By far the most egregious and the most cited example of God’s immorality  in the Old Testament is the slaughter of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15:

“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

Now let’s be honest. If you are an agnostic and you read this, wouldn’t you think God is immoral? Sure the Amalekites were monsters. According to Deuteronomy 25, the Amalekites would follow after the Israelites in their wanderings and would “harrass their flanks” so to speak–they would wait for some that were old or weak, or sick to fall behind and then like wolves, they would attack the weakest of the herd. Sure the Amalekites had religious practices which would make a Aztec blush.  But, that verse said “children and infants.” God orders the wholesale slaughter of children and infants and gets really really mad at Saul because he decides to keep the Amalekite king and some of his best animals as the spoils of war. Take that verse out of its context and out of its culture and it looks like the justification for every suicide bombing and mass grave in Palestine or Rwanda. Leave it in its context and culture and it still looks like this Old Testament God is a moral monster. I don’t want to cheapen the objection by trying to soften it. This is a problem.It may be THE problem for honest and open-minded atheists and agnostics.

I promised in my last post that my answer would annoy and probably anger some of you. Well here’s why. I don’t think any of the justifications that are normally touted by apologists are very good. In may opinion, it does little good to go the consequentialist route and say that the Amalekites needed to be wiped out in order to produce the most good for Israel and ultimately the world. Some say that the children needed to be wiped out because if they grew up they would later sacrifice their own children to Moloch. Reputable Christian apologists, names you would know and I admire, have said such things. I don’t think these are good answers. They do not make an atrocity vanish in a wave of faith, hope, and love.

I want to try out a new response. Its one that’s been forming in my head for about 6 months. Fair warning. It’s not a a tested response. That’s what I’m hoping the blog will do. It’s also not a attempt to silence the atheist in a wave of embarrassed hem-hawing. But when does any philosophical argument do that? Instead it is a argument that seeks to provide a reasonable basis to believe that God can be trusted. Ready?

I trust that God is not a moral monster because Jesus believed that God was not a moral monster and claimed that he (Jesus) would raise Himself from the dead (John 2:19 - 22) and then did.

That’s it.

I trust Jesus who says I can trust the God of the Old Testament. Jesus has earned my trust by being and doing the things that the Messiah, Son of God does. I trust his character and he says I can trust the God who ordered the slaughter of the Amalekites. In fact Jesus said God loved the whole world, that God was just and kind, that God was not willing that any should perish, and that it is better have a giant mill stone tied around your neck than hurt little children. I don’t understand it. I don’t see how God could order the deaths of children but as Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Is it reasonable to trust someone is not a moral monster on the authority of someone you trust for other reasons? That is a significant debate in epistemology–one I’m just dipping my toe into. However, let’s keep the cookies on the bottom shelf and consider an analogy.

In 2005, a SEAL team in Afghanistan began a counter-insurgency called Operation Redwings. Shortly after setting up above a village, a group of goatherds including a 14 year old boy happened upon their position. The goatherds appeared to be unarmed civilians who should not be detained. On the other hand, they could report to the Taliban and compromise the mission. Because of logistics, there were only two options, kill them or let them go free. Three of the four members of the team voted to kill the goatherds. One member, Marcus Luttrell, voted not to.  Suppose for the sake of argument they killed the goatherds. A SEAL team killed several unarmed civilians including a teenage boy? Would they be moral monsters? What if, you knew one of the team and he said the following:

“I know it looks like we are moral monsters. I know it looks like there would be no reason to do what we did. I can’t tell you the details because they are classified. One day, they won’t be, and I can tell you the whole story. Until then, I’m asking you to trust me that we are not moral monsters. As evidence that I am not a moral monster I ask you to remember all the Afghan children I have treated and bandaged, and helped. I ask you to remember the person you have known and befriended for years. Trust that it wasn’t an atrocity because you trust me.”

Would that remove all doubt? No. Would it cease to bother you what was done? No. Is it reasonable for you to trust the relationship you have with this person who knows more than you do? I think it is. One day I will know all the reasons and justifications for what happened to the Amalekite children but not today. However, I trust Jesus not just because “I know him in my heart” but because I genuinely believe there is no other explanation for his resurrection than that he is the Son of God. That makes my trust in his testimony reasonable even if its not satisfying.

Side note: In reality, the SEAL team let the goatherds go. Most likely the goatherds told the Taliban of their position since the team was ambushed and 3 SEALs died. Only Luttrell, the one who had voted to release the goatherds, survived.

I look forward to your comments.

1. In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and animals.
2. In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.
3. In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
4. In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant.
5. In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they are allowed to rape as spoils of war.
6. In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them

These passages are supposed to show that the God of Judaism and Christianity is evil, immoral, and sadistic in his ethics of war.

There are, of course, responses from believers. They fall mainly into two categories: attempts to rationalize God’s commands in light of culture and consequences and attempts to show the inconsistency of atheism to claim moral authority in these debates. In this post I’m going to consider the latter. Next post I’ll tackle the former

I’ve made the claim in the past that  it is inconsistent for Atheists to claim the moral high ground while maintaining materialism (i.e. physicalism). It is possible to deny the existence of God without embracing physicalism but not easily and most atheists do not. The big wigs of Atheism, (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, embrace physicalism so I’ll stick with this kind of inconsistency and reserve my discussion of the beliefs of those few atheist/platonists who admit that there are non-material things like numbers and moral truths but not God until I can corner them at a Starbucks).  To use an example from Wilson, suppose a bus full of children are blown up by a terrorist bomb. There are bodies and bus pieces everywhere. Sure its a tragedy. However, given that there is nothing in the universe save atoms in motion and the four basic forces, then when one person says, “Its sad that the children died” and another says, “Its sad that a perfectly good bus was destroyed,” Physicalism cannot distinguish between bus parts and children parts. You need some other reason and more importantly, I think, atheists owe their opponents a reason we should care more about one than the other.

There are at least three options.

Option 1: The loss of children is a tragedy because we care more about them than the bus. Why? We just do. Children are more integral to our biology. We can’t help but care for them more even if we didn’t want to. While this position isn’t inconsistent its consistency comes at a price. Essentially physicalism requires us to act in bad faith–act as if there were some objective moral reason to say the loss of children is more wrong than the loss of a bus without it actually being true.

Option 2: The loss of children is a tragedy because it involved suffering. Pain decides what is immoral. A bus doesn’t feel pain. Children do and so do their grieving parents. The bomber, like God, is immoral because he causes suffering for no good reason. This position is inconsistent however, what makes pain so all fired immoral? How can the fact that a couple of million neurons fire in a way that causes the organism to feel unpleasant create a moral obligation. Isn’t this the worst kind of fallacy to derive a moral value  (you ought not do x) from a fact (pain hurts)? It is always an open question, why pain and not say horror of destroying the aesthetic qualities of a school bus?

Option 3: The loss of children is a tragedy because its an intentional violation of a social contract. We all agree to follow a version of the golden rule (don’t do unto others what you wouldn’t want done to you). Everyone has projects, plans, and a future. To take that away is to deny something important. Bombing school buses violates that social contract. Of all of the possibilities, this one is the strongest. The claim is that morality evolves much like biology but there are some moral rules that just make sense. Don’t hit me and I won’t hit you. The pugilistic version of the golden rule. Now this agreement doesn’t have to be signed by everyone to be reasonable. It just has to make sense for any hypothetical person in the situation where everyone can hit everyone else. To crudely paraphrase Thomas Hobbes: Life in our little world is nasty, brutish, and short. It makes sense that we would all put our guns down slowly and agree to work together by setting up some rules, for Hobbes that meant the sovereign rule of a benevolent dictator but that’s a different story. The key point here is that what is moral is determined by what it would be reasonable for everyone to agree to. You would never agree to anyone ever destroying bus loads of children because the children in question could end up being yours. Thus terrorist acts are evil because they violate the contract. There are two problems with this. One terrorists are not reasonable so why should they uphold this contract? And two, should an all powerful being have any reasonable expectation of following our social contract?

If we take this last option, God becomes immoral at the price of God’s complete disconnect with the world. We are ants and God has no reason to play by our rules.  But notice, the Atheist does not bring up the slaughter of the Amalekites to rail against God. She brings it up to show the absurdity of believing in a religion that would allow such a God. But if the social contract is the justification for the moral high ground, then God is not absurd. God is imminently reasonable to do whatever God wants.

I will say however, that merely pointing out the lack of moral authority to atheists, isn’t satisfying or completely fair. If we don’t address these legitimate accusations, we have only succeeded in being defensive. In our next blog I want to take up the argument that God is not immoral given the culture, context, and consequences of the Old Testament. My answer will definitely surprise and possibly annoy at least some of you.

I look forward to responses especially from the atheists that occasionally check up on our little blog.

Zimmerman/Martin is a perfect case in point when contrasted with Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. I don’t know if Zimmerman is guilty of Second Degree Murder or self-defense but then neither do Jackson and Sharpton. That didn’t prevent them from jumping on a jet to lead marches under the auspices of racial prejudice when the name “Zimmerman” seemed to mean “white guy” who shot what was being represented as a a clean cut all American African American youth who was just minding his own business on his way home when thie white, racist bigot began stalking him. When it came to light that Zimmerman was ½ Hispanic and looks Hispanic they were already committed and the press had to do big spin to make it all work. On the other hand, Christian/Newsom murders the victims were white and the 5 perpetrators were African Americans. Christian and Newsom were car-jacked and kidnapped; the description of the crime is a bit gruesome, sorry:

According to the testimony of the Knox County Acting Medical Examiner Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan at the subsequent trial of Eric Boyd, Newsom was repeatedly sodomized with an object and then blindfolded, gagged, arms and feet bound and his head covered. Barefoot, he was either led or dragged outside the house to a set of nearby railroad tracks. He was shot in the back of the head, the neck, and the back, and his body then set on fire.

Channon’s death came after hours of sexual torture, medical examiner Mileusnic-Polchan testified. Channon suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus and mouth. She was not only raped but savaged with “an object,” possibly a broken chair leg, the doctor testified. She was beaten in the head. Some type of chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, likely scrubbed with the same solution – all while Channon was alive, the forensic expert said. She was then “hog-tied,” with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered tightly with a small trash bag and her body stashed inside five large trash bags before being placed inside a large trash can and covered with sheets. Channon died slowly, suffocating, the medical examiner said

What is missing in all of this? There was not a word from Rev. Jackson or Rev. Sharpton. There is little profit in speaking out for the victims when the perpetrators are part of the group you profit from by portraying as victims. I am not saying that racism doesn’t exist, it does but there is no evidence that was part of what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. Racism is but another example of the fallenness of man and the result of sin. Sharpton and Jackson have exchanged the biblical teaching on sin for the politically correct and highly profitable venue of skin color. Discrimination, including slavery, existed in the first century. Non-Roman citizens did not have the same rights as Roman citizens. Those who purchased their citizenship did not have the same level of rights as free born (those who were Roman citizens by birth). It was in this cultural context that the Apostle Paul wrote to the young pastor, Timothy:

All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment. For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness.(1 Timothy 6: 1-11)

The first paragraph describes how all believers, including ministers, are to behave. In that case, those “who are under the yoke as slaves”. Why? Because the way we live influences how others view our doctrine. Does Jackson and Sharpton’s behavior and doctrine of racism agree with or is it different than the doctrine and sound words of “our Lord Jesus.” If it is different does what they are promoting give rise to “envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth”? That is a question the reader should answer.

“Marley was dead to begin with . . . This must be distinctly understood, or nothing wonderful can come of the story I am going to relate. “

I love that line. It’s from Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. It’s an important concept because if Marley wasn’t dead then there would be nothing remarkable about Dickens’ ghost story. During Easter season, I found myself thinking about old Scrooge sitting there shaking uncontrollably from his first encounter with the possibility of the dead coming to visit. Unable to sleep because he can’t get the thought of what might have been a ghost that he saw in the door knocker. Of course in the comfort of his reasonable mind and soft house coat he realizes that what is nagging at his mind is almost surely nothing to lose sleep over. Just a bit of undigested beef right? More gravy than grave. But then again. What if it wasn’t? What if . . .

I found myself in the same sort of state as Scrooge once about 10 years ago. I had just finished reading Paul Maier’s novel A Skeleton in God’s Closet. Here’s a short plot outline. A tomb is found in the Middle East. Convincing evidence links it with Joseph of Aramathea who provided a tomb for Jesus. As the story unfolds, apparently a letter is found near the tomb. The letter is signed by Joseph of Aramathea and claims that the body in the tomb is Jesus’. Carbon dating confirms the date of the ink etc, etc. You get the idea.

“It’s just a novel. It’s just a novel.” That’s what I kept telling myself as I huddled in my chair. It’s highly improbable. Almost no chance that Joseph of Aramathea stole the body of Jesus. I mean I had just graduated from Southern Evangelical Seminary. I knew there was good evidence for the resurrection. There wasn’t just an empty tomb. There were the appearances to the disciples. There was the appearance to Paul and James the two most improbable converts of all. James was Jesus’ brother and Paul because he hated Christianity.  There was also the persecutions. How many times had I heard it? People would die for something false but no one would die for something they knew wasn’t true. Skepticism and Martyrdom don’t mix. The tomb was empty. The disciples were convinced. Happy Easter.

But there was that nagging “What if?” Maier is a professor of ancient history and he constructed a plausible explanation. After Jesus was buried, Joseph of Aramathea was concerned that someone would violate the tomb in order to desecrate it. So in the early morning hours of the Sabbath, Joseph moved the body to another tomb. According to the Gospel account, the Roman soldiers were not dispatched to the tomb until after the Jewish leaders petitioned Pilate:

The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’  So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard. (Matthew 27: 62-66).

Considering that there has to be time to get an audience with Pilate, detach a unit (however many), and for them to get to the tomb. Its possible that Maier’s story works. In the story the letter was a very elaborate fake fabricated by a mad archaeologist to get revenge on the religion that let him down. But those two little words–What if?–had me huddled Scrooge-like in my chair for one long sleepless night and part of the next day. What if the appearances were just that? Delusions brought on by sleeplessness and grief. More remorse than resurrection. What if Paul’s vision was brought on by an epileptic fit as one BBC talking head . . . uh commentator . . . suggested.

Before I tell you how I managed to banish the ghost of Paul Maier’s imagination, let me ask a question:

Suppose–just suppose–they did find the body of Jesus in a tomb and there was pretty conclusive proof, where would you be Sunday morning?

It is a worthwhile question to ask. Now, many have attempted to take the teeth out of this question by claiming that the resurrection is not a necessary condition for true Christian piety. We don’t need a body to have an Easter. Therefore if they found the bones of Jesus it should not significantly affect our faith. If any credible archeologist found the bones of Jesus tomorrow, the Jesus Seminar and a shockingly large number of academics would not loose much sleep.

However, when I talk to non-Christians especially Atheists, the body of Jesus is a big deal if Christianity is to have any credibility. One thing my atheist friends and I agree about, is that if Christianity is credible at all, it must be vulnerable to what scientists call falsification. If no evidence would ever falsify (make your claim false) then its a bad claim to start with. Let me give you an example.  Sir Karl Popper once remarked that what troubled him about Freudianism was that no matter what evidence people brought up to refute it, Freudians had a ready answer. If an example was given to show someone not acting in accordance to Freudian reasoning as a counter example (i.e. “Not everyone does x, Here’s an example”) then that person must be repressing–another Freudian concept. Popper explains why this is a problem for Pyschoanalytic theories:

I could not think of any human behavior which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact—that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed—which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favor of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.

Unlike perhaps popularist Freudianism, Christianity is  falsifiable. The Apostle Paul gave us the criteria for falsifying Christianity:

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:14-17)

Now someone might make the claim that Paul isn’t talking about a bodily resurrection. This is highly unlikely but too expansive a subject for one blog post. However, notice that if he isn’t talking about a bodily resurrection, then there is no physical evidence that could disprove Christianity. We are no better than radical Freudians or Marxists, or Astrologers for that matter since any counter-evidence could be explained within our theory. But if Paul is talking about a bodily resurrection then if we found the bones of Jesus tomorrow, Paul is claiming there would be no good reason to be in church on Sunday. (In fact, I have a standing offer with my friend who is an atheist, if they find the bones of Jesus, I will join him for at the buffet for Sunday brunch.)

The marvel of Easter is that for our story to be credible and miraculous, it must be vulnerable to the facts. My faith says they will never find those bones. Even though there have been some linguistic and statistical gymnastics by some fringe archeologists to claim they have found those bones, not even my atheist friend thinks there’s evidence to disprove the empty tomb yet.

As for Maier’s grave robbing theory. It took me a sleepless night and part of the next morning before I saw it. It is very very unlikely that a dispatch of Roman soldiers, sent specifically to guard the tomb, wouldn’t make sure the body was still there after having been unguarded for an entire night. Once I surmised that no guard would stake his reputation (and possibly his life) on tomb that might already have been robbed, I was able to get a well needed rest. My ghosts left me in peace.

Darwinism made its literary debut on November 24, 1859 with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species It was advanced as a scientific theory and was obviously in competition with claims of creationists as to the answer of origins. The church was ill prepared intellectually for the battle but most folks did not buy into the idea. As Darwinism advanced and worked at being at least accepted in the educational system, the state of Tennessee passed a law that would not allow evolution to be taught in the public schools. In 1925 this law was put to the test in court in the town of Dayton, Tennessee in the Scopes Trial. Although the state won in the trial they lost in the court of public opinion. That decline has continued to this day. In the 1960s evolution was allowed to be taught alongside creation and by the 1970s creation was essentially banned from public schools. Consequently, most of those who shape the thoughts of students (teachers) and culture at large (television, films, etc.) have advanced their belief system unencumbered with the need to actually defend their claims. In 2008 the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowedstarring Ben Stein was released. Ben is not opposed to Darwinism but he is opposed to censorship. Wasn’t that the exact issue in the 1925 Scope’s trial? It is often claimed that Clarence Darrow, the attorney for John Scopes, said something like, “It would be sheer bigotry to only teach one view of origins.” I haven’t been able to confirm this statement but my question is, does the truth have to hide censor competing ideas?

Some years ago I was asked to debate a professor at a local college on creation vs. evolution. We both agreed and a few days later he asked the sponsoring organization if I was a young earth or old earth creationist. They said they didn’t know and would find out but why would it make a difference. His response was, “I would be caught dead in the same room with a young earther.” I was befuddled since we were not talking about the when of origins but rather, can something come into existence from nothing, by nothing for no apparent reason or is a preexisting designer required? He chose hot to show up and I was asked to give a presentation on my view. After I was done a couple of students came up to me and said, “The way you present it, creation is true and evolution is false.” Very perceptive. Those students asked the professor to come on another day and present his side. I decided to attend. At the question and answer time I asked him if he might elaborate on how we made a transition from Asexual reproduction to male- female sexual reproduction. What would be the steps from one to the other and what intermediate forms have we found. He seemed frozen in place for a few minutes so I elaborated. Asexual reproduction is arguably the most efficient method and any steps in between would require changes that are likely not beneficial and may have been harmful. In fact, male-female reproduction is fraught with difficulties and even with all of the systems in place pregnancy does not always occur. It is enough of an issue that there are fertility clinics to help couples that are struggling with producing offspring. I went so far as to suggest that his view really took a series of miracles to work.

You would need to have a female pop into existence with all of the necessary components in place and working in order for her to be able to conceive. But that would be a miracle. In addition, you would need to have a male pop into existence with all of the necessary elements in place in order for him to be able to impregnate a female. But it gets worse. You would need both to pop into existence at about the same time in history. I mean 100 years a part simply would not work. Then, they would have to pop into existence in about the same geographical location. After all one in say Alaska and one in perhaps Australia, would not work. And so, he needed about 6 or 8 miracles to happen in order make the transition from one to the other. He thought for a moment and said he didn’t know how it happened but knew that it is scientifically possible and he believed even though he has no evidence. “So, you take it by faith” I suggested. He was not happy. In the end, whether one believes in evolution or creation, both begin with faith since we cannot get on the other side of the original events of origins and for the most part cannot trace evolution to any substantial degree.

I don’t know where things will end up as Tennessee seeks to question evolution in bill. There will probably be an outcry from the media elite and likely a court case trying to overturn the law. I think that will actually be helpful as it gives more public exposure to the issue. I would suggest that a major network televise a debate between , say, William William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse. Educating students and even culture in how to think, challenge and be challenged in the world of ideas would be a big step. It would also allow the faith claims which have the best evidence and answers rise to the top and provide the best answers to life’s issues.

The view that Liberationists hold is simply an amalgamation of Marxist Communism layered over with biblical themes and words from the Bible while radically redefining those words. One such biblical theme used as justification is the liberation of the Jews in the Exodus under Moses. The Liberationist do not present this as a story of redemption focused on the covenant God, the great I Am, but rather as a schematic for the poorer masses to rise up against the Pharaoh’s of this world. It advocates taking from the rich to give to the poor. It lacks a Passover Lamb and does not offer spiritual redemption. In this Liberation scenario the poor are automatically on God’s side and loved by Him just for being poor. The rich are all villains and enemies of God because they have wealth. This is certainly a misuse of the Bible in the worst way. The very obvious meaning of the Exodus story is that God called Moses to deliver the covenant nation and call them to love, worship and serve Him. Ultimately they would preserve God’s Word and bring forth the Messiah through their lineage.

Of course in the true biblical scenario God extends His love to all both rich and poor alike and invites them to salvation in Christ our Passover. The Liberation Theology movement encourages violence and conflict by the lower classes (as subjectively defined by the leaders) and is constantly crying the theme of social injustice. This is not to say that there is no social injustice in the world but ushering in social justice alone is not the same as bringing salvation in Christ. This movement called Liberation is primarily a horizontal movement whereas true Christianity is both horizontal and vertical seeking to reconcile man with God, (2Corinthians 5:18-21). In the Liberation Theology view there is no original sin and sin itself is redefined as having possessions and wealth while others do not. Share the wealth is a constant theme except for the rulers who get the wealth and dictate to others how to use theirs. A cadre of wealthy rulers managing the masses is only a necessary but temporary event the rulers say until everything evolves into the promised Utopia for all where all will be equal in status. No one would think to question the ruler’s greed. Unfortunately in many instances when someone opposes Liberation Theology they are accused of hatred for the little guy and bigotry as well as racism. They are shouted down as not caring for the underprivileged.

Dave Breese has given us a great explanation and a clear answer to the question, what is Liberation Theology?:

“It is the view that holds that Christ came into the world to be our economic liberator. It asserts that His first purpose was to free the poor and the oppressed from the shackles of economic constriction. In actuality, liberation theology redefines sin. In liberation theology sin is to possess wealth in the face of the world’s poverty. Righteousness is therefore to redistribute the wealth, giving it to the poor. Evangelism is also redefined. It is seen as the announcement of economic liberation of Christ and the invitation to the oppressed people of the world to join in the revolution He now ordains. Liberation theology advances another fascinating rationale. In that possessing money is the essence of sin, it follows that the most sinful system in the world is capitalism. The liberationists then ask, From whence does capitalism come? The answer is of course the United States….although it has lost ground in some places, liberation theology continues to be a serious spiritual subversion within Christianity and a serious threat to the stability of the world. It has been called ‘the greatest threat that the Church has faced in all of its history.’ The emergence of liberation theology makes clear that Marxism moves across the world in many a strange disguise.” ( 7 Men Who Rule The World From The Grave , pages 85-86).

Where Liberation theology takes another very evil and wicked turn is when it feeds vicious hatred of Jews and anti-Semitism. In that poisoned stream all Jews are seen as less than human and poised to take over the world. Then there are forms of Liberation theology that stress that one race is better than another – superior in some way.

Another egregious off shoot of Liberation Theology (with proponents hiding behind the theme of The Third Quest ) is the school of thought that blatantly casts Jesus as coming to organize social revolution and being only a prophet of radical social change. These views are promoted by Gerd Theissen, R. David Kaylor and Richard Horsley. This makes Jesus more a politician than a Savior. Certainly Jesus cared about society and downtrodden suffering people. Social change may occur when a person is born again or a community is impacted by the Gospel but this is only a by product and not the core issue, (See, The Jesus Quest , Ben Witherington, chapter 6 for a full analysis of this flawed approach).

Given the history of so many failed Utopias’s our logic tells us (as well as the Bible) that we are going to have to wait for the coming of Jesus before there is a perfect society and a perfect kingdom on earth. Liberation Theology is not the blessing it is advertised to be but rather is the distorted delusion of fallen men.

There is a decided contradiction in the thinking on the left. There is a rigidity approaching a religious fervor that Darwinism is the answer to where we came from, why we are here and that we are going nowhere when we die. It is the view taught in all public schools and any discussion of a creator or intelligent designer are not allowed for fear of letting God in the door. But if they really believe Darwinism is true, on what basis would they argue for health care as a basic human right?

Darwinism is clear that those that survive survive. The weak, the infirmed, the elderly, the handicapped do not survive and that is how evolution weeds out and breeds out the less desirable. The idea of helping the sickly, infirmed, elderly and handicapped comes from a Judeo/Christian worldview which holds to a creator from Whom moral absolutes and compassion are taught and modeled.

Think about it. In nature, what happens to the weak, sickly, crippled, etc? They are left behind by the herd. When predators come a hunting, those that can flee do so and those that cannot are dinner. It is simple and efficient. Resources are better used by the remaining healthy and not wasted on the unhealthy. If the Federal Government was going to be consistent they would eliminate healthcare from any and all Federal programs and the citizens who want to survive will have to figure out a way to survive. Those who don’t, well that is Darwinism at work.

Eastern religions like Hinduism do not fare much better than Darwinism. Darwinism is perfection by evolution and Hinduism is perfection by reincarnation, a sort of spiritual evolution. In that system any who suffers do so as the way to work off bad Karma from previous lives and helping them would actually be bad for it prevents them from working off their bad Karma. Better to let them suffer and die and move on to better lives ahead.

While the issue is being argued in court perhaps conservatives could use the argument from evolution and further expose the double think from which liberals often suffer.

Christians can coexist with other religions. Recently Sam Harris of Letter to a Christian Nation has challenged Christians that Christianity and Atheism aren’t that far apart. After all, Christians are atheists when it comes to religions like Islam and Hinduism. Christians deny the teachings of Islam just as Atheists deny the teachings of all religion, right? Well, Douglas Wilson has responded, and I agree, that Christianity has more in common with Islam than atheism. After all if a Christian, an Atheist, and a Muslim all saw a trout suddenly appear in a punch bowl, the Muslim and the Christian could discuss the miracle and what kind of deity could and would do such a thing. The conversation with the atheist would be quite different. I have a facebook friend who is a self-identified Hindu but we coexist mostly over the despicable lack of religious freedom in India. Freedom House is an organization that champions the coexistence of religions. However, coexistence doesn’t mean an amorphous acceptance of only what we have in common. What my FB friend and I can agree on is that neither of us should be prevented from expressing or advocating our position. This is especially true when it comes to Christian evangelism. Virtuous tolerance means my Facebook friend may vehemently disagree with what I believe but respects my freedom to say it, even to him.

Speaking of disagreement. It might not seem so given our political climate, but Christians can coexist with other Christians even when the disagree passionately about theology. MCOI is a an example of this kind of coexistence. As I look at the team here at MCOI, I am always impressed that a ministry that is so dependent on combating bad theology is so diverse theologically. Within our little evangelical conclave, we have charismatics, dispensationalists, Reformed, and whatever Don Veinot happens to be!

Probably the most interesting example of coexistence revolves around political ideology. I’m a self-professed political junkie and I do like the bloodsport often to my determent.  On any given Monday its dueling articles from the Washington Post. The most prevalent topic is whether Jesus would condemn capitalism. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, dear reader, but there has been a rash of “What-Bible-are-those-people-reading-of course-Jesus-wouldn’t-think that” kind of articles lately. And several of them find their way to my Facebook feed via friends who have a theological or political axe to grind. We have debated the birth control issue at length. One thing that is a hallmark of virtuous coexistence is we respect each other enough not to engage in fallacious arguments especially the favorite of political commentary–the Tu Quoque. Essentially the Tu Quoque says “You Too.”It ignores the argument in favor of pointing out hypocrisy. (For good examples of this see MSNBC and FoxNews talking about Rush Limbaugh.) We vehemently disagree with each other about the state, religion, justice, virtually everything but our respect for each other means we bring our best arguments. Coexistence becomes much easier when all of us have too much respect for our opponents to insult them with bad caricatures of their positions.

I also think the virtuous coexistence means that we have to get over being “offended” and get over worrying about offending others so much. One of my atheist friends loves to post offensive T-shirts making fun of religion. Recently he posted one that said, “Why would you want to be born again when you can just grow up.” That’s offensive. So is the internet meme going around that says, “Science flies you to the moon and religion flies you into buildings.” That is also offensive and actually fallacious.  Yes they are snarky. But I will be honest. Virtuous coexistence includes offending and being offended. After all, MCOI’s signature verse is “Have I now become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16) Implied in this passage is that one can be offended without becoming an enemy to the offender.

Let me end with an example of virtuous coexistence.  I post my essays for the Crux on my Facebook page just about every week I write one. This  last one was no different. True to form my agnostic friends and even some of Christian friends held me to the fire. I made the following quote in that previous blog:

I don’t care how fundamentalist you read the New Testament, you will not find authority to burn gay people, forcibly baptize Jews, or wage war on others to make them Christian. Even though all of those were done in the name of Christ they were done inconsistently with the fundamental teachings of the New Testament. On the other hand, no matter how liberally you read the New Testament you will not find a Jesus who “lives and lets live.” To the contrary you will find a Jesus who dies violently in order to show that he is the only way to know God.

I received two responses that were respectful but challenging. One from a non-religious person who asked whether the burning gays and waging wars of conversion were consistent with the Old Testament. I knew the passages he had in mind. The slaughter of the Amalekites from 1 Samuel 15 and the Levitical injunctions against homosexuality.  The second response was from a Christian progressive who didn’t see what the fuss was about. Different religions can even worship together with elements from their own traditions. We disagreed but there is mutual respect and we co-exist quite nicely. I won’t give you the blow by blow mainly because I won’t to save them for other blog posts.

My main point is that Co-existence is not only possible but virtuous not when whitewash disagreements but rather when we respect people and their ideas enough to offend without making enemies.

Last month, students from several Catholic universities gathered to send a message to the nation that contraception is basic health care. I was among them, and I was proud to share the stories of my friends at Georgetown Law who have suffered dire medical consequences because our student insurance does not cover contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

Putting aside the fact that Rush tastelessly used personal and insulting language in describing Ms Fluke, for which he has apologized several times, was Rush out of line in wondering why others should be expected to pay the cost for Ms. Fluke’s, and by extension, all women’s contraception? We don’t think so. As the media firestorm erupted this week over Rush’s comments, it was brought to everyone’s attention that David Letterman, Bill Mahr and many other liberal mouthpieces have said far worse about women on their shows with no backlash from the mainstream media or the feminists at all. Indeed, liberal apologists maintain that these men are mere entertainers, and as such, are free to say whatever they want, but Rush should be banned from the airwaves, and according to Gloria Allred, criminally prosecuted! And yet, no conservative that has been paying attention to anything for the past few decades can be surprised by this double standard. Freedom of speech today seems to mean that people are free to agree with the liberal elites.

However, our concern is not really about the right or wrong of name calling, no matter how egregious, and no matter what “side” of the political/cultural divide the insults and name calling proceeds from. The “divide” is a fact of life in America now, and it can be very vicious. Indeed, anyone who steps into the political or cultural arena today can pretty much expect to come under fire – fairly or unfairly. I think the issue is one of religious liberty.

Just to be clear, we are not Roman Catholic and so we don’t necessarily agree with all of their doctrinal positions. But in free America, Roman Catholics do have a legitimate and constitutional right to hold them. On issues of sexuality, the Roman Catholic position is clear and has been consistent in their positions for generations:

Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Sex is not to be engaged in outside of marriage. This includes fornication, adultery, same gender sex, pedophilia, etc.
Use of contraception to prevent pregnancy is sin in their view. They do approve of certain methods to avoid pregnancy within the bounds of marriage but most forms of contraception are not on that list. They do make an exception and allow birth control pills to treat cysts on ovaries. In other words, they make an exception to treat an illness and they do not regard pregnancy as an illness.
Abortion is the taking of a human life – not only highly immoral, but an act of murder.

That individual Catholics do not follow all the proscriptions and official teachings of their church changes nothing – it does not negate the church’s right to hold and proclaim them. No one of lives in complete consistency with even our own consciences, but the fact that human beings fail does not negate right and wrong – and we maintain that most people do know right from wrong. Churches cannot and should not change their doctrines to keep up with the times, or to accommodate human weakness. Churches are to hold up the moral standard, regardless of the popularity of its stand. The Ten Commandments were never put to a vote! Would adultery, coveting and lying still be in there if it had been?

We have to wonder if Sandra Flute is really equipped to be an attorney though. Our concern stems from a series of questions:

Was she aware that Georgetown University Law Center is a Roman Catholic institution?
Is she aware that the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church prohibits sexual relations outside of marriage?
Is she aware that the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to contraception?

If she is ignorant of these issues, that would demonstrate a serious lack of ability to gather the necessary decision-making information that is required in the practice of law. If, on the other hand, she is well aware of these issues, then it is apparent that she deems freedom of religion under the Constitution as meaningless, in which case she is unqualified to be an attorney, since our constitutional rights are foundational to all of our laws.

Sandra Fluke has the right to believe and practice as she chooses about extramarital sex. She has the right to use contraception and already has complete “access” to it, like everyone else. She does not have the right to expect the rest of society to pay for her behavioral choices in the privacy of her bedroom, though, and she certainly has no right to deprive others of their freedom of conscience and freedom of religion

I never knew the history of this particular piece of  philosophic driving literature.  Jeremy Jackson at Enoch Magazine is the first person I’ve seen to ask: “Who’s behind this idea?” The short version is that the design originated as a submission by a Polish designer for a contest promoting tolerance and understanding at the unique Museum on the Seam in Israel which displays art and design that centers around international political and social issues. Jackson explains that what happened after that was not so tolerant at least for the designer:

Piotr Mlodozeniec combined symbols for the Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths in the word and intended it to be used to promote religious tolerance – 2001. The symbol was then popularized on the global Vertigo tour of rock icon, U2, in the early part of the past decade. According to a published report, no one from the band had requested permission to use the symbol from its creator. The museum claimed rights. The legality of its use by U2 was in question. Subsequently, a company was quickly formed in Indiana that used the same design with trademark rights requested in 2003 and granted in 2005. Though Coexist LLP profited from the t-shirt sales immediately, it had not been granted permission from the artist who created the design and was actually strongly opposed by Mlodozeniec. Coexist LLP went on to sue numerous other vendors who did not have the rights to the design but were nonetheless selling products with the design.

There’s irony in there somewhere I just know it. Of course, there are problems with the idea of coexistence. As this parody illustrates.

The clear “villain” here is Islam. It goes without saying (but of course must be said) that this is a gross oversimplification about the desires of the fastest growing religion. Not all Muslims want the same things. And neither do all Christians, pagans etc. But as with all satire, there really is a deeper point. All religions are not created equal. Coexistence is a problem not just because of violence but because of logic. Contradictory claims cannot all be true. All religions make some mutually exclusive claims about reality. They cannot all be correct. So coexistence faces a very real problem in that religions cannot simply be “different paths to the same thing,” as some Wiccans would have us accept. In response to Jeremy Jackson’s post about Coexist movement, one Wiccan wrote: “As a Wiccan I respect both of your blogs, and in it the truth of the Love for all [sic]. Of the message of Peace[sic]. I do believe in Christ and his teachings. Thank you for your point of view and sharing it.”

The difficulty with this Wiccan concept of love for all is that it is easy to simply ignore those teachings of Jesus that we don’t like or that destroy our cute little bumper sticker. Christianity is a proselytizing religion. It seeks to convince others that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. While peaceful, Christianity is not ideologically tolerant–if by tolerant we mean simply, “Hey you have your religion and I have mine, now let’s ignore both of them and concentrate on the kind of peace and love that can fit neatly on a bumper sticker because its all good.”As those often irreverent and sometimes profound folks over at Radio Free Babylon illustrate with their Coffee with Jesus web comic:

While Islam has its moderates, they are usually Muslims who deny the fundamentals of the Koran. Those who hold to strict interpretation of the Koran are usually the ones who are intolerant. This is, to my mind, a major difference between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists (however you define it). I don’t care how fundamentalist you read the New Testament, you will not find authority to burn gay people, forcibly baptize Jews, or wage war on others to make them Christian. Even though all of those were done in the name of Christ they were done inconsistently with the fundamental teachings of the New Testament. On the other hand, no matter how liberally you read the New Testament you will not find a Jesus who “lives and lets live.” To the contrary you will find a Jesus who dies violently in order to show that he is the only way to know God. That is either a masochist or a savior. There is no “peaceful” third option. Next week I’ll talk a little bit about what actual coexistence looks like. Until then, I invite your comments on bumper stickers, fundamentalism, and coexistence.