repeating something he had learned from rabbinic literature, but was teaching something backed by God's Word. That Paul cites the law shows that his argument for the silence of women in church was theological and universal, not sociological or cultural.

1 Timothy 2:11-14. Another passage in which Paul calls for the silence of women in church is 1 Timothy 2:11-14: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Paul here builds his argument for female subordination on the order of creation and the order of the Fall. Paul's reasoning is something like this: "Adam was created first as the head; Eve was created second and she fell first; therefore, women are under some restriction." More is involved here than mere chronological priority. Paul saw the priority in time as indicative of the headship of the male, to which the woman, the "helper suitable for him" (Gen. 2:18), should respond.

We gain insight about Paul's prohibition by noting that teachers in New Testament times exercised substantial authority over learners.[39] Teaching doctrine in church was therefore reserved for those men whom God placed in authority to represent Him in spiritual matters. Women are not allowed to teach a church congregation, Paul indicated, for this - by the very nature of teaching - would place them in spiritual authority over men.

How, then, does Paul's command to silence relate to his allowance of women prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11? In 1 Corinthians 11 the women were speaking divine utterances, whereas in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 they were not. Women who spoke under divine control and who were appropriately attired were not exercising their own authority over men and so were not in violation of Paul's injunctions in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2.

I recognize that the question of how to harmonize 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 has been answered variously by scholars. In my understanding of Paul's theology, it would seem that though women are completely equal with men in their standing before God, they are forbidden to be in a functional position of ecclesiastical authority over men, teaching them in a congregational setting. This implies neither the superiority of the male nor the inferiority of the female. Paul's theology simply reflects the creation order established by God in which man was appointed to function as spiritual head.

Women are not prohibited, however, from teaching men on an individual basis - as apparently Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, taught Apollos (Acts 18:26). (Priscilla was evidently teaching under the headship of Aquila, to whom the authority belonged.) Nor are women forbidden to prophesy in a respectful and submissive manner (1 Cor. 11:5-6). Nor are women forbidden to personally address fellow believers, male and female, to their "edification, exhortation, and comfort" (1 Cor. 14:3). Nor are women forbidden to teach women (Titus 2:3-4) or children (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14), or take part in other fruitful ministries (e.g., Rom. 16:3, 6, 12). In short, women are privileged to serve God in many different ways within the authority structure He designed.

We gain perspective on this issue by recognizing that the biblical world view is based on the assumption that a personal God sovereignly designed an ordered universe to function in a particular way. Crucial to this world view is the concept of authority. Romans 13:1 tells us that God is the source not simply of all authority but of the very concept of authority. "That the universe should be ordered around a series of over/under hierarchical relationships is His idea, a part of His original design. He delegates His authority according to His own pleasure to those whom He places in appropriate positions and it is to Him that His creatures submit when they acknowledge that authority."[40]

Within that authority structure, both men and women are given the privilege of serving Him - but in different ways. Simply because Scripture says women can't teach men in a position of authority does not mean that their ministries are unimportant. To Paul, all ministries were significant: "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I don't need you.' And the head cannot say to the feet, 'I don't need you.' On the contrary, parts of the body that seem

to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor" (1 Cor. 12:21-23a).

So, should women be involved in ministry in the church? Absolutely! "That women are gifted for and called to service in the church is plain," said J. I. Packer, "and gifted persons are gifts that the churches must properly value and fully use."[41] However, as Packer also notes, this call to service (according to Scripture) is not to involve ecclesiastical authority over men. BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD It is deplorable that so many men throughout history have misused and abused God's ordained authority structure by oppressing and dominating women - sometimes justifying their actions by misapplications of the passages discussed in this article. Such misapplications must be condemned as a gross (and sinful) distortion of God's original design for man and woman.

In an enlightening essay, John Piper said that manhood and womanhood are the beautiful handiwork of a good and loving God. Indeed, God "designed our differences and they are profound. They are not mere physiological prerequisites for sexual union. They go to the root of our personhood."[42]

Addressing the need for a return to biblical masculinity and femininity, Piper suggests that "at the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man's different relationships. At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman's different relationships."[43]

This call for a return to biblical masculinity and femininity led Elisabeth Elliot to comment that "true liberation comes with humble submission to God's original design."[44] Indeed, the noblest achievement of any human being - male or female - is to discover God's design and fulfill it. Let this be our goal. NOTES 1 Flavius Josephus, Against Apion (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1974), 622.

2 H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munchen, 1893), 2:495; cited by Werner Neuer, Man and Woman in Christian Perspective (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 93.

3 M. Aboth 1.5; cited by Neuer, 93.

4 R. Nicole, "Women, Biblical Concept of," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 1177.

5 Paul King Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), 142.

6 A. Duane Litfin, "Theological Issues in Contemporary Feminism," in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 334.

7 Ibid.

8 I am indebted to Litfin for this observation: 349-50.

9 Kenneth L. Woodward, "Feminism and the Churches," Newsweek, 13 Feb. 1989, 61.

10 Mary Daly, The Church and the Second Sex (New York: Harper & Row, 1968).

11 Richard Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 122.

12 Quoted in Phyllis E. Alsdurf, "Evangelical Feminists: Ministry Is the Issue," Christianity Today, 21 July 1978, 47.

13 E. Margaret Howe, "The Positive Case for the Ordination of Women," in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, eds. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 268.

14 The Post American (1972); in Richard Quebedeaux, The Young Evangelicals (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1974), 114.

15 Gretchen Hull, Equal to Serve: Women and Men in the Church and Home (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1987), 115.

16 Aida Besanion Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), 45.

17 Virginia Mollenkott, "What is True Biblical Feminism?" Christian Life, Sept. 1977, 73.

18 Ibid., 72.

19 Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles: A Guide for the Study of Female Roles in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 56.

20 E. Margaret Howe, Women and Church Leadership (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 139.

21 Richard and Joyce Boldrey, Chauvinist or Feminist? Paul's View of Women (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 33.

22 Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1974), 72.

23 John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 494.

24 Elizabeth Clark and Herbert Richardson, eds., Women and Religion: A Feminist Source Book of Christian Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), 20.

25 Scanzoni and Hardesty, 18-19.

26 Virginia R. Mollenkott, Women, Men, and the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1977), 104.

27 Wayne Grudem, Appendix 1: "The Meaning of Kephale ('Head')," in Piper and Grudem, 425.

28 Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of Paul (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 139.

29 Herbert and Fern Miles, Husband-Wife Equality (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1978), 31.

30 Grudem, 425-68.

31 Howe, "The Positive Case for the Ordination of Women," 273.

32 Ibid.

33 Scanzoni and Hardesty, 71.

34 Mary A. Kassian, Women, Creation, and the Fall (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 116.

35 G. J. Wenham, "The Ordination of Women: Why Is It So Divisive?" The Churchman 92 (1978), 316.

36 S. Lewis Johnson, "Role Distinctions in the Church," in Piper and Grudem, 158.

37 H. Wayne House, "Neither Male nor Female in Christ Jesus," Bibliotheca

Sacra, January-March 1988, 54.

38 See H. Wayne House, "The Speaking of Women and the Prohibition of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September 1988, 301-318.

39 Ibid., 314.

40 A. Duane Litfin, "Evangelical Feminism: Why Traditionalists Reject It," Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September 1979, 267.

41 J. I. Packer, "Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters," Christianity Today, 11 Feb. 1991, 21.

42 John Piper, What's the Difference (Wheaton, IL: The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1989), 8-9.

43 Ibid., 12.

44 Ibid., 3. Glossary chauvinist: A person who in a prejudiced way believes in the superiority of his or her group. A "male chauvinist" is a sexist who assumes an innate male supremacy in most important areas of activity.

feminist: Broadly speaking, a person - female or male - that advocates equal rights, equal status, and equal opportunity for women in a male-dominated world; a person who favors the abolishment of gender-based roles in society, the home, and church.

hermeneutic: A method of interpreting Scripture. "Hermeneutics" is that branch of theology that prescribes rules and guidelines by which the Bible should be interpreted.

inclusive language: language that eliminates or greatly reduces male-centered terms in an attempt to be more "inclusive" of both genders.

(An article from the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1991, page 20)Go Back to Downloadable Articles

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 2526 Frisco, TX 75034

The Eye of Faithby Ron Rhodes

Shrouded in a dense fog, a large steamer edged slowly forward off the coast of Newfoundland, its foghorn crying out somber notes of warning. The captain - near exhaustion from lack of sleep - was startled by a gentle tap on his shoulder. He turned and found himself face-to-face with an old man in his late seventies.

The old man said, "Captain, I have come to tell you that I must be in Quebec on Saturday afternoon." (It was then Wednesday). The captain pondered for a moment, and then snorted: "Impossible." "Very well," the old man responded, "if your ship can't take me, God will find some other means to take me. I have never broken an engagement in fifty-seven years."

Lifting his weary hands in a gesture of despair, the captain replied, "I would help if I could - but I am helpless." Undaunted, the old man suggested, "Let's go down to the chart room and pray." The captain raised his eyebrows in utter disbelief, looking at the old man as if he had just escaped from a lunatic asylum. "Do you know how dense the fog is?" the captain demanded. The old man responded, "No, my eye is not on the thickness of the fog but on the living God who controls every circumstance of my life."

Against his better judgment, the captain accompanied the old man to the chart room and kneeled with him in prayer. With simple words a child might use, the old man prayed: "O Lord, if it is consistent with thy will, please remove this fog in five minutes. Thou knowest the engagement thou didst make for me in Quebec on Saturday. I believe it is thy will."

The captain, a nominal Christian at best, thought it wise to humor the old man and recite a short prayer. But before he was able to utter a single word, he felt a tap on his shoulder. The old man requested, "Don't pray, because you do not believe; and as I believe God has already answered, there is no need for you to pray." The captain's mouth dropped open. Then the old man explained: "Captain I have known my Lord for fifty-seven years and there has never been a single day that I have failed to gain an audience with the King. Get up, captain, and open the door, and you will find the fog is gone." The captain did as he was requested, and was astonished to find that the fog had indeed disappeared.

The captain later testified that his encounter with the aged George Muller completely revolutionized his Christian life. He had seen with his own eyes that Muller's God was the true and living God of the Bible. He had seen incredible power flow from a frail old man. . . a power rooted in simple childlike faith in God.1

Ray Stedman once delivered a sermon on Jeremiah in which he said: "Faith has an apparent ridiculousness about it. You are not acting by faith if you are doing what everyone around you is doing. Faith always appears to defy the circumstances. It constitutes a risk and a venture."2

This is the kind of faith George Muller demonstrated decade after decade in his long and fruitful life. During the final year of his earthly sojourn, he wrote that his faith had been increasing over the years little by little, but he emphatically insisted that there was nothing unique about him or his faith. He believed that a life of trust was open to virtually all of God's children if only they would endure when trials came instead of giving up. It was this kind of faith that enabled Muller to enjoy the Lord on a non-stop basis, regardless of the punches life threw his way. Perceiving Unseen Realities Scientists tell us that the earth is spinning on its axis at a speed of over 1000 miles per hour at this very moment. Yet we have no sensation of motion. At the same time, the earth is rotating around the sun at a speed of 66,000 miles per hour. Do you feel anything? The earth is moving at an incredible speed but we do not perceive it. Einstein made this point by striking two consecutive blows with his fist and saying, "Between those two strokes, we traveled thirty miles." Incredible motion with no perception! Yet we accept by faith that it is nevertheless true.

The Apostle Paul defines faith as "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1). I like John Wesley's paraphrase of this verse: "[Faith] is the power to see into the world of spirits, into things invisible and eternal. It is the power to understand those things which are not perceived by worldly senses."3

Of course, the big problem for most of us is that we tend to base everything on what our five senses tell us. And since the spiritual world is not subject to any of these, our faith is often weak and impotent. A. W. Tozer analyzes the problem this way: "The world of sense intrudes upon our attention day and night for the whole of our lifetime. It is clamorous, insistent and self-demonstrating. It does not appeal to our faith; it is here, assaulting our five senses, demanding to be accepted as real and final. But sin has so clouded the lenses of our hearts that we cannot see that other reality, the City of God, shining around us. The world of sense triumphs."4

The eye of faith, however, perceives this unseen reality. Tozer is right when he says that "a spiritual kingdom lies all about us, enclosing us, embracing us, altogether within reach of our inner selves, waiting for us to recognize it. God Himself is here waiting our response to His Presence. This eternal world will come alive to us the moment we begin to reckon upon its

reality."5

Do you remember the story of Elisha in 2 Kings 6:8-23? Elisha found himself in a situation where he was completely surrounded by enemy troops, yet he remained calm and relaxed. His servant, however, must have been climbing the walls at the sight of this hostile army with vicious-looking warriors and innumerable battle-chariots on every side.

Undaunted, Elisha said to him: "Don't be afraid. Those who are with us are more than those who are with them" (2 Kings 6:16). Elisha then prayed to God, "'O Lord, open his eyes so he may see.' Then the Lord opened the servant's eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha" (2 Kings 6:17). God was protecting Elisha and his servant with a whole army of magnificent angelic beings!

The reason Elisha never let his feathers get ruffled was because he was "sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see" (cf. Hebrews 11:1). Unlike many Christians today, Elisha was not a slave to the visible and the tangible.

George Muller was a man after Elisha's own heart. As his autobiography informs us, he had many orphans under his care; too many - in fact - for one man to financially support without God's intervention. At the orphanage one morning the tables were all set for breakfast, but the cupboard was completely bare. There was no food! And there was no money! The children were all standing around waiting for their breakfasts, and Mr. Muller said to them, "Children, you know we must be in time for school." He then lifted his head and prayed, "Dear Father, we thank Thee for what Thou art going to give us to eat."

Almost immediately after this, there was a knock at the door. It was a local baker who said, "Mr. Muller, I could not sleep last night. Somehow I felt you didn't have any bread for breakfast, and the Lord wanted me to send you some. So I got up at 2:00 am and baked some fresh bread and here it is." Mr. Muller humbly thanked the baker and then offered praise to God for providing so miraculously for him and the orphans.

Moments later there was a second knock at the door. It was the local milkman whose milk wagon had just broken down in front of Muller's orphanage. He offered all his milk to Muller and the orphans so he could have his wagon hauled to the nearest repair shop.6 Coincidence? No way!

Muller had a simple, childlike faith in a living God. He knew beyond any doubt that an unseen spiritual world existed around him. And in spite of what his physical senses told him (i.e., no food and no money), he was confident that God could be trusted for all of his temporal needs.

Hope: The Fuel of Faith Paul tells us that faith involves "being sure of what we hope for" (Hebrews 11:1). In his classic Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin delineates for us how hope relates to faith: "Hope refreshes faith, that it may not become weary. It sustains faith to the final goal, that it may not fail in midcourse, or even at the starting gate. In short, by unremitting renewing and restoring, it invigorates faith again and again with perseverance."7

One of my favorite Old Testament characters is Moses. His life illustrates how hope can feed and sustain faith: "By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:24-27).

Moses could have had immeasurable power, authority, and riches if he had chosen to stay in Egypt. Yet he gave it all up because of his faith in God. And his faith was nourished by his hope of a future reward, a hope which gave him an eternal perspective on life.

Was this kind of hope characteristic of George Muller's faith? I am sure of it! I recently discovered that after Muller's death, his son-in-law and successor in the ministry - James Wright - disclosed that "the mysterious name of a generous donor which had appeared on the Annual Reports for many years as 'from a servant of the Lord Jesus who, constrained by the love of Christ, seeks to lay up treasures in heaven,' was none other than George Muller himself."8 Muller's future hope had fanned his faith into a flame! Do you have a hope? Faith in God Alone Faith is only as good as the object of that faith. The story is told of a small boy in England who was asked by a scientist to allow himself to be lowered down the side of a cliff by a rope in order to recover some important specimens. "We will pay a lot of money," said the scientist. But the boy replied that he wasn't interested. The scientist was persistent, however, and finally persuaded the boy to do it. But only on one condition: that his father would be the one to hold the ropes by which he would be lowered. He felt safe going down the side of the cliff because the object of his faith was his own father who had never let him down.

Recall with me the story of David and Goliath. To the eye of sense David had no earthly chance of conquering the mighty giant who had been arrogantly defying the armies of Israel. But David, looking at the situation through the eye of faith, could perceive the unseen divine forces that were fighting

on his side.

Saul - who was blind to all of this - warned David: "You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a boy, and he has been a fighting man from his youth" (1 Samuel 17:33). But David asserted, "The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine" (1 Samuel 17:37). Then when David came face-to-face with the giant warrior, he declared: "This day the Lord will hand you over to me, and I'll strike you down. . . the battle is the Lord's, and he will give all of you into our hands" (1 Samuel 17:46-47).

And the rest is history. Goliath lost the fight before it had even begun. Why? Because the object of David's faith was a mighty God who once declared: "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for me?" (Jeremiah 32:27). The object of David's faith spelled D-E-F-E-A-T for Goliath.

In his book The Pursuit of God, A. W. Tozer commented: "Like the eye which sees everything in front of it and never sees itself, faith is occupied with the Object upon which it rests and pays no attention to itself at all. While we are looking at God we do not see ourselves - blessed riddance."9 This was David's secret. He payed no attention to his own weakness and inability. His eye of faith was solely on his Deliverer.

This was also Hudson Taylor's secret. I recall that he once set sail from Liverpool to China on a small sailing-ship, the "Dumfries." When sailing to the north of New Guinea, the captain of the Dumfries discovered that although a breeze would usually spring up after sundown and last until dawn, there was rarely any wind during the daylight hours. Not exactly what you would call ideal sailing conditions!

On one particular day, the captain became noticeably anxious, and when Hudson asked what was bothering him, he explained that a strong undercurrent was pulling them towards some sunken reefs. To make matters worse, there was no wind to give them the power to withstand the undercurrent. All they could do, said the captain, was to wait for the inevitable to happen. "No," replied young Hudson, "there is one thing we have not done yet - we have not prayed."10

There were three other spirit-filled believers aboard the ship, and Hudson suggested that each of them retire to their cabins and pray for a breeze. Hudson had prayed for just a few minutes when he gained assurance that their prayers were answered. "Without further ado he went up on deck and asked the first officer ( a rank unbeliever) to set the sail to catch the coming wind. The man nearly exploded at such an apparently ridiculous suggestion -

especially coming from this stripling of a landlubber, who, to cap this farcical nonsense, was religious."11 Yet Hudson persuaded him to give it a try. With a curse in his mouth and contempt in his eyes, the first officer gave the order and his men jumped to obey.

At that moment, the captain came on deck to see what all the commotion was about. And he witnessed God's response to Taylor's faith. "No sooner was the sail set than the prayer-answering breeze filled it and the ship was soon pulling away from the reef to the safety of the open sea."12

Taylor's attention was not on the weakness and inability of puny man. His attention was not on uncontrollable circumstances like the strong undercurrent and lack of wind. The object of his faith was the all-powerful God of the Bible. Taylor believed; God responded! Conditioning the Faith Muscle I've always been taught that faith is like a muscle. A muscle has to be repeatedly stretched to its limit of endurance in order to build more strength. Without increased stress in training, the muscle will simply not grow. In the same way, faith must be repeatedly tested to the limit of its endurance in order to expand and develop. Very often, God allows His children to go through trying experiences in order to develop this muscle.

George Muller put it this way: "God delights to increase the faith [or condition the faith-muscle] of His children. We ought, instead of wanting no trials before victory, no exercise for patience, to be willing to take them from God's hand as a means. I say - and say it deliberately - trials, obstacles, difficulties, and sometimes defeats, are the very food of faith."13

This principle is beautifully illustrated in the book of Exodus. Following Israel's deliverance from Egypt, God first led them to Marah - a place where they would have to trust God to heal the water to make it drinkable - before leading them to Elim, a gorgeous oasis with plenty of good water (Exodus 15:22-27). The important thing to observe is that God could have bypassed Marah altogether and brought them directly to Elim if He had wanted to. But - as is characteristic of God - He purposefully led them through the route which would yield maximum conditioning of their faith-muscles.

God also allows His children to confront obstacles and difficulties in order to prove His sufficiency when they dare to flex their faith-muscles. F. B. Meyer suggests that "very often God allows our helplessness and failure to become extraordinarily acute in order that His grace may have a larger opportunity."14

This is illustrated for us in the historical account in 2 Chronicles 20 where the Moabites and Ammonites came to make war on Jehoshaphat. In his

prayer to God, Jehoshaphat said: "we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you" (2 Chronicles 20:12).

Jehoshaphat was helpless in the face of what seemed to the physical eye to be sure defeat. Yet his eye of faith was not on the problem but on God. The result? God promised: "Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God's.. . . You will not have to fight this battle. Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the Lord will give you. . . Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Go out to face them tomorrow, and the Lord will be with you" (2 Chronicles 20:15-17).

The rest is history. The Moabites and Ammonites were completely destroyed the following day. God purposefully allowed this situation to develop so that He could demonstrate His sufficiency to Jehoshaphat. And as a result of this event, Jehoshaphat's faith-muscle became even stronger.

I can't help but think of how God used this same basic strategy with Jim and Elisabeth Elliot. Elisabeth had been feeling quite ill for a time and went to see a doctor. Following her doctor visit, she recalls: "We were informed that, according to X-rays, I had an active case of tuberculosis. Knowing as well as Jim did that he was called to the Indians of the jungle, I felt that this news spelled the cancellation of our marriage plans, for, even if I should recover, life in the jungle would not be recommended."15

But Jim's attitude was unchanged. "If I had any plans," he wrote in his journal, "they are not changed. I will marry her in God's time, and it will be the very best for us, even if it means waiting years. God has not led us this far to frustrate us or turn us back, and He knows all about how to handle T.B."16

"According to your faith be it unto you," Elisabeth later exulted. "Jim's [faith] was rewarded - a week's further tests showed nothing whatever wrong with my lung."17 God seemingly allowed this event to transpire in order to demonstrate His sufficiency to Jim and Elisabeth Elliot. Jim flexed his faith-muscle; God moved into action. Faith and the Word of God John Calvin once said that "we must be reminded that there is a permanent relationship between faith and the Word. [God] could not separate one from the other any more than we could separate the rays from the sun from which they come."18 Calvin assures his readers that God's Word "is the basis whereby faith is supported and sustained; if it turns away from the Word, it falls. Therefore, take away the Word and no faith will then remain."19

Calvin recognized that the New Testament writers were adamant on this issue.

John's Gospel tells us that "these things have been written that you may believe. . ." (John 20:31). Paul tells us that "faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). If someone should ask, "How can I increase my faith?" the answer is: SATURATE YOUR MIND WITH GOD'S WORD.

We have looked at several inspiring examples of how George Muller's faith reaped incredible results. It is no surprise that Muller sees a cause and effect relationship between the Word of God and faith. Based on what he has learned over the years, he offers two pieces of advice for Christians who want to see powerful results from their faith.

First, since true faith is solidly anchored upon Scriptural facts, we must not allow ourselves to be influenced by impressions. "Impressions have neither one thing nor the other to do with faith," says Muller. "Faith has to do with the Word of God. It is not impressions, strong or weak, which will make the difference. We have to do with the Written Word and not ourselves or impressions."20

And second, we must beware of letting probabilities hinder our faith. Muller warns: "Many people are willing to believe regarding those things that seem probable to them. Faith has nothing to do with probabilities. The province of faith begins where probabilities cease and sight and sense fail. Appearances are not to be taken into account. The question is - whether God has spoken it in His Word."21

So what does all of this boil down to? Perhaps Miles Stanford sums it up best when he says that "there can be no steadfastness [in faith] apart from immovable facts."22 And these "immovable facts" are found in God's unchanging Word. Regardless of how impressions and probabilities relentlessly assault the physical eye, the immovable facts contained in Scripture keep the eye of faith in proper focus.

Mark it down! Without a regular feeding on God's Word, your faith will shrivel up like a dead leaf and blow away in the wind of adversity. The Faith-Joy Connection Those who have been mightily used by God down through the centuries have consistently testified to the close connection between faith and joy. Martin Luther said that "a Christian who possesses faith in God does everything with liberty and joy; while the man who is not at one with God is full of care and kept in bondage."23 John Wesley commented that "with faith comes. . . the fulfillment of the promise of holiness and happiness."24 German writer Erich Sauer proclaimed that "holy joy, heavenly nature, and everlasting glory is our blessed lot where faith in the Crucified One is the true possession of our heart and the center of our life."25 Missionary Jim Elliot wrote in his journal that "joy and peace can only come in believing."26 The

verdict is unanimous: the life of faith is a life of joy.

Of course, this should not surprise us since it is the clear teaching of Scripture. When Paul and Silas were thrown in jail in Philippi, for example, they sang praises to God as they flexed their faith-muscles. They even managed to lead the jailer to faith in Christ, after which "the jailer brought them into his house and sat a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God - he and his whole family" (Acts 16:34).

Paul later prayed that this kind of joy would be a reality in the lives of the Roman Christians: "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit" (Romans 15:13).

Some time after this, Paul assured the Philippian believers: "I know that I shall remain and stay by you all, to promote your progress and joy in believing" (Philippians 1:25). Paul apparently considered faith and joy inseparable!

John Bunyan, one of the most influential authors of the seventeenth century, was convinced that Paul was right on target. Bunyan had been unfairly imprisoned for twelve years for preaching God's Word. Declining to be freed on the condition that he no longer preach, his famous reply was: "If I am freed today I will preach tomorrow."27 It was during his long imprisonment that he wrote his classic book Pilgrim's Progress.

Among the virtuous characters in this allegorical book are Christian, Faithful, Goodwill, Evangelist, and Charity. Less virtuous characters include Worldly, Formalist, Hypocrisy, Timorous, Ignorance, and Great Despair. At an important juncture in the book, Faithful made the statement that "according to the strength of one's faith in Him [God], one will have joy and peace."28 Faithful's statement is no doubt a reflection of what John Bunyan had discovered to be true in his own experience - even when he was in jail. The faith-life is a joyful life.

How is it with you? Is your joy in life 'running on empty'? If so, why not take to heart the advice of Hannah Whitall Smith, who in 1870 wrote: "Trust in Him now for everything, and see if He does not do for you exceeding abundantly, above all that you could ever have asked or even thought, not according to your power or capacity, but according to His own mighty power, working in you all the good pleasure of His most blessed will."29 Selah! Notes 1Colin Whittaker, Seven Guides to Effective Prayer, S.v. "George Muller" (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1987), pp. 15-16.

2Ray Stedman, Sermon on Jeremiah 32-33 entitled "Is Anything Too Hard For God."

3John Wesley, The Nature of Spiritual Growth (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1977), insert mine, p. 188.

4A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, n.d.), p. 56.

5Tozer, p. 52.

6Whittaker p. 33.

7John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Edited by John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, n.d.), p. 590.

8Whittaker, p. 43.

9Tozer, p. 91.

10J. Hudson Taylor, Hudson Taylor (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, n.d.), p. 57.

11Whittaker, p. 64.

12Whittaker, p. 65.

13George Muller, cited by Miles Stanford in Principles of Spiritual Growth (Lincoln, Nebraska: Back to the Bible, 1976), insert mine, p. 9.

14F. B. Meyer, The Call and Challenge of the Unseen (London: Morgan and Scott, 1928), p. 152.

15Elisabeth Elliot, Shadow of the Almighty (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 199.

16Elliot, p. 199.

17Elliot, p. 199.

18Calvin, p. 548.

19Calvin, p. 549.

20Stanford, p. 8.

21Stanford, p. 8.

22Stanford, p. 9.

23J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, The Life and Times of Martin Luther (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 301.

24Wesley, p. 189.

25Erich Sauer, In the Arena of Faith (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), p. 27.

26Elliot, p. 70.

27Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, S.v. "Bunyan, John" (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), p. 181.

28Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Christiana's Progress: For Devotional Reading, edited by Clara E. Murray (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), p. 78.

29Hannah Whitall Smith, The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life (Old Tappan: Spire Books, 1976), p. 54.

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

The Eye of Faithby Ron Rhodes

Shrouded in a dense fog, a large steamer edged slowly forward off the coast of Newfoundland, its foghorn crying out somber notes of warning. The captain - near exhaustion from lack of sleep - was startled by a gentle tap on his shoulder. He turned and found himself face-to-face with an old man in his late seventies.

The old man said, "Captain, I have come to tell you that I must be in Quebec on Saturday afternoon." (It was then Wednesday). The captain pondered for a moment, and then snorted: "Impossible." "Very well," the old man responded, "if your ship can't take me, God will find some other means to take me. I have never broken an engagement in fifty-seven years."

Lifting his weary hands in a gesture of despair, the captain replied, "I would help if I could - but I am helpless." Undaunted, the old man suggested, "Let's go down to the chart room and pray." The captain raised his eyebrows in utter disbelief, looking at the old man as if he had just escaped from a lunatic asylum. "Do you know how dense the fog is?" the captain demanded. The old man responded, "No, my eye is not on the thickness of the fog but on the living God who controls every circumstance of my life."

Against his better judgment, the captain accompanied the old man to the chart room and kneeled with him in prayer. With simple words a child might use, the old man prayed: "O Lord, if it is consistent with thy will, please remove this fog in five minutes. Thou knowest the engagement thou didst make for me in Quebec on Saturday. I believe it is thy will."

The captain, a nominal Christian at best, thought it wise to humor the old man and recite a short prayer. But before he was able to utter a single word, he felt a tap on his shoulder. The old man requested, "Don't pray, because you do not believe; and as I believe God has already answered, there is no need for you to pray." The captain's mouth dropped open. Then the old man explained: "Captain I have known my Lord for fifty-seven years and there has never been a single day that I have failed to gain an audience with the King. Get up, captain, and open the door, and you will find the fog is gone." The captain did as he was requested, and was astonished to find that the fog had indeed disappeared.

The captain later testified that his encounter with the aged George Muller completely revolutionized his Christian life. He had seen with his own eyes that Muller's God was the true and living God of the Bible. He had seen incredible power flow from a frail old man. . . a power rooted in simple childlike faith in God.1

Ray Stedman once delivered a sermon on Jeremiah in which he said: "Faith has an apparent ridiculousness about it. You are not acting by faith if you are doing what everyone around you is doing. Faith always appears to defy the circumstances. It constitutes a risk and a venture."2

This is the kind of faith George Muller demonstrated decade after decade in his long and fruitful life. During the final year of his earthly sojourn, he wrote that his faith had been increasing over the years little by little, but he emphatically insisted that there was nothing unique about him or his faith. He believed that a life of trust was open to virtually all of God's children if only they would endure when trials came instead of giving up. It was this kind of faith that enabled Muller to enjoy the Lord on a non-stop basis, regardless of the punches life threw his way. Perceiving Unseen Realities Scientists tell us that the earth is spinning on its axis at a speed of over 1000 miles per hour at this very moment. Yet we have no sensation of motion. At the same time, the earth is rotating around the sun at a speed of 66,000 miles per hour. Do you feel anything? The earth is moving at an incredible speed but we do not perceive it. Einstein made this point by striking two consecutive blows with his fist and saying, "Between those two strokes, we traveled thirty miles." Incredible motion with no perception! Yet we accept by faith that it is nevertheless true.

The Apostle Paul defines faith as "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1). I like John Wesley's paraphrase of this verse: "[Faith] is the power to see into the world of spirits, into things invisible and eternal. It is the power to understand those things which are not perceived by worldly senses."3

Of course, the big problem for most of us is that we tend to base everything on what our five senses tell us. And since the spiritual world is not subject to any of these, our faith is often weak and impotent. A. W. Tozer analyzes the problem this way: "The world of sense intrudes upon our attention day and night for the whole of our lifetime. It is clamorous, insistent and self-demonstrating. It does not appeal to our faith; it is here, assaulting our five senses, demanding to be accepted as real and final. But sin has so clouded the lenses of our hearts that we cannot see that other reality, the City of God, shining around us. The world of sense triumphs."4

The eye of faith, however, perceives this unseen reality. Tozer is right when he says that "a spiritual kingdom lies all about us, enclosing us, embracing us, altogether within reach of our inner selves, waiting for us to recognize it. God Himself is here waiting our response to His Presence. This eternal world will come alive to us the moment we begin to reckon upon its

reality."5

Do you remember the story of Elisha in 2 Kings 6:8-23? Elisha found himself in a situation where he was completely surrounded by enemy troops, yet he remained calm and relaxed. His servant, however, must have been climbing the walls at the sight of this hostile army with vicious-looking warriors and innumerable battle-chariots on every side.

Undaunted, Elisha said to him: "Don't be afraid. Those who are with us are more than those who are with them" (2 Kings 6:16). Elisha then prayed to God, "'O Lord, open his eyes so he may see.' Then the Lord opened the servant's eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha" (2 Kings 6:17). God was protecting Elisha and his servant with a whole army of magnificent angelic beings!

The reason Elisha never let his feathers get ruffled was because he was "sure of what he hoped for and certain of what he did not see" (cf. Hebrews 11:1). Unlike many Christians today, Elisha was not a slave to the visible and the tangible.

George Muller was a man after Elisha's own heart. As his autobiography informs us, he had many orphans under his care; too many - in fact - for one man to financially support without God's intervention. At the orphanage one morning the tables were all set for breakfast, but the cupboard was completely bare. There was no food! And there was no money! The children were all standing around waiting for their breakfasts, and Mr. Muller said to them, "Children, you know we must be in time for school." He then lifted his head and prayed, "Dear Father, we thank Thee for what Thou art going to give us to eat."

Almost immediately after this, there was a knock at the door. It was a local baker who said, "Mr. Muller, I could not sleep last night. Somehow I felt you didn't have any bread for breakfast, and the Lord wanted me to send you some. So I got up at 2:00 am and baked some fresh bread and here it is." Mr. Muller humbly thanked the baker and then offered praise to God for providing so miraculously for him and the orphans.

Moments later there was a second knock at the door. It was the local milkman whose milk wagon had just broken down in front of Muller's orphanage. He offered all his milk to Muller and the orphans so he could have his wagon hauled to the nearest repair shop.6 Coincidence? No way!

Muller had a simple, childlike faith in a living God. He knew beyond any doubt that an unseen spiritual world existed around him. And in spite of what his physical senses told him (i.e., no food and no money), he was confident that God could be trusted for all of his temporal needs.

Hope: The Fuel of Faith Paul tells us that faith involves "being sure of what we hope for" (Hebrews 11:1). In his classic Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin delineates for us how hope relates to faith: "Hope refreshes faith, that it may not become weary. It sustains faith to the final goal, that it may not fail in midcourse, or even at the starting gate. In short, by unremitting renewing and restoring, it invigorates faith again and again with perseverance."7

One of my favorite Old Testament characters is Moses. His life illustrates how hope can feed and sustain faith: "By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:24-27).

Moses could have had immeasurable power, authority, and riches if he had chosen to stay in Egypt. Yet he gave it all up because of his faith in God. And his faith was nourished by his hope of a future reward, a hope which gave him an eternal perspective on life.

Was this kind of hope characteristic of George Muller's faith? I am sure of it! I recently discovered that after Muller's death, his son-in-law and successor in the ministry - James Wright - disclosed that "the mysterious name of a generous donor which had appeared on the Annual Reports for many years as 'from a servant of the Lord Jesus who, constrained by the love of Christ, seeks to lay up treasures in heaven,' was none other than George Muller himself."8 Muller's future hope had fanned his faith into a flame! Do you have a hope? Faith in God Alone Faith is only as good as the object of that faith. The story is told of a small boy in England who was asked by a scientist to allow himself to be lowered down the side of a cliff by a rope in order to recover some important specimens. "We will pay a lot of money," said the scientist. But the boy replied that he wasn't interested. The scientist was persistent, however, and finally persuaded the boy to do it. But only on one condition: that his father would be the one to hold the ropes by which he would be lowered. He felt safe going down the side of the cliff because the object of his faith was his own father who had never let him down.

Recall with me the story of David and Goliath. To the eye of sense David had no earthly chance of conquering the mighty giant who had been arrogantly defying the armies of Israel. But David, looking at the situation through the eye of faith, could perceive the unseen divine forces that were fighting

on his side.

Saul - who was blind to all of this - warned David: "You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a boy, and he has been a fighting man from his youth" (1 Samuel 17:33). But David asserted, "The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine" (1 Samuel 17:37). Then when David came face-to-face with the giant warrior, he declared: "This day the Lord will hand you over to me, and I'll strike you down. . . the battle is the Lord's, and he will give all of you into our hands" (1 Samuel 17:46-47).

And the rest is history. Goliath lost the fight before it had even begun. Why? Because the object of David's faith was a mighty God who once declared: "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for me?" (Jeremiah 32:27). The object of David's faith spelled D-E-F-E-A-T for Goliath.

In his book The Pursuit of God, A. W. Tozer commented: "Like the eye which sees everything in front of it and never sees itself, faith is occupied with the Object upon which it rests and pays no attention to itself at all. While we are looking at God we do not see ourselves - blessed riddance."9 This was David's secret. He payed no attention to his own weakness and inability. His eye of faith was solely on his Deliverer.

This was also Hudson Taylor's secret. I recall that he once set sail from Liverpool to China on a small sailing-ship, the "Dumfries." When sailing to the north of New Guinea, the captain of the Dumfries discovered that although a breeze would usually spring up after sundown and last until dawn, there was rarely any wind during the daylight hours. Not exactly what you would call ideal sailing conditions!

On one particular day, the captain became noticeably anxious, and when Hudson asked what was bothering him, he explained that a strong undercurrent was pulling them towards some sunken reefs. To make matters worse, there was no wind to give them the power to withstand the undercurrent. All they could do, said the captain, was to wait for the inevitable to happen. "No," replied young Hudson, "there is one thing we have not done yet - we have not prayed."10

There were three other spirit-filled believers aboard the ship, and Hudson suggested that each of them retire to their cabins and pray for a breeze. Hudson had prayed for just a few minutes when he gained assurance that their prayers were answered. "Without further ado he went up on deck and asked the first officer ( a rank unbeliever) to set the sail to catch the coming wind. The man nearly exploded at such an apparently ridiculous suggestion -

especially coming from this stripling of a landlubber, who, to cap this farcical nonsense, was religious."11 Yet Hudson persuaded him to give it a try. With a curse in his mouth and contempt in his eyes, the first officer gave the order and his men jumped to obey.

At that moment, the captain came on deck to see what all the commotion was about. And he witnessed God's response to Taylor's faith. "No sooner was the sail set than the prayer-answering breeze filled it and the ship was soon pulling away from the reef to the safety of the open sea."12

Taylor's attention was not on the weakness and inability of puny man. His attention was not on uncontrollable circumstances like the strong undercurrent and lack of wind. The object of his faith was the all-powerful God of the Bible. Taylor believed; God responded! Conditioning the Faith Muscle I've always been taught that faith is like a muscle. A muscle has to be repeatedly stretched to its limit of endurance in order to build more strength. Without increased stress in training, the muscle will simply not grow. In the same way, faith must be repeatedly tested to the limit of its endurance in order to expand and develop. Very often, God allows His children to go through trying experiences in order to develop this muscle.

George Muller put it this way: "God delights to increase the faith [or condition the faith-muscle] of His children. We ought, instead of wanting no trials before victory, no exercise for patience, to be willing to take them from God's hand as a means. I say - and say it deliberately - trials, obstacles, difficulties, and sometimes defeats, are the very food of faith."13

This principle is beautifully illustrated in the book of Exodus. Following Israel's deliverance from Egypt, God first led them to Marah - a place where they would have to trust God to heal the water to make it drinkable - before leading them to Elim, a gorgeous oasis with plenty of good water (Exodus 15:22-27). The important thing to observe is that God could have bypassed Marah altogether and brought them directly to Elim if He had wanted to. But - as is characteristic of God - He purposefully led them through the route which would yield maximum conditioning of their faith-muscles.

God also allows His children to confront obstacles and difficulties in order to prove His sufficiency when they dare to flex their faith-muscles. F. B. Meyer suggests that "very often God allows our helplessness and failure to become extraordinarily acute in order that His grace may have a larger opportunity."14

This is illustrated for us in the historical account in 2 Chronicles 20 where the Moabites and Ammonites came to make war on Jehoshaphat. In his

prayer to God, Jehoshaphat said: "we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you" (2 Chronicles 20:12).

Jehoshaphat was helpless in the face of what seemed to the physical eye to be sure defeat. Yet his eye of faith was not on the problem but on God. The result? God promised: "Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God's.. . . You will not have to fight this battle. Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the Lord will give you. . . Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Go out to face them tomorrow, and the Lord will be with you" (2 Chronicles 20:15-17).

The rest is history. The Moabites and Ammonites were completely destroyed the following day. God purposefully allowed this situation to develop so that He could demonstrate His sufficiency to Jehoshaphat. And as a result of this event, Jehoshaphat's faith-muscle became even stronger.

I can't help but think of how God used this same basic strategy with Jim and Elisabeth Elliot. Elisabeth had been feeling quite ill for a time and went to see a doctor. Following her doctor visit, she recalls: "We were informed that, according to X-rays, I had an active case of tuberculosis. Knowing as well as Jim did that he was called to the Indians of the jungle, I felt that this news spelled the cancellation of our marriage plans, for, even if I should recover, life in the jungle would not be recommended."15

But Jim's attitude was unchanged. "If I had any plans," he wrote in his journal, "they are not changed. I will marry her in God's time, and it will be the very best for us, even if it means waiting years. God has not led us this far to frustrate us or turn us back, and He knows all about how to handle T.B."16

"According to your faith be it unto you," Elisabeth later exulted. "Jim's [faith] was rewarded - a week's further tests showed nothing whatever wrong with my lung."17 God seemingly allowed this event to transpire in order to demonstrate His sufficiency to Jim and Elisabeth Elliot. Jim flexed his faith-muscle; God moved into action. Faith and the Word of God John Calvin once said that "we must be reminded that there is a permanent relationship between faith and the Word. [God] could not separate one from the other any more than we could separate the rays from the sun from which they come."18 Calvin assures his readers that God's Word "is the basis whereby faith is supported and sustained; if it turns away from the Word, it falls. Therefore, take away the Word and no faith will then remain."19

Calvin recognized that the New Testament writers were adamant on this issue.

John's Gospel tells us that "these things have been written that you may believe. . ." (John 20:31). Paul tells us that "faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). If someone should ask, "How can I increase my faith?" the answer is: SATURATE YOUR MIND WITH GOD'S WORD.

We have looked at several inspiring examples of how George Muller's faith reaped incredible results. It is no surprise that Muller sees a cause and effect relationship between the Word of God and faith. Based on what he has learned over the years, he offers two pieces of advice for Christians who want to see powerful results from their faith.

First, since true faith is solidly anchored upon Scriptural facts, we must not allow ourselves to be influenced by impressions. "Impressions have neither one thing nor the other to do with faith," says Muller. "Faith has to do with the Word of God. It is not impressions, strong or weak, which will make the difference. We have to do with the Written Word and not ourselves or impressions."20

And second, we must beware of letting probabilities hinder our faith. Muller warns: "Many people are willing to believe regarding those things that seem probable to them. Faith has nothing to do with probabilities. The province of faith begins where probabilities cease and sight and sense fail. Appearances are not to be taken into account. The question is - whether God has spoken it in His Word."21

So what does all of this boil down to? Perhaps Miles Stanford sums it up best when he says that "there can be no steadfastness [in faith] apart from immovable facts."22 And these "immovable facts" are found in God's unchanging Word. Regardless of how impressions and probabilities relentlessly assault the physical eye, the immovable facts contained in Scripture keep the eye of faith in proper focus.

Mark it down! Without a regular feeding on God's Word, your faith will shrivel up like a dead leaf and blow away in the wind of adversity. The Faith-Joy Connection Those who have been mightily used by God down through the centuries have consistently testified to the close connection between faith and joy. Martin Luther said that "a Christian who possesses faith in God does everything with liberty and joy; while the man who is not at one with God is full of care and kept in bondage."23 John Wesley commented that "with faith comes. . . the fulfillment of the promise of holiness and happiness."24 German writer Erich Sauer proclaimed that "holy joy, heavenly nature, and everlasting glory is our blessed lot where faith in the Crucified One is the true possession of our heart and the center of our life."25 Missionary Jim Elliot wrote in his journal that "joy and peace can only come in believing."26 The

verdict is unanimous: the life of faith is a life of joy.

Of course, this should not surprise us since it is the clear teaching of Scripture. When Paul and Silas were thrown in jail in Philippi, for example, they sang praises to God as they flexed their faith-muscles. They even managed to lead the jailer to faith in Christ, after which "the jailer brought them into his house and sat a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God - he and his whole family" (Acts 16:34).

Paul later prayed that this kind of joy would be a reality in the lives of the Roman Christians: "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit" (Romans 15:13).

Some time after this, Paul assured the Philippian believers: "I know that I shall remain and stay by you all, to promote your progress and joy in believing" (Philippians 1:25). Paul apparently considered faith and joy inseparable!

John Bunyan, one of the most influential authors of the seventeenth century, was convinced that Paul was right on target. Bunyan had been unfairly imprisoned for twelve years for preaching God's Word. Declining to be freed on the condition that he no longer preach, his famous reply was: "If I am freed today I will preach tomorrow."27 It was during his long imprisonment that he wrote his classic book Pilgrim's Progress.

Among the virtuous characters in this allegorical book are Christian, Faithful, Goodwill, Evangelist, and Charity. Less virtuous characters include Worldly, Formalist, Hypocrisy, Timorous, Ignorance, and Great Despair. At an important juncture in the book, Faithful made the statement that "according to the strength of one's faith in Him [God], one will have joy and peace."28 Faithful's statement is no doubt a reflection of what John Bunyan had discovered to be true in his own experience - even when he was in jail. The faith-life is a joyful life.

How is it with you? Is your joy in life 'running on empty'? If so, why not take to heart the advice of Hannah Whitall Smith, who in 1870 wrote: "Trust in Him now for everything, and see if He does not do for you exceeding abundantly, above all that you could ever have asked or even thought, not according to your power or capacity, but according to His own mighty power, working in you all the good pleasure of His most blessed will."29 Selah! Notes 1Colin Whittaker, Seven Guides to Effective Prayer, S.v. "George Muller" (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1987), pp. 15-16.

2Ray Stedman, Sermon on Jeremiah 32-33 entitled "Is Anything Too Hard For God."

3John Wesley, The Nature of Spiritual Growth (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1977), insert mine, p. 188.

4A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, n.d.), p. 56.

5Tozer, p. 52.

6Whittaker p. 33.

7John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Edited by John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, n.d.), p. 590.

8Whittaker, p. 43.

9Tozer, p. 91.

10J. Hudson Taylor, Hudson Taylor (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, n.d.), p. 57.

11Whittaker, p. 64.

12Whittaker, p. 65.

13George Muller, cited by Miles Stanford in Principles of Spiritual Growth (Lincoln, Nebraska: Back to the Bible, 1976), insert mine, p. 9.

14F. B. Meyer, The Call and Challenge of the Unseen (London: Morgan and Scott, 1928), p. 152.

15Elisabeth Elliot, Shadow of the Almighty (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 199.

16Elliot, p. 199.

17Elliot, p. 199.

18Calvin, p. 548.

19Calvin, p. 549.

20Stanford, p. 8.

21Stanford, p. 8.

22Stanford, p. 9.

23J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, The Life and Times of Martin Luther (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 301.

24Wesley, p. 189.

25Erich Sauer, In the Arena of Faith (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), p. 27.

26Elliot, p. 70.

27Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, S.v. "Bunyan, John" (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), p. 181.

28Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Christiana's Progress: For Devotional Reading, edited by Clara E. Murray (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), p. 78.

29Hannah Whitall Smith, The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life (Old Tappan: Spire Books, 1976), p. 54.

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

"The Jesus of the New Age Movement"Part Two in a Two-Part Series on New Age Christologyby Ron Rhodes In her best-selling book, Out on a Limb, Shirley MacLaine recounts how a friend once said to her: "You know that nothing is recorded in the Bible about Christ from the time he was about twelve until he began to really teach at about thirty years old. Right?" "Yes," MacLaine replied, "I had heard about that and I just figured he didn't have much to say until he got older." "Well, no," her friend responded, "a lot of people think that those eighteen missing years were spent traveling in and around India and Tibet and Persia and the Near East. They say he became an adept yogi and mastered complete control over his body and the physical world around him[he] tried to teach people that they could do the same things too if they got more in touch with their spiritual selves and their own potential power."[1]

Did Jesus travel to the East to study under gurus? Did He become "the Christ" as a result of what He learned and accomplished there? Are there mystical "gospels" that have been suppressed by the church, keeping us from knowing the real Jesus? In this article, we will look at these and other important questions related to the Jesus of the New Age movement. We begin by examining the claims of a controversial Russian writer. THE LIFE OF SAINT ISSA As the story goes, in 1887, Nicolas Notovitch - a Russian war correspondent - went on a journey through India. While en route to Leh, the capital of Ladakh (in Northern India along the Tibetan border), he heard a Tibetan lama (i.e., monk) in a monastery refer to a grand lama named Issa (the Tibetan form of "Jesus"). Notovitch inquired further, and discovered that a chronicle of the life of Issa existed with other sacred scrolls at the Convent of Himis (about 25 miles from Leh).

Notovitch visited this convent and was told by the chief lama that a scroll did in fact exist which provided details about the Prophet Issa. This holy man allegedly preached the same doctrines in Israel as he earlier did in India. The original scroll, the lama said, was written in the Pali language and later translated into Tibetan. The Convent of Himis possessed the Tibetan translation, while the original was said to be in the library of Lhassa (the traditional capital of Tibet).

Notovitch eventually persuaded the lama to read the scroll to him, and had it translated from Tibetan by an interpreter. According to Notovitch, the literal translation of the scroll was "disconnected and mingled with accounts of other contemporaneous events to which they bear no relation," and so he took the liberty to arrange "all the fragments concerning the life of Issa in chronological order and [took] pains to impress upon them the character of unity, in which they were absolutely lacking."[2] He went without sleep for many nights so he could order and remodel what he had

heard.

From the scroll, Notovitch learned that "Jesus had wandered to India and to Tibet as a young man before he began his work in Palestine."[3] The beginning of Jesus' alleged journey is described in the scroll this way:

When Issa had attained the age of thirteen years, the epoch when an Israelite should take a wife, the house where his parents earned their living began to be a place of meeting for rich and noble people, desirous of having for a son-in-law the young Issa, already famous for his edifying discourses in the name of the almighty. Then it was that Issa left the parental house in secret, departed from Jerusalem, and with the merchants set out towards Sind, with the object of perfecting himself in the Divine Word and of studying the laws of the great Buddhas.[4]

According to Notovitch, the scroll proceeds to explain how, after briefly visiting with the Jains, young Issa studied for six years among the Brahmins at Juggernaut, Rajagriha, Benares, and other Indian holy cities. The priests of Brahma "taught him to read and understand the Vedas, to cure by aid of prayer, to teach, to explain the holy scriptures to the people, and to drive out evil spirits from the bodies of men, restoring unto them their sanity."[5]

While there, the story continues, Issa sought to teach the scriptures to all the people of India - including the lower castes. The Brahmins and Kshatriyas (higher castes) opposed him in this, and told him that the Sudras (a lower caste) were forbidden to read or even contemplate the Vedas. Issa denounced them severely for this.

Because of Issa's controversial teachings, a death plot was devised against him. But the Sudras warned him and he left Juggernaut, establishing himself in Gautamides (the birthplace of the Buddha Sakyamuni) where he studied the sacred writings of the Sutras. "Six years after, Issa, whom the Buddha had elected to spread his holy word, had become a perfect expositor of the sacred writings. Then he left Nepal and the Himalayan mountains, descended into the valley of Rajputana, and went towards the west, preaching to diverse peoples the supreme perfection of man."[6] Following this, we are told, Issa briefly visited Persia where he preached to the Zoroastrians. Then, at 29, he returned to Israel and began to preach all that he had learned.

According to Notovitch's "scroll," by the end of Issa's three-year ministry, Pilate had become so alarmed at his mushrooming popularity that he ordered one of his spies to accuse him falsely. Issa was then imprisoned and tortured by soldiers to force a confession which would permit his being executed. The Jewish priests tried to act in Issa's behalf, but to no avail.

Issa was falsely accused and Pilate ordered the death sentence:

At sunset the sufferings of Issa came to an end. He lost consciousness, and the soul of this just man left his body to become absorbed in the Divinity. Meanwhile, Pilate became afraid of his action and gave the body of the saint to his parents, who buried it near the spot of his execution. Three days after, the governor sent his soldiers to carry away the body of Issa to bury it elsewhere, fearing otherwise a popular insurrection. The next day the crowd found the tomb open and empty. At once the rumor spread that the supreme Judge had sent his angels to carry away the mortal remains of the saint in whom dwelt on earth a part of the Divine Spirit.[7]

Following this, some merchants in Palestine allegedly traveled to India, came upon some people who had known Issa as a casual student of Sanskrit and Pali during his youth in India, and filled them in on Issa's demise at the hands of Pilate. And, as the story concludes, The Life of Saint Issa was written on a scroll - author(s) unknown - three or four years later. Reactions to Notovitch This alleged manuscript generated a number of lively responses. Let us briefly look at a sampling of these.

F. Max Muller. In October 1894, preeminent Orientalist Max Muller of Oxford University (who himself was an advocate of Eastern philosophy and therefore could not be accused of having a Christian bias) published a refutation of Notovitch in The Nineteenth Century, a scholarly review. Four of his arguments are noteworthy: (1) Muller asserted that an old document like the one Notovitch allegedly found would have been included in the Kandjur and Tandjur (catalogues in which all Tibetan literature is supposed to be listed). (2) He rejected Notovitch's account of the origin of the book. He asked how Jewish merchants happened, among the millions of India, to meet the very people who had known Issa as a student, and still more "how those who had known Issa as a simple student in India saw at once that he was the same person who had been put to death under Pontius Pilate."[8] (3) Muller cites a woman who had visited the monastery of Himis and made inquiries about Notovitch. According to a letter she wrote (dated June 29, 1894), "there is not a single word of truth in the whole story! There has been no Russian here. There is no life of Christ there at all!"[9] And (4) Muller questioned the great liberty Notovitch took in editing and arranging the alleged verses. Muller said this is something no reputable scholar would have done.

Notovitch promptly responded to Muller's arguments in the preface to the London edition of The Life of Saint Issa which was published the following year (1895). But his response did little to satisfy his critics. He said: (1) The verses which were found would not be in any catalogues because "they are to be found scattered through more than one book without any title."[10]

(But in his first preface he said the Convent of Himis contained "a few copies of the manuscript in question."[11]) (2) Regarding the unlikeliness of Jewish merchants encountering those who knew Issa as a child in India, Notovitch said "they were not Jewish but Indian merchants who happened to witness the crucifixion prior to returning home from Palestine."[12] (Even so, it would still be unlikely that - among the millions in India - the merchants would come upon the precise people who knew Issa as a child.) (3) As for editing and arranging the verses in The Life of Saint Issa, Notovitch said that the same kind of editing was done with the Iliad and no one ever questioned that. (But how does this legitimize Notovitch's modus operandi?) (4) As to the refusal by the lama of Himis to affirmatively answer questions about the manuscript (as he apparently did with the lady who wrote Muller), Notovitch says this was because "Orientals are in the habit of looking upon Europeans as robbers who introduce themselves in their midst to despoil them in the name of civilization."[13] Notovitch succeeded only "because I made use of the Eastern diplomacy which I had learnt in my travels."14 (This was a convenient rationalization, for Notovitch could always point to a lack of "Eastern diplomacy" on the part of a European challenger whenever a monk refused to corroborate the Issa legend.)

Assuming (wrongly) that his response to Muller laid criticism of his work to rest, Notovitch suggested that in the future his critics restrict themselves solely to the question: "Did those passages exist in the monastery of Himis, and have I faithfully reproduced their substance?"[15]

J. Archibald Douglas. J. Archibald Douglas, Professor at Government College in Agra, India, took a three-month vacation from the college and retraced Notovitch's steps at the Himis monastery. He published an account of his journey in The Nineteenth Century (June 1895), the bulk of which reproduced an interview with the chief lama of the monastery. The lama said he had been chief lama for 15 years, which means he would have been the chief lama during Notovitch's alleged visit. The lama asserted that during these 15 years, no European with a broken leg had ever sought refuge at the monastery.

When asked if he was aware of any book in any Buddhist monastery in Tibet pertaining to the life of Issa, he said: "I have never heard of [a manuscript] which mentions the name of Issa, and it is my firm and honest belief that none such exists. I have inquired of our principal Lamas in other monasteries of Tibet, and they are not acquainted with any books or manuscripts which mention the name of Issa."[16] When portions of Notovitch's book were read to the lama, he responded, "Lies, lies, lies, nothing but lies!"[17]

The interview was written down and witnessed by the lama, Douglas, and the interpreter, and on June 3, 1895, was stamped with the official seal of the

lama. The credibility of The Life of Saint Issa was unquestionably damaged by Douglas's investigation. Nicholas Roerich. In The Lost Years of Jesus, Elizabeth Clare Prophet documents other supporters of Notovitch's work, the most prominent of which was Nicholas Roerich. Roerich - a Theosophist - claimed that from 1924 to 1928 he traveled throughout Central Asia and discovered that legends about Issa were widespread. In his book, Himalaya, he makes reference to "writings" and "manuscripts" about Issa - some of which he claims to have seen and others about which people told him. Roerich allegedly recorded independently in his own travel diary the same legend of Issa that Notovitch had seen earlier.

Per Beskow - author of Strange Tales About Jesus - responded to Roerich's work by suggesting that he leaned heavily on two previous "Jesus goes East" advocates: "The first part of his account is taken literally from Notovitch's Life of Saint Issa, chapters 5-13 (only extracts but with all the verses in the right order). It is followed by 'another version' (pages 93-94), taken from chapter 16 of Dowling's Aquarian Gospel."[18] (We will consider the Aquarian Gospel shortly.)

Edgar J. Goodspeed. Notovitch's The Life of Saint Issa refused to die; it was republished in New York in 1926. This motivated Edgar J. Goodspeed, Professor at the University of Chicago, to publish a Christian response. He commented that "it is worthwhile to call attention to [The Life of Saint Issa] because its republication in New York in 1926 was hailed by the press as a new and important discovery,"[19] even though first published over thirty years earlier (1894).

Three of Goodspeed's arguments are noteworthy. (1) Goodspeed suggests a literary dependency of The Life of Saint Issa on Matthew, Luke, Acts, and Romans. This would not be odd except that The Life of Saint Issa was allegedly written three or four years after the death of Christ, whereas Matthew, Luke, Acts, and Romans were written two or three decades later. An example of this dependency relates to how The Life of Saint Issa attempts to fill in the silent years of Jesus between the ages of twelve and thirty: "these two ages are taken for granted by the author of this work, who unconsciously bases his scheme upon them. We know them from the Gospel of Luke alone, and the question arises: 'Has the author of Issa obtained them from the same source?'"[20]

(2) Notovitch describes Luke as saying that Jesus "was in the desert until the day of his showing unto Israel." This, Notovitch says, "conclusively proves that no one knew where the young man had gone, to so suddenly reappear sixteen years later." But, says Goodspeed, "it is not of Jesus but of John that Luke says this (1:80), so that it will hardly yield the conclusive proof Notovitch seeks. At this point in Luke's narrative, in

fact, Jesus has not yet appeared."[21]

(3) Goodspeed comments that The Life of Saint Issa does not purport to have been deciphered and translated by a competent scholar: "The lama read, the interpreter translated, Notovitch took notes. He could evidently not control either the lama or the interpreter, to make sure of what the Tibetan manuscripts contained."[22]

Throughout the twentieth century, many individuals have responded positively to the work of Notovitch, including Janet and Richard Bock (makers of the film, "The Lost Years of Jesus"), Swami Abhedananda, Sai Baba, Paramahansa Yogananda of the Self-Realization Fellowship, and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Evidence abounds that the Issa legend is alive and well today.

Max Muller, J. Archibald Douglas, and Edgar J. Goodspeed have all presented solid refutations of the legend. These should challenge any serious Issa advocate to reevaluate his or her position. I shall offer further arguments later. But first, it is necessary to examine additional features in the New Age profile of Jesus. THE AQUARIAN GOSPEL OF JESUS THE CHRIST Another major source for the New Age Jesus is The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, written by Civil War army chaplain Levi Dowling (1844-1911). The title page of this "gospel" bears the words: "Transcribed from the Book of God's Remembrances, known as the Akashic Records." (Occultists believe the physical earth is surrounded by an immense spiritual field known as "Akasha" in which is impressed every impulse of human thought, will, and emotion. It is therefore believed to constitute a complete record of human history.) Hence, unlike Notovitch whose conclusions were based on an alleged objective ancient document, Levi's book is based on an occult form of subjective (nonverifiable) illumination.

The bulk of Levi's gospel, first published in 1911, focuses on the education and travels of Jesus. After studying with Rabbi Hillel (a Jewish scholar), Jesus allegedly traveled to India where he spent years studying among the Brahmins and Buddhists.

Jesus supposedly became interested in studying in the East after Joseph (Jesus' father) hosted Prince Ravanna from India. During his visit, Ravanna asked "that he might be the patron of the child; might take him to the East where he could learn the wisdom of the Brahms. And Jesus longed to go that he might learn: and after many days his parents gave consent." So "Jesus was accepted as a pupil in the temple Jagannath; and here he learned the Vedas and the Manic laws."[23]

Jesus then visited the city of Benares of the Ganges. While there, "Jesus sought to learn the Hindu art of healing, and became the pupil of Udraka,

greatest of the Hindu healers."[24] And Jesus "remained with Udraka until he had learned from him all there was to be learned of the Hindu art of healing."[25]

Levi proceeds to chronicle a visit to Tibet, where Jesus allegedly met Meng-ste, the greatest sage of the East: "And Jesus had access to all the sacred manuscripts, and, with the help of Meng-ste, read them all."[26]

Jesus eventually arrived in Egypt, and - in what must be considered a climax of this account of the "lost years" - he joined the "Sacred Brotherhood" at Heliopolis. While there, he passed through seven degrees of initiation - Sincerity, Justice, Faith, Philanthropy, Heroism, Love Divine, and THE CHRIST. The Aquarian Gospel records the bestowal of this highest degree: "The hierophant arose and said, upon your brow I place this diadem, and in the Great Lodge of the heavens and earth you are THE CHRIST. You are a neophyte no more; but God himself will speak, and will confirm your title and degree. And then a voice that shook the very temple said, THIS IS THE CHRIST; and every living creature said, AMEN."[27]

Later, following his three-year ministry as THE CHRIST and his subsequent death, Jesus' resurrection is described by Levi in terms of a "transmutation" which all men may accomplish. He made many appearances to people all over the world to substantiate this transmutation. For example, he appeared to the "Silent Brotherhood" in Greece and said: "What I can do all men can do. Go preach the gospel of the omnipotence of man."[28] THE READINGS OF EDGAR CAYCE Like Levi, Edgar Cayce claimed the ability to read the Akashic Record while in a trance. During his life, he gave over 16,000 readings, 5,000 of which deal with religious matters. It was from the Akashic Record that Cayce set forth an elaborate explanation of the early years of Jesus.

The person we know as Jesus, Cayce tells us, had 29 previous incarnations: "These included an early sun worshipper, the author of the Book of the Dead, and Hermes, who was supposedly the architect of the Great Pyramid. Jesus was also Zend (the father of Zoroaster), Amilius (an Atlantean) and other figures of ancient history."[29] Other incarnations include Adam, Joseph, Joshua, Enoch, and Melchizedek.

This particular soul did not become "the Christ" until the thirtieth incarnation - as Jesus of Nazareth. The reason Jesus had to go through so many incarnations is that he - like all other human beings - had "karmic debt" (sin) to work off.

Jesus received a comprehensive education. Prior to his twelfth year, he attained a thorough knowledge of the Jewish law. "From his twelfth to his fifteenth or sixteenth year he was taught the prophecies by Judy [an Essene

teacher] in her home at Carmel. Then began his education abroad. He was sent first again into Egypt for only a short period, then into India for three years, then into that later called Persia. From Persia he was called to Judea at the death of Joseph, then went into Egypt for the completion of his preparation as a teacher."[30] During his alleged studies abroad, Jesus studied under many teachers (including Kahjian in India, Junner in Persia, and Zar in Egypt), and learned healing, weather control, telepathy, astrology, and other psychic arts. When his education was complete, he went back to his homeland where he performed "miracles" and taught the multitudes for three years. JESUS THE CHRIST AND HIS TEACHINGS There are many differing views regarding how Jesus attained "Christhood." As we have seen, Levi said Jesus went through seven degrees of initiation, the seventh being THE CHRIST. Cayce said Jesus became "the Christ" in the thirtieth incarnation. Many modern New Agers say the human Jesus merely "attuned" to the cosmic Christ, or achieved at-one-ment with the Christ by raising his own "Christ-consciousness." But, however, Jesus attained "Christhood," New Agers agree that he was a teacher par excellence of New Age "truths."

New Agers generally do one of two things with the teachings of Jesus. Some merely reinterpret the gospel sayings of Jesus to make it appear that Jesus was actually teaching New Age "truth." Others add that long-lost (New Age) sayings of Jesus have been rediscovered. These "rediscovered" sayings can have one of two sources: reputed ancient extracanonical writings (like the "Gnostic gospels" which were allegedly suppressed by the early church and rediscovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945) and the Akashic Record. Let us now consider samplings of each of these.

The Gospel Sayings of Jesus. According to New Agers, we must all seek first the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 6:33), recognizing that the "kingdom" has reference to our inner divinity.[31] For indeed, Jesus said "Ye are gods" (John 10:34). The parable about those who foolishly build a house on sand (Matt. 7:24-27) teaches us that those who fail to recognize their divinity will not be able to stand against the storms of life.[32] But if we come unto Jesus, we will find rest, for his yoke (i.e., yoga) is easy and his burden is light (Matt. 11:28-30).[33]

"Newly Discovered" Sayings from Extracanonical Sources. Jesus taught a form of pantheism according to The Life of Saint Issa, for he said that "the Eternal Spirit [God] is the soul of all that is animate."[34] He also taught that all humans have unlimited potential: "I came to show human possibilities; that which I am, all men will be."[35] And, according to the Gnostic gospels, Jesus spoke of "illusion and enlightenment, not of sin and repentance."[36] Indeed, man can save himself: "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you."[37]

"Newly Discovered" Sayings from the Akashic Record. According to Levi's Aquarian Gospel, Jesus was just a way-shower: "And all the people were entranced, and would have worshipped Jesus as God; but Jesus said, I am your brother man just come to show the way to God; you shall not worship man."[38] Jesus also taught pantheism and monism: "The universal God is one, yet he is more than one [i.e., he takes many forms]; all things are God; all things are one."[39] Jesus also tells us that "the nations of the earth see God from different points of view, and so he does not seem the same to every one."[40] THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN RESPONSE A Christian response to the New Age rendition of Jesus may begin with the observation that the accounts of Jesus going East have irreconcilable contradictions. This fact alone should make any objective investigator suspicious of the reliability of these documents.

Each of the accounts differ, for example, regarding the beginning of Jesus' trek. The Life of Saint Issa portrays Jesus departing secretly from his parent's house with some merchants on their way to India so he could perfect himself by studying the laws of the great Buddhas. Levi's Aquarian Gospel depicts Prince Ravanna from India asking Jesus' parents if he can escort Jesus to India where he can learn Indian wisdom. Cayce's reading of the Akashic Record has an Essene teacher sending Jesus to India to study astrology and other psychic disciplines.

What is particularly revealing is that both Cayce and Levi allegedly obtained their "revelations" by reading the Akashic Record, yet their readings blatantly contradict each other. Since both Cayce and Levi are highly respected in New Age circles, how do New Agers account for the obvious failure of at least one of them to properly "read" the Akashic Record? Furthermore, if one of these top-rated New Age seers cannot be trusted, which one can be?

Not only do the accounts disagree with each other, they all disagree with the gospel accounts in the New Testament. And the New Testament has solid, irrefutable manuscript evidence - something that should be considered by those wanting to replace it so easily with Gnostic gospels or alleged ancient manuscripts claiming that Jesus went East.

The New Testament gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. Moreover, they were written very close to the time of the events which they report. It is crucial to recognize that the four canonical gospels are all dated much earlier than the Gnostic gospels. The earliest Gnostic gospels date from A.D. 150 to 200. The New Testament gospels date from A.D. 60 to 100 - approximately one century earlier. Clearly, the New Testament gospels are the authentic and reliable source for information on the life and teachings

of Jesus.

On the other hand, all of the "Jesus goes East" accounts contain historical inaccuracies, several of which have already been mentioned. Other examples include: (1) Levi's Aquarian Gospel said Herod Antipas was ruler in Jerusalem. Antipas, however, never ruled in Jerusalem but in Galilee. Dowling meant to say Herod the Great. This is especially significant since Levi's transcriptions are claimed to be "true to the letter" in the introduction of his Aquarian Gospel![41] (2) Levi's reference to Jesus visiting with Meng-ste was probably meant to be the great Chinese sage, Meng-tse (tse, not ste). Dowling apparently didn't realized, however, that Meng-tse died in 289 B.C.

The deeper one probes, the clearer it becomes that the Jesus of the New Age movement lacks any basis in history. To many, The Life of Saint Issa appeared to provide this. However, the world still awaits bona fide hard evidence that can be physically examined by all interested parties. Even a photograph would be helpful. But as Notovitch lamented: "During my journey I took a considerable number of very curious photographs, but when on arrival at Bombay I examined the negatives, I found they had all become obliterated."[42] I don't want to be cynical, but

In order to find a New Age Jesus in authentic documents, New Agers are forced to deal with the language of the New Testament in a manipulative fashion. Tal Brooke comments: "It is a little like the problem of the Marxist who wishes to change the common understanding of the United States Constitution so that a gradualist skewing of word meaning can enable a socialistic interpretation of words whose intended meanings in the original were clearly different."[43]

Though the New Testament does not directly address this issue, there are strong indirect evidences that Jesus never traveled East for eighteen years. First, Jesus was well-known as a carpenter (Mark 6:3) and as a carpenter's son (Matt. 13:55). That His carpentry played a large role in His life up to the time of His ministry is clear from the fact that some of His parables and teachings drew upon His experience as a carpenter (e.g., building a house on rock as opposed to sand, Matt. 7:24-27). Moreover, the people in and around Nazareth displayed familiarity with Jesus, as if they had had regular contact with Him for a prolonged time. At the beginning of His three-year ministry, Jesus "went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read" (Luke 4:16). After He finished reading, "all spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. 'Isn't this Joseph's son?' they asked" (Luke 4:22). This implies that those in the synagogue regarded Jesus as a local resident.

It is important to note that when Jesus stood up to read, He did so from the Old Testament Scriptures. And the Old Testament - for which Jesus often displayed reverence (cf. Matt. 5:18) - (1) contains numerous warnings and admonitions about staying away from false gods and false religious systems (cf. Exod. 20:2; 34:14; Deut. 6:14; 13:10; 2 Kings 17:35); (2) clearly distinguishes between the creation and the Creator, unlike Eastern thought; and (3) taught the need for redemption, not gnosis (knowledge). It is no coincidence that Jesus is often seen quoting from the Old Testament in the gospels, but not once does He quote from (or even mention) the Vedas!

While some in Nazareth were impressed at the graciousness of Jesus' words, others were offended that He was attracting so much attention. They seemed to be treating Him with a contempt born of familiarity. We read in Matthew 13:54-57: "Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. 'Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?...Where then did this man get all these things?' And they took offense at him."

Among those that became angriest at Jesus were the Jewish leaders. They accused Him of many offenses, including breaking the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-14), blasphemy (John 8:58-59; 10:31-33), and doing miracles in Satan's power (Matt. 12:24). But they never accused Him of teaching or practicing anything learned in the East. The Jews considered such teachings and practices to be idolatry and sorcery. Had Jesus actually gone to the East to study under "the great Buddhas," this would have been excellent grounds for discrediting and disqualifying Him regarding His claim to be the promised Jewish Messiah.

It is noteworthy that the self-concept of the New Age Jesus is that he is just a man who became enlightened in the East, eventually achieving Christhood. The self-concept of the New Testament Jesus, however, is one in which He singles Himself out as God (cf. John 8:58).

It is understandable why the "Jesus who went East" refused to accept worship (cf. Dowling). The New Testament Jesus, by contrast, accepted worship on numerous occasions because He knew Himself to be the one and only God (note especially Matthew 28:17). Of course, only God can be worshiped (cf. Ex. 20:4-5; Deut. 6:4-5, 13). It is thus significant that even when Jesus was just a babe, the Magi (from the East) "fell down and worshiped Him" (Matt. 2:11).

The final word on this matter must belong to God the Father, for there is no higher authority in the universe. He Himself is quoted as saying to Jesus: "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever" (Heb. 1:8). It is Jesus - the second Person of the Trinity - that we as Christians look forward to

seeing; 'we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). And, as Christians, we exult in the truth that Jesus has a name that is above every name, and that at His name, every knee will bow - in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Phil. 2:9-10). A CLOSING REFLECTION What if - despite all the arguments presented above - a manuscript should one day surface in India which speaks of Issa? Would this prove that Jesus did in fact go East during His youth?

Christians acknowledge that news of Jesus eventually reached India and Tibet as a result of the missionary efforts of the early church. It is conceivable that when devotees of other religions heard about Jesus, they tried to modify what they heard to make it appear that Jesus and His teachings were compatible with their own belief systems. It is possible that - sometime between the first and nineteenth centuries - these unreliable legends were recorded on scrolls and circulated among the convents in India. This would not be unlike the distorted versions of the life of Jesus that emerged among the early Gnostics (and recorded in the Gnostic gospels).

But for such a manuscript to be convincing, it would have to have the same kind of irrefutable manuscript evidence as the New Testament, the same quality of eyewitness testimony, and be written very close to the events on which they report like the New Testament. Until such an authoritative document surfaces, is it wise to base one's eternal destiny on a manuscript that has as little evidential support as Notovich's?

Douglas Groothuis issues this challenge: "Should any supposed record of Jesus' life come to the fore, let it marshal its historical merits in competition with holy writ. The competitors have an uphill battle against the incumbent."[44] NOTES 1 Shirley MacLaine, Out on a Limb (New York: Bantam Books, 1984), 233-34.

2 Nicolas Notovitch, The Life of Saint Issa, cited by Joseph Gaer, The Lore of the New Testament (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1952), 118.

3 Nicolas Notovitch, cited by Per Beskow, Strange Tales About Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, n.d.), 59.

4 Nicolas Notovitch, ed. The Life of Saint Issa, in Elizabeth Clare Prophet, The Lost Years of Jesus (Livingston, MT: Summit University Press, 1987), 218.

5 Ibid., 219.

6 Ibid., 222-23.

7 Ibid., 245-46.

8 Max Muller, "The Alleged Sojourn of Christ in India," The Nineteenth Century 36 (1894):515f., cited by Edgar J. Goodspeed, Modern Apocrypha (Boston: Beacon Press, 1956, 10.

9 Ibid., 11.

10 Notovitch, cited by Goodspeed, 11.

11 Ibid., 11-12.

12 Notovich, in Prophet, Lost Years, 30.

13 Ibid., 103.

14 Ibid., 103.

15 Ibid., 108.

16 J. Archibald Douglas, "The Chief Lama of Himis on the Alleged 'Unknown Life of Christ'" The Nineteenth Century (April 1896) 667-77, cited by Prophet, 36-37.

17 Goodspeed, 13.

18 Beskow, 62.

19 Goodspeed, 14 emphasis added.

20 Ibid., 5.

21 Ibid., 9.

22 Ibid.,

23 Levi, The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ (London: L. N. Fowler & Co., 1947), 48.

24 Ibid., 50.

25 Levi, cited by Gaer, 134.

26 Levi, Aquarian Gospel, 66.

27 Ibid., 87.

28 Ibid., 251. 253.

29 Philip J. Swihart, Reincarnation, Edgar Cayce, and the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 18.

30 Anne Read, Edgar Cayce: On Jesus and His Church (New York: Warnera Books, 1970), 70.

31 David Spangler, The Laws of Manifestation (Forres, Scotland: Findhorn Publications, 1983), 23-24.

32 Spangler, Reflections on the Christ, (Forres, Scotland: Findhorn Publications, 1981, 61.

33 Mark L. Prophet and Elizabeth Clare Prophet, The Lost Teachings of Jesus 3 (Livingston, MT: Summit University Press, 1988), 273[74.

34 Notovitch, in Prophet, Lost Years, 229.

35 Nicholas Roerich, Himalaya (New York: Brentano's 1926), cited by Prophet, 305.

36 Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), xx.

37 Ibid., 126.

38 Levi, Aquarian Gospel, 54.

39 Ibid., 56.

40 Ibid., 56.

41 Levi, Aquarian Gospel, 12.

42 Notovitch, cited by Prophet, 120.

43 Tal Brooke, When the World Will Be as One (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1989) 118.

44 Douglas Groothuis, Confronting the New Age (Downers Groves: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 93. Glossary of Key Terms

Caste. A term applied to the social groups in India which rank in a hierarchical order. The four primary castes - from highest to lowest - are: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (peasants), and Sudras (unskilled laborers).

Cosmic Christ. Variously defined, but always seen as divine. Many New Agers speak of him (it) as a universal, impersonal entity who - among other things - indwelt the body of the human Jesus for three years (from his baptism to his crucifixion).

Jains. Followers of Jainism. Jainism is a religious system of India that arose in the sixth century B.C. in protest against the ritualism of Hinduism and the authority of the Vedas. Jains are rigidly ascetic, believing in a strict control of wrong thought and action as a means of escaping from the transmigration of the soul (rebirth) that results from one's past actions (karma).

Monism. A metaphysical theory which sees all reality as a unified whole. Everything is seen as being composed of the same substance.

Sutras. Collections of aphorisms (or proverbs) which highlight the teachings of the Vedas and Upanishads (Indian scriptures).

Vedas. The oldest and most sacred scriptures of Hinduism. (The word veda means "sacred knowledge.")

Zoroastrians. Followers of Zoroastrianism, a Persian religion founded by Zoroaster (c. 628 B.C.-c. 551 B.C.). Zoroastrianism is an ethical religion which espouses an ongoing struggle between two primal spirits: Ahura Mazda (the good spirit), and Angra Mainyu (the evil spirit). Ahura Mazda will ultimately triumph.

Note: Additional technical terms used in this article are defined within the text. -

(An article from the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1989, page 15)

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Jesus Is the Messiah(Witnessing to Jews)by Ron Rhodes As one reads through the Bible, we find progressively detailed prophecies about the identity of the Messiah. Obviously, as the prophecies become increasingly detailed, the field of qualified "candidates" becomes increasingly narrow.

In showing a Jewish person that Jesus is the Messiah, one effective approach is to begin with broad prophecies and then narrow the field to include increasingly specific and detailed prophecies. You might use circles to graphically illustrate your points as you share these prophecies.

As suggested by Stuart Dauermann, seven increasingly detailed "circles of certainty" include: 1. Messiah's humanity (Genesis 3:15).

2. Messiah's Jewishness (Genesis 12:1-3; 28:10-15).

3. Messiah's tribe (Genesis 49:10).

4. Messiah's family (2 Samuel 7:16; Jeremiah 23:5-6).

5. Messiah's birthplace (Micah 5:2).

6. Messiah's life, reception, and death (Isaiah 52:13; 53).

7. Chronology of Messiah's appearing (Daniel 9:24-26). Let us look at these in a little more detail. Circle 1: The Circle of the Messiah's Humanity Scripture says that the Messiah had to become a human being. This circle is obviously a very large circle.

The Messiah's humanity is prophetically spoken of in Genesis 3:15, when God is pronouncing judgment against the serpent following the fall of Adam and Eve: And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

The word "offspring" refers to descendants. The Messiah would be a descendant of the woman - that is, He would be a human being. We find this fulfilled in Galatians 4:4-5: But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Circle 2: The Circle of the Messiah's Jewishness

Scripture says that the Messiah had to be Jewish - that is, He had to be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This narrows the circle considerably. Of all human beings who have ever lived, only Jewish human beings would qualify.

Point the Jewish person to Genesis 12:1-3, where God makes a covenant with Abraham (the "father" of the Jews): The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

Then point the Jewish person to Genesis 28:10-15: Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haran. When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. There above it stood the LORD, and he said: "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you."

These Bible passages indicate that the promised seed (in Genesis 3:15) was to come through the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Circle 3: The Circle of the Messiah's Tribal Identity The circle gets even narrower when it is demonstrated that the Messiah had to come from the tribe of Judah. This is demonstrated in Genesis 49:10: The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

Here Jacob is on his deathbed. Before he dies, he affirms that the scepter (of the ruling Messiah) would be from the tribe of Judah. Circle 4: The Circle of the Messiah's Family Scripture tells us that the Messiah had to be from David's family. This narrows the circle still further. We see this affirmed in 2 Samuel 7:16: Your [i.e., David's] house and your kingdom shall endure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.

We also read in Jeremiah 23:5-6: "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness."

Clearly the ruling Messiah had to come from the family of David. Circle 5: The Circle of the Messiah's Birthplace Scripture clearly prophesies that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. This narrows the circle of possible candidates for the Messiah tremendously. Micah 5:2 tells us: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

So far we have seen that the Messiah had to become a human being, had to be a Jew, had to be from the tribe of Judah and the family of David, and He must be born in Bethlehem (a small, insignificant city in ancient times). Failure to fulfill any one of these conditions disqualifies a person as a possible candidate. Circle 6: The Circle of the Messiah's Manner of Life, Rejection, and Death Regarding the Messiah's manner of life, rejection, and death, point the Jewish person to Isaiah 53. Note the following excerpts: Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. (Isa. 53:1-4).

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. (Isa. 53:7-9).

Note from these verses that: (1) The Messiah was to be despised and rejected by His fellow Jews. (2) He would be put to death following a judicial proceeding. (3) He would be guiltless. Obviously these facts about the

Messiah narrow the circle still further. Circle 7: The Circle of Chronology Point the Jewish person to Daniel 9:24-26: "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens', and sixty-two 'sevens'. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two 'sevens', the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

Regarding this passage, note the following facts: (1) The city would be rebuilt, as would the Temple. (2) The Messiah would come. (3) The Messiah would be "cut off" (die) but not for Himself. (4) The city and the Temple would be destroyed.

Note especially that the Messiah had to come and die prior to the destruction of the second temple, which occurred in A.D. 70.

Clearly, this narrows the circle of potential candidates incredibly. Is there anyone who has fulfilled all these conditions? Is there anyone who was a human being, a Jew, from the tribe of Judah and the family of David, born in Bethlehem, was despised and rejected by the Jewish people, died as a result of a judicial proceeding, was guiltless, and came and died before the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70? Yes there was, and His name was Jesus!

To further demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, note the following facts, which are derived from my book, Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ. These prophecies - taken together - narrow the field so much that there can be no doubt as to who the Messiah is. MESSIANIC PROPHECIES FULFILLED IN CHRIST From the Book of Genesis to the Book of Malachi, the Old Testament abounds with anticipations of the coming Messiah. Numerous predictions - fulfilled to the "crossing of the t" and the "dotting of the i" in the New Testament - relate to His birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, and glory. Now, some liberal scholars have attempted to argue that these prophecies were made after Jesus lived, not before. They have suggested that the books of the Old Testament were written close to the time of Christ and that the messianic prophecies were merely Christian inventions. But to make this type of claim is to completely ignore the historical evidence. Indeed, Norman

Geisler and Ron Brooks point out: Even the most liberal critics admit that the prophetic books were completed some 400 years before Christ, and the Book of Daniel by about 167 B.C. Though there is good evidence to date most of these books much earlier (some of the Psalms and earlier prophets were in the eighth and ninth centuries B.C.), what difference would it make? It is just as hard to predict an event 200 years in the future as it is to predict one that is 800 years in the future. Both feats would require nothing less than divine knowledge.

God's ability to foretell future events is one thing that separates Him from all the false gods. Addressing the polytheism of Isaiah's time, God said: * "Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come - yes, let him foretell what will come" (Isa. 44:7).

* "Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one" (Isa. 44:8).

* "Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me" (Isa. 45:21).

* "I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass....Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened I announced them to you so that you could not say, 'My idols did them; my wooden image and metal god ordained them'" (Isa. 48:3, 5).

Of course, anyone can make predictions - that is easy. But having them fulfilled is another story altogether. "The more statements you make about the future and the greater the detail, the better the chances are that you will be proven wrong." But God was never wrong; all the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled specifically and precisely in the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus often indicated to listeners that He was the specific fulfillment of messianic prophecy. For example, He made the following comments on different occasions: * "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matt. 5:17).

* "But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled" (Matt. 26:56).

* "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be

fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44).

* "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (John 5:39-40).

* "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5:46-47).

* "Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, 'Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing'" (Luke 4:20-21).

Any reasonable person who examines these Old Testament prophecies in an objective manner must conclude that Jesus was the promised Messiah. "If these messianic prophecies were written hundreds of years before they occurred, and if they could never have been foreseen and depended upon factors outside human control for their fulfillment, and if all of these prophecies perfectly fit the person and life of Jesus Christ, then Jesus had to be the Messiah."

Indeed, Christ on three different occasions directly claimed in so many words to be the "Christ." (Note that the word Christ is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah.) For example, in John 4:25-26 Jesus encountered a Samaritan woman who said to Him: "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming." To which Jesus replied, "I who speak to you am he." Later, Jesus referred to Himself in the third person, in His high priestly prayer to the Father, as "Jesus Christ, whom You sent" (John 17:3). In Mark 14:61-62 we find the high priest asking Jesus, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" To which Jesus declared unequivocally, "I am."

Others also recognized that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. In response to Jesus' inquiry concerning His disciples' understanding of Him, Peter confessed: "You are the Christ" (Matt. 16:16). When Jesus said to Martha, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" Martha answered, "Yes, Lord....I believe that you are the Christ" (John 11:25-27).

Some may ask why Jesus didn't explicitly claim more often to be the prophesied Messiah. Bible scholar Robert L. Reymond offers us some keen insights in answering this question: Jews of the first century regarded the Messiah primarily as Israel's

national deliverer from the yoke of Gentile oppression....Had Jesus employed uncritically the current popular term as a description of Himself and His mission before divesting it of its one-sided associations and infusing it with its richer, full-orbed Old Testament meaning, which included the work of the Messiah as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, His mission would have been gravely misunderstood and His efforts to instruct the people even more difficult. Consequently, the evidence suggests that He acknowledged He was the 'Christ' only where there was little or no danger of His claim being politicized - as in the case of the Samaritan woman, in private conversation with His disciples (at the same time, demanding that they tell no one that He was the Messiah), in semi-private prayer, or before the Sanhedrin when silence no longer mattered or served His purpose.

Even if Jesus had never verbally claimed to be the prophesied Messiah, the very fact that He was the precise fulfillment of virtually hundreds of messianic prophecies cannot be dismissed, as some liberal critics have attempted. The odds against one person fulfilling all these prophecies is astronomical; indeed, it is impossible to calculate. But fulfill these prophecies, Jesus did - and then He added proof upon proof regarding His identity by the many astounding miracles He performed. Truly, Jesus is the Messiah.

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Witnessing to Liberalsby Ron Rhodes Liberal Christians typically seek to adapt religious ideas to modern science. Their goal is to make Christianity "relevant" to modern man. By elevating science to supreme authority, they assume the Bible is a fallible human document, approach Scripture with an antisupernatural bias, and dismiss miracles as the fantasies of ignorant people in biblical times who did not understand the laws of nature. They also view humanity as fundamentally good, with no real sin problem.

Jesus is not viewed as God incarnate as God incarnate or as a divine Savior. Rather, He was a man supremely full of God and was characterized by ethical and moral excellence. He is an example to - and moral teacher of - the human race. He didn't die on the cross for our sins, but His death nevertheless has an uplifting "moral influence" on people (setting an example of sacrifice).

God's primary attribute is said to be love. His holiness, judgment, and wrath are practically ignored. Thus, it is not surprising that liberal Christians hold out the hope of immortality for all people. The idea that any will spend eternity in hell is rejected.

Confronted with such a plethora of unbiblical ideas, conservative Christians might wonder how to begin in evangelizing their liberal counterparts. Following are some guidelines I have found helpful when dialoguing with liberal Christians.

Be loving. Liberal Christians sometimes view evangelicals as narrow-minded and unloving. For this reason it is all the more important that all of your personal encounters with liberals be marked by love. Be courteous, tactful, kind, and humble.

Debunk the caricatures liberal Christians often have regarding evangelicals. As a case in point, some liberal Christians think typical evangelicals believe in the dictation theory of inspiration (the view that God literally dictated the Bible word for word to the biblical writers). Emphasize that typical evangelicals reject this view.

At the same time, however, be ready to explain and defend the correct view of inspiration. Biblical inspiration may be defined as God's superintending of the human authors so that, using (rather than bypassing) their own historical situations, personalities, and writing styles, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to humankind (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). (Space forbids a detailed apologetic defense of inspiration, but good resources are available for this.)

A necessary consequence of this view of inspiration is that the authority of Scripture cannot be separated from the authority of God. Whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms. Since the written revelation from God has been recorded under the Spirit's direct superintendence, that revelation is authoritative - just as authoritative as the One who gave it.

Now, besides dealing with inspiration, you should also address the liberal view that because the four gospel writers had theological motives (the intent to convince readers of Jesus' deity, for example), their historical testimony is untrustworthy. This is clearly faulty reasoning. As scholar Craig Blomberg put it, "The fallacy...is to imagine that telling a story for a purpose, even in the service of a cause one believes in passionately, necessarily forces one to distort history. In our modern era, some of the most reliable reporters of the Nazi Holocaust were Jews passionately committed to seeing such genocide never repeated."

Another caricature you may need to deal with is the liberal's misperception that evangelicals interpret Scripture too literally. Point out that evangelicals do not hold to a "wooden literalism" - the kind that interprets biblical figures of speech literally. Explain that what is understood to be symbolic and what is taken literally should be based on the biblical context itself - such as when Jesus used obviously figurative parables to communicate spiritual truth.

Emphasize that a literal approach to Scripture recognizes that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, each of which have certain peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in order to interpret the text properly. Biblical genres include the historical (e.g., Acts), the dramatic epic (e.g., Job), poetry (e.g., Psalms), wise sayings (e.g., Proverbs), and apocalyptic writings (e.g., Revelation). Point out that an incorrect genre judgment will lead one far astray in interpreting Scripture.

Even though the Bible contains a variety of literary genres and many figures of speech, the biblical authors most often employed literal statements to convey their ideas. And where they use a literal means to express their ideas, the Bible expositor must employ a corresponding means to explain these ideas - namely, a literal approach. Such an approach gives to each word in the text the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage - whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. Without such a method, communication between God and humankind is impossible.

A third caricature you may have to deal with is the notion that evangelicals are unaware of - or are not willing to deal with - so-called contradictions in the Bible. Challenge this charge. Put the burden on the liberal, and ask him or her to cite specific contradictions. Use resources like Gleason

Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and Norman Geisler's When Critics Ask to demonstrate that there are alternative explanations that make good sense.

Debunk the liberal's charge that miracles are the fantasies of ignorant people in biblical times who did not understand the laws of nature. People in biblical times did know enough of the laws of nature to recognize bona fide miracles. As C. S. Lewis put it, "When St. Joseph discovered that his bride was pregnant, he was 'minded to put her away.' He knew enough biology for that. Otherwise, of course, he would not have regarded pregnancy as a proof of infidelity. When he accepted the Christian explanation, he regarded it as a miracle precisely because he knew enough of the laws of nature to know that this was a suspension of them."

Moreover, Lewis observed, "when the disciples saw Christ walking on the water they were frightened: they would not have been frightened unless they had known the laws of nature and known that this was an exception. If a man had no conception of a regular order in nature, then of course he could not notice departures from that order." Nothing can be viewed as "abnormal" until one has first grasped the "norm."

Don't let the liberal get away with saying that science "disproves" the biblical miracles. Science depends upon observation and replication. Miracles - such as the Incarnation and the Resurrection - are by their very nature unprecedented events. No one can replicate these events in a laboratory. Hence, science simply cannot be the judge and jury as to whether or not these events occurred. The scientific method is useful for studying nature but not super-nature.

Scientists are speaking outside of their proper field when they address theological issues like miracles. R. C. Sproul observes, "Today when somebody steps outside of his area of expertise, people tend to follow and believe him. That is the basis of much advertising. For example, a baseball star may appear on television and promote a particular brand of razors. If that star were to tell me how to hit a baseball, he would be speaking with authority. But when he tells me the best razor blade to buy is a certain brand, then he is speaking outside of his area of expertise." Scientists do the same type of thing in regard to miracles.

The skepticism of liberal Christians notwithstanding, there is good reason to believe in the biblical miracles. One highly pertinent factor is the brief time that elapsed between Jesus' miraculous public ministry and the publication of the gospels. It was insufficient for the development of miracle legends. Many eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles would have still been alive to refute any untrue miracle accounts (see 1 Cor. 15:6). One must also recognize the noble character of the men who witnessed these miracles (e.g.,

Peter, James, and John). Such men were not prone to misrepresentation, and were willing to give up their lives rather than deny their beliefs.

There were also hostile witnesses to the miracles of Christ. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, for example, none of the chief priests or Pharisees disputed the miracle (John 11:45-48). (If they could have disputed it, they would have.) Rather, their goal was simply to stop Jesus (vv. 47-48). Remind the liberal that because there were so many hostile witnesses who observed and scrutinized Christ, successful "fabrication" of miracle stories in His ministry would have been impossible.

Demonstrate that nature and Scripture, properly interpreted, do not conflict. God has communicated to humankind both by general revelation (nature, or the observable universe) and special revelation (the Bible). Since both of these revelations come from God - and since God does not contradict Himself - we must conclude these two revelations are in agreement with each other. While there may be conflicts between one's interpretation of the observable universe and one's interpretation of the Bible, there is no ultimate contradiction.

We might say that science is a fallible human interpretation of the observable universe while theology is a fallible human interpretation of the Scriptures. If the liberal challenges the idea that science can be fallible, remind him or her of what science historian Thomas Kuhn proved in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - that is, science is in a constant state of change. New discoveries have consistently caused old scientific paradigms to be discarded in favor of newer paradigms.

Here is the point: it is not nature and Scripture that contradict; rather, it is science (man's fallible interpretation of nature) and theology (man's fallible interpretation of Scripture) that sometimes fall into conflict. Hence the liberal cannot simply dismiss certain parts of the Bible because "science and the Bible contradict."

Also keep in mind that the allegation that the Bible is not scientifically accurate is sometimes related to the Bible's frequent use of phenomenological language. Ecclesiastes 1:5, for example, refers to the sun "rising and setting." From a scientific perspective, the sun does not actually rise or set. But let's be fair. This is the same kind of language weather forecasters use. "Rising" and "setting" are accepted ways of describing what the sun appears to be doing from an earthly perspective.

Demonstrate that Jesus was not a mere example or moral teacher. No mere "example" or "moral teacher" would ever claim that the destiny of the world lay in His hands, or that people would spend eternity in heaven or hell depending on whether they believed in Him (John 6:26-40). The only "example"

this would provide would be one of lunacy. And for Jesus to convince people that He was God (John 8:58) and the Savior of the world (Luke 19:10) - when He really wasn't - would be the ultimate immorality.

Certainly, if Jesus had intended to teach doctrines compatible with liberal Christianity, He was a dire failure as a teacher. Indeed, His words led all those who followed Him during His earthly ministry in the precise opposite direction than He supposedly intended. All His followers ended up believing in miracles, that man is a sinner, that Jesus died on the cross to save them, and so forth.

In proving that Christ is the divine Messiah He claimed to be, one good approach is to demonstrate Jesus' fulfillment of messianic prophecies in the Old Testament - including ones He couldn't have conspired to fulfill, such as His birthplace (Mic. 5:2), being born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14), and the identity of His forerunner (Mal. 3:1). (This is what first got my attention back in the 1970s when I was attending a liberal church.) Since liberals respect science, mention that the science of statistics shows there is something like a 1 in 1017 chance of one man fulfilling just eight of the hundreds of messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Peter Stoner, author of Science Speaks, provides an illustration to help us understand the magnitude of such odds: Suppose that we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote using their own wisdom.

Jesus fulfilled not just eight but hundreds of messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Besides this, Jesus is referred to by the names of deity (e.g., "God," Heb. 1:8; "Lord," Matt. 22:43-45); has all the attributes of deity (e.g., omnipotence, Matt. 28:18; omniscience, John 1:48; omnipresence, Matt. 18:20); did the works of deity (e.g., creation, John 1:3; raised the dead, John 11:43-44); and was worshiped as deity (Matt. 14:33). You should thoroughly familiarize yourself with these and the many other biblical evidences for Jesus' deity.

Don't be surprised if the liberal suggests that Jesus is just "one of many ways to God." If they propose this theory, you should contrast the doctrine of God (the most fundamental of all doctrines) in the various religions. Jesus, for example, taught that there is only one personal God who is triune in nature (Matt. 28:19). Muhammad taught that there is only one God, but

that God cannot have a son. Confucius was polytheistic (he believed in many gods). Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu scripture) believed in a combination of polytheism and pantheism (all is God). Zoroaster taught religious dualism (there is both a good and a bad god). Buddha taught that the concept of God was essentially irrelevant. Obviously, these religions are not pointing to the same God. If one is right, all the others are wrong.

Emphasize that Jesus claimed that what He said took precedence over all others. Jesus said He is humanity's only means of coming into a relationship with God: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). One either accepts or rejects this claim, but no one can deny that it is exclusive.

Emphasize that Christianity is a religion of history. The apostle Paul warned the religious men of Athens of an impending objective event: the divine judgment of all humanity. And he based this warning on the objective, historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:31). It was this historical resurrection that instilled such boldness in the disciples. Initially, when Jesus was arrested, "all the disciples forsook Him and fled" (Matt. 26:56). But following Jesus' resurrection, these fearful cowards became steel bulwarks of the faith. They remained unflinching in their commitment to Christ, even in the face of great personal danger and death.

There have been various attempts (especially by liberals) to explain away the resurrection of Christ. One of the most popular of these is that Jesus' followers made up the resurrection story.

In response, point out how hard it is to believe that these followers - predominantly Jewish and therefore aware of God's stern commandments against lying and bearing false witness - would make up such a lie, and then suffer and give up their own lives in defense of it. Moreover, if Jesus' followers concocted events like the Resurrection, wouldn't Jesus' critics have then immediately come forward to debunk these lies and put an end to Christianity once and for all?

It is worth noting that the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 speaks of Christ's resurrection as part of a confession that had been handed down for years. First Corinthians was written around A.D. 55, a mere 20 years after Christ's resurrection. But many biblical scholars believe the confession in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 was formulated within a few years of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Paul noted that the resurrected Christ appeared to more than 500 people at a single time, "most of whom are still alive" (1 Cor. 15:6). If Paul had misrepresented the facts, wouldn't one of these 500 have come forward to dispute his claims? From a historical perspective, it seems clear that the

evidence for the Resurrection is as strong as (or stronger than) the evidence we have for any other accepted event of ancient times.

Emphasize that Christianity ultimately is a relationship, not a religion. Christianity is not just a set of doctrines or creeds - a "dead orthodoxy." Rather it involves a personal relationship with the living Lord of the universe. This is the most important truth you will want to leave the liberal to ponder because this is the ingredient of true Christianity that the liberal "Christian" is most painfully lacking. Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken. A liberal reinterpretation of Scripture that fails to recognize man's sin (Luke 19:10) and yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death.

The paradox underlying the liberal attempt to make Christianity "relevant" is that for everyone to whom Christianity is "made relevant" (those who believe miracles are unscientific), there are likely thousands for whom it is made irrelevant. For, indeed, the liberal version of Christianity lacks an authentic spirituality to help people and give them hope in the midst of life's problems. Former liberal Christian Alister McGrath said that, among other things, liberalism's "pastoral weakness became especially evident to me." He said "liberalism had little to offer in the midst of the harsh pastoral realities of unemployment, illness, and death."

In addressing the spiritual bankruptcy of liberalism, you can use the liberal's recognition of God's love as a launch-pad to emphasize that God loved humankind so much that He sent Jesus into the world to die on the cross to rescue humankind from hell. Be sure to note that Jesus - love incarnate - spoke of God's wrath and the reality of hell in a more forceful way than any of His disciples ever did (see, e.g., Matt. 25:46). Hence, God's love is not incompatible with the reality of hell. Jesus affirmed that His mission of love was to provide atonement for human sin (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence in our world) by His sacrificial death on the cross (Mark 10:45; John 12:23-27).

Inform the liberal that if he or she really wants to experience the love of God, the place to begin is a living relationship with Jesus Christ. Then tell him or her about your relationship with Jesus. There's no better way to close a discussion with a liberal Christian than by giving your testimony, focusing on how your personal relationship with Jesus has changed your life forever.

(This article was originally published as an "Effective Evangelism" article in the Christian Research Journal.)

The above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other available resources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688