What sets Christianity apart? (part 2)
In Part One, we found that part of what sets Christianity apart is trinitarian monotheism and God’s eternal love. Here we will add four more aspects that set Christianity apart from other religions.
3. The Incarnation of God
Christians believe that God loves the world so much that Jesus took on flesh and became man to die for the sins of the world (Jn. 1:1-3, 14, 29; 3:16). Other religions, such as Greek mythology, believe in gods who appeared in human form for various reasons, including love or punishment.[1] Greek gods, however, only temporarily took on human form. Jesus permanently became human.[2]
In Hinduism, the incarnation of a deity usually refers to Vishnu, who is said to have appeared in various avatars (e.g., Rama, Krishna, Narasimha, and Varaha). Other than Hinduism and various mythologies (which most people no longer take seriously), the concept of the incarnation of God is uncommon. However, Wikipedia does give a list of other people who have been considered deities. Egyptian pharaohs were considered deities, and North Korea’s Supreme Leader is considered a deity, for example. Interestingly, even on Wikipedia, Jesus is in a class of His own. He is listed by Himself under the “Controversial Deification” heading.
The Hindu avatar comparison to Christian incarnation is not as clear as it might at first seem. There are clearly some important distinctions between the Hindu and Christian beliefs regarding incarnation.[3] First, Hindus claim many divine incarnations have appeared throughout history, while Christians believe Jesus is unique—the only begotten Son of God. The Christian Bible teaches that Jesus appeared “once to bear the sins of many” and “will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him” (Heb. 9:28). So, second, we see that the purpose of avatars and the purpose of Christ are different. The avatars do not take away or bear sin. Third, in contrast to Hinduism, Christianity teaches that Jesus is Immanuel, God with us, and that He is still with us by the Holy Spirit. Lastly, the avatars in Hinduism appear for a time to balance out good and evil; in contrast, Jesus came and will come again to forever banish evil and sin.
So, Christianity’s belief in the incarnation of Jesus sets it apart from all other religions. The Creator became creation, the eternal entered time. As is sometimes said, there are many who would be god but only one God who would be man. Or, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, ”While we exert ourselves to grow beyond our humanity, to leave the human behind us, God becomes human.”[4]
4. Messiah Jesus
Muslims say they believe Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, the Quran explicitly refers to Jesus as the Messiah. One of the disagreements between Christians and Muslims, however, is what it means that Jesus was the Messiah. Muslims do not believe Jesus was God in flesh or that He was crucified.
It is true that the expectation presented in the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament for Christians) for the Promised One seems almost impossibly diverse. How could any one person fulfill the many expectations? How could it make sense for the “Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:9, 13, 22) to be a descendant of king David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Is. 11:1; Jer. 23:5-6)?
The messianic expectations appeared to be nothing more than unrelated and random shards of glass. Yet, the New Testament authors, over and over, argue that Jesus is in fact the Promised One, the long-awaited Messiah, who fulfills the prophecies, patterns, pointers, and promises (2 Cor. 1:20). Jesus, who was from Nazareth (of all places) is believed to be the one who will crush the serpent of old and lead the way back into Eden, bless all the nations of the earth, and set up His righteous and eternal Kingdom. The New Testament helps us see that the Old Testament predictions work together to form an astounding, almost unbelievable, stained-glass picture of Jesus, the long-awaited, promised Messiah.
Regarding prophecy, there are several Old Testament passages we could consider. Here’s a sample:
- His appearance will be disfigured (see Isaiah 52:14 and Matthew 26:67).
- He will be despised and rejected (see Isaiah 53:3 and John 11:47-50).
- He will take sin upon Himself (see Isaiah 53:4-6, 8 and 1 Corinthians 15:3).
- He will be silent before oppressors (see Isaiah 53:7 and Matthew 14:60-61).
- He will be assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in His death (Isaiah 53:9 and Mark 15:27-28, 43-46).
- He will be a descendant of David (see 1 Chronicles 17:11-14 and Luke 3:23, 31).
- He will be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:1).
- He will be preceded by a messenger (see Isaiah 40:3-5 and Matthew 3:1-2).
- He will have a ministry of miracles (see Isaiah 35:5-6 and Matthew 9:35; 11:4-5).
- He will enter Jerusalem on a Donkey (see Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:7-9).
- His hands and feet will be pierced (see Psalm 22:16 and Luke 23:33).
- He will be hated without reason (see Psalm 69:4 and John 15:25).
- His garments were divided, and lots were cast for them (see Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24).
- His bones were not broken (see Psalm 34:20 and John 19: 33).
- His side was pierced (see Zechariah 12:10 and Jn. 19:34).
- He, the Mighty God, was born (see Isaiah 9:2-7 and Matthew 1:23).
Christianity is set apart from all other world religions because it says that Messiah Jesus, who is God incarnate, “died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3).
5. The Resurrection
Christians believe that Messiah Jesus died as predicted, but that He didn’t stay dead; He rose, conquering sin and death. Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus is the firstfruits of more to come. The resurrection of Jesus is like the down payment with a whole lot more to follow. He is the “test of concept” that proves that God will one day soon set the world aright.[5]
So, Christians believe time is going somewhere. The world itself groans to be fixed, and the Bible says that the resurrection of Jesus proves it will be fixed.
6. Historical Evidence
Christians do not base their beliefs on a dream wish. There are legitimate historical grounds for their beliefs. This sets Christianity apart from all other religions. Now, some other religions claim historical and archeological support, but the evidence for Christianity is much more convincing.
So, for instance, Douglas Groothuis has said, “The New Testament witness is far better established historically than the revisionism of the Quran.”[6] The New Testament documents are amazingly historically reliable. “Nearly 100 biblical figures, dozens of biblical cities, over 60 historical details in the Gospel of John, and 80 historical details in the book of Acts, among other things, have been confirmed as historical through archaeological and historical research.”[7]
Further, we can gather a substantial amount of information about Jesus through nonbiblical historical writers. From Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian, Thallus, and Celsus, we see Jesus clearly existed and had a brother named James who was killed when Ananus was High Priest. Jesus was known to be some kind of wonderworker, wise man, and teacher. Yet, He was regarded by His followers to be divine. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and His crucifixion seems to have been accompanied by a very long darkness. Surprisingly, His crucifixion didn’t squelch the Christian movement.[8] Historical writings outside of the New Testament corroborate the accuracy of the New Testament.
The English philosopher Antony Flew, while not a believer in the resurrection of Jesus, said, “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”[9] Not only does the historical evidence point in the direction of Christianity, but the positive historical impact does too. We’ll look at that in “What sets Christianity apart” (part 3).”
Go to Part Two three here.
Notes
[1] E.g., Zeus, Poseidon, and Apollo.
[2] The New Testament repeatedly teaches that Jesus is God in flesh. Jesus and the New Testament writers over and overclaim Jesus’ divine nature. We see the creedal formula “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). “Lord” was used in the LXX to translate the divine name, so this designation very often equates Jesus with God. Jesus’ title is “Son of God” which implies He is of the same nature as God (Matt. 11:27; Mk. 12:6; 13:32; 14:61-62; Lk. 10:22; 22:70; Jn. 10:30; 14:9). Jesus is eternally preexistent (Jn. 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 13:8; Rev. 22:13). He has authority to forgives sins (Mk. 2:5-12; Lk. 24:45-47; Acts 10:43; 1 Jn. 1:5-9). He is even explicitly referred to as “God” (Matt. 1:21-23; Jn. 1:1-14; Titus 2:13; 1 Jn. 5:20; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1). And Jesus was condemned for who He claimed to be (Mk. 14:61-64; Jn. 8:58-59). Yet, the writers say it is right to worship Him (Matt. 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; Jn. 20:28; Heb. 1:5-9; Rev. 5). So, Jesus claimed to be the Lord and the New Testament confesses Him to be Lord. The Early Church taught that Jesus was God, too. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117) said in his Letter to the Ephesians, “Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit” (18.2 cf. 19.3; Letter to the Romans, 3.3; Letter to Polycarp, 3.2). Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69-155) said, “The Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth…, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead (Philippians 12.2). Justin Martyr (100-165) said, “Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God” (Dialogue with Trypho, 128), and he said that he would “prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts” (Dialogue with Trypho, 36). We also have early archeological evidence from around 230AD. Ancient remains of an early church were discovered in the Megiddo prison in Israel. The church has ornate religious mosaics and an inscription that says, “God Jesus Christ” (Vassilios Tzaferis, “Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ,’” 38-49 in Biblical Archaeology Review March/April 2007 Vol 33 No 2).
[3] Kyle Brosseau, “How to Explain the Incarnation to Hindus.”
[4] Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 84 as quoted in Biblical Critical Theory 360.
[5] “The resurrection raises our consciousness to a new set of possibilities in this world and shows us that the way things are is not the way they will always be” (Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 442). “The resurrection is not a one-time happening but the beginning of a new and ongoing age.” (Ibid., 457).
[6] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 664.
[7] Holden and Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, 181.
[8] See Boyd and Eddy, Lord or Legend?, 135.
[9] See Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 583.
* Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos
What sets Christianity apart? (part 1)
It makes sense to consider religious claims. “Even if religion makes no sense to you, you need to make sense of religion to make sense of the world”[1] because the world is religious. It always has been. One author says, “Evidence is abundant that human beings are incurably religious.”[2]
It especially makes sense to consider the claims of Christianity. Douglas Groothuis makes a good argument for the stakes being higher for Islam and Christianity.[3] This is because some of the other religions offer types of do-overs through reincarnation. If you didn’t get it right the first time, you can try again in your next life. Christianity and Islam believe it is one and done. So, it makes sense to investigate the religions that offer no redos first.
That being said, there are many world religions. There are also many irreligious people.[4] And both religious and irreligious people can be very kind and good. So, what sets Christianity apart?
What World Religions Have in Common
World religions and even atheism are asking similar questions; they are just giving different answers. Each religion articulates:
- a problem
- a solution
- a technique for moving from the problem to the solution
- an exemplar who charts the path from problem to solution[5]
There are 9 things that most major world religions have in common. Most religions have some type of…
- Higher Power
- Life After Death
- Prayer or Meditation
- Transcendence
- Community
- Moral Guidance
- Service to the poor
- Purpose
- Founder/Central Figure
Are All Religions Basically the Same?
Are all religions basically the same? In short, no. All religions are not basically the same. Even if they do have similarities in places.
As Stephen Prothero, who is not a Christian, has demonstrated, each religion “offers its own diagnosis of the human problem and its own prescription for a cure. Each offers its own techniques for reaching its religious goal, and its own exemplars for emulation.”[6] We should not lump all religions together in one trash can or treasure chest. Instead, we should start with a clear-eyed understanding of the fundamental differences in both belief and practice of those religions.[7]
Christians, however, believe in something referred to as “common grace.” That is, God gives certain gifts to all humans (Matt. 5:45) and all humans are made in God’s image. Humans can arrive at certain correct conclusions apart from God’s divine revelation. So, while all religions are not all basically the same and not all correct, they can have more or less correct insights into various subjects.
So, Douglas Groothuis has said, “Although Christianity cannot be reduced to a common core that it shares with other religions, it can still find some common ground with respect to the individual beliefs held by other religions. Other religions are not completely false, even though their teachings cannot offer salvation and even though they must be rejected as inadequate religious systems or worldviews.”[8]
What Sets Christianity Apart?
We will look at ten significant aspects of Christianity that set it apart from all other religions.
1) Trinitarian Monotheism
“Trinitarian Monotheism”‽ What does that mean? Christians believe there is only one God and that this one God exists as three persons. God is triune (thee [tri] and one [une]). So, trinitarian refers to God’s three-in-one nature. Monotheism refers to there being one God. Mono comes from the Greek meaning “alone.” Theism refers to belief in god or gods (Theomeans “God” in Greek). So, monotheism refers to the belief in one God.
The Christian teaching on the three-in-one nature of God sets Christianity apart from all other religions. Islam, in contrast, teaches that God is a relational singularity. “Allah is distant; God is Immanuel. The differences between Allah and the God of Christianity are vast because the nature of Allah as one cannot compare with the richness of the loving Trinity.”[9] Allah is incapable of possessing a love like the love that Yahweh has within Himself as Trinity. “Allah is complete oneness, love cannot be a part of his essence and therefore, no matter how loving he chooses to be, his nature is not founded on this love, and thus it cannot compare to the love of Yahweh, the God who is love.”[10] God, being love and Himself teaching us to love, is unprecedented.
The triune nature of God shows that He is relational, loving, self-giving, and personal. God is not just some distant, cosmic force. He has personhood. He has existed in all eternity past in a loving relationship, strange to say, with Himself. God amazingly calls us to join in that relationship with Him (Jn. 17:20ff). He recreates us in His image and welcomes us as His sons and daughters. God welcomes us to have communion with Himself.
If the Trinity is true as the Bible articulates, then God is relational, relational to the core. If God is triune, then Jesus is God. That means that God walked among us as a human. That means God can relate to what we face (Heb. 4:15). He is not a distant deity. If God is a Trinity, then that means that in Jesus, the divine experienced death. If God is a Trinity, and Jesus shows us what God is like in full living color, then we can see God is good even if we can’t always understand His ways.
Christianity is set apart from all other religions by its understanding of the Trinity. But Christians believe the Trinity is actually articulated in the Jewish Scriptures.[11] Jesus, Christians believe, is like a light that brings visibility to what was already there.
2) Eternal Love
The Bible doesn’t just say that God is loving, though it does say that. The Bible says much more. It says, “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8, 16). Love is deeply connected to God’s very being. This sets the Christian God apart from all other views of God. For love to truly exist, there must be relationship. The Bible, as we have seen, teaches that God is triune. Although we cannot fully grasp what that means, we do know it means God has for all eternity been in loving relationship. Because God is love, He cares about love and teaches us to love (1 Jn. 4:7).
The Apostle Paul says the Thessalonians have been “taught by God to love one another” (1 Thess. 4:9). “Taught by God” is one word in the Greek in which Paul wrote. There are no known occurrences of it anywhere in Greek literature.[12] Paul likely coined the term himself. God is love, and He teaches us how to love. Think of that phrase in the context of history. Think about what we learn about love from Greek mythology. Not a lot. Instead, we see gods at war and spreading chaos.
In reality, God is the only one fully qualified to teach on the subject of love, because love would not exist without Him. He is its author. He is its commentator, because you would not know how to love without His instruction. So then, God not only teaches you about love, but He also teaches you how to love. Therefore, to begin any discussion on the subject of love, the logical starting point must be with God Himself.[13]
Christianity is set apart from all other religions because Christians believe God is a God of love, eternal love.
Notes
[1] Stephen Prothero, God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World—and Why their Differences Matter, 8. “Religion is not merely a private affair. It matters socially, economically, politically, and militarily” (Ibid., 7).
[2] Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason & Religous Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 3.
[3] “Other religions lacking the doctrines of heaven and hell may also offer prudential incentives, but they are less charged prudentially than Christianity and Islam. Both Hinduism and Buddhism teach the doctrine of reincarnation, wherein the postmortem state is not seen as necessarily eternal. Any number of lifetimes may be needed to neutralize bad karma and attain ultimate enlightenment, after which one escapes samsara (the wheel of rebirth) and need not reincarnate. According to Hinduism and Buddhism, if one wagers incorrectly-say on Islam or Christianity-in this life, a religious adjustment is available in another incarnation. But Christianity (Heb 9:27) and Islam offer no such second (or millionth) chance. The stakes are higher and the time allotted to wager is far shorter-one life. Therefore, even if someone finds the apologetic case for Hinduism or Buddhism attractive, given the prudential considerations of Christianity and Islam, that person should attempt to rule out these high-risk monotheistic faiths before pursuing Hinduism or Buddhism —unless, of course, the person deems Hinduism or Buddhism so intellectually superior that he or she can find no rational interest in Christianity or Islam at all” (Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 155).
[4] Although, even atheism has the markings of a religion. Atheists have a creed. Theirs is just that there is no god. Atheism addreses the ultimate concerns of life and existence and answers the questions of people are and what they should value. A commited atheist is even unlikely to marry someone outside of their beliefs. Many atheists even belong to a group and may even attend occasional meetings (see e.g. atheists.org) and have their own literature they read that supports their beliefs.
[5] Stephen Prothero, God Is Not One, 14.
[6] Stephen Prothero, God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World—and Why their Differences Matter, 333. Prothero also says, however, that “These differences can be overemphasized, of course, and the world’s religions do converge at points. Because these religions are a family of sorts, some of the questions they ask overlap, as do some of the answers. All their adherents are human beings with human bodies and human failings, so each of these religions attends to our embodiment and to the human predicament, not least by defining what it is to be fully alive” (Prothero, God Is Not One, 333).
[7] Ibid., 335.
[8] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 644.
[9] Nathan Johnson, “The Love above Allah: The Gap between Trinitarian Love and the Love of Allah,” 18.
[10] Johnson, “The Love above Allah: The Gap between Trinitarian Love and the Love of Allah,” 3.
[11] Refered to as the Old Testament by Christians.
[12] Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 1-2 Thessalonians, 286.
[13] Mark Howell, Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
* Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos
Is the Bible Reliable?
Christians believe that the original manuscripts of the Bible give us God’s authoritative words, and we have very accurate copies of those original manuscripts. As the Bible says, God’s word will not pass away (Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8; Luke 21:33; 1 Peter 1:23, 25).
We do not have an original copy of any piece of the New Testament (an “autograph manuscript”). The process known as textual criticism, however, helps us get back to what was originally written. What would have happened with the original writings of the New Testament, the autograph manuscripts, is they would have been carefully and painstakingly copied and then passed on to the next group of early Christians to carefully copy. These copies would have then been copied as well. Eventually, the original writing would get worn and torn.
We do not have original copies, but we have manuscripts that are very close to the date of the autographs. One of the amazing things about the New Testament is the sheer number of copies we have as well as how close they are to the original manuscripts, both in accuracy and date.
There are three main types of manuscript variants. Daniel Wallace, a specialist in Koine Greek and New Testament textual criticism, says that over 99 percent of textual variants don’t affect the meaning of the text, are not viable, or “don’t have any likelihood of going back to the original, or both.”[1] The largest category is spelling difference. “This accounts for over 75% of all textual variants.”[2] The second “largest category involves synonyms, word order, or articles with proper nouns.”[3] Neither of these categories impacts the message of the text in any meaningful way. There is a third and much smaller category, however, in which the meaning of the text can be affected. Two examples are the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) and the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). In this third category, manuscript evidence must be weighed and considered. But even in this last category, no Christian doctrine is changed. Even Bart Ehrman, a popular New Testament scholar who is not a Christian, has written, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”[4]
We can be sure that we accurately have the words of God, but in a few places, we have needed to get back to the words of God, so we have had to trim back what is not supported by the manuscript evidence. So again, that’s what there are notes in most Bibles about the long ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery.[5]
It should also be understood that “many textual variants exist simply because many ancient manuscripts exist. The amount of the manuscript evidence is one thing that makes the New Testament stand out among other works of antiquity.”[6] Other ancient works are supported by a dearth of manuscripts. Of course, with fewer manuscripts, you have fewer variants, but you also have less evidence to weigh to get you back to the original work.
The Bible’s number of manuscripts is especially impressive considering the Roman emperor Diocletian’s “Edict against the Christians” during the Great Persecution. In Eusebius’ Church History, he talks about the edict “commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground” and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire.[7]
So, is the Bible historically reliable? The Bible reports actual historical events and the manuscripts for the Bible are very reliable. Nothing in ancient literature matches the historical documentation of the Bible. Nothing comes close.
Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscript evidence to support it than any ten pieces of classical literature combined.[8]
The reliability of the New Testament history is overwhelming when compared to that of any other book from the ancient world.[9]
The New Testament is easily the best-attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.[10]
Christians can be confident that most English translations of the Bible are fair representations of what the biblical authors wrote. A vast number of variants exist only because a vast number of ancient, hand-copied manuscripts exist. No textural variant anywhere calls any essential Christian doctrine into question or indicates completely different, competing theologies among the New Testament authors. We have not lost the message of the text. God has preserved his Word, and the text’s wording is trustworthy.[11]
In comparison with the average ancient Greek author, the New Testament copies are well over a thousand times more plentiful. If the average-sized manuscript were two and one-half inches thick, all the copies of the works of an average Greek author would stack up four feet high, while the copies of the New Testament would stack up to over a mile high![12]
Here’s a table[13] so you can see a visual representation of the manuscript data:
Therefore, “to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”[14]
The Bible is historically accurate and other historical works collaborate information we see from the Bible. Tacitus, a first-century historian, wrote this about the early Jesus movement:
Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christ, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and a pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.[15]
Thus, early non-Christian sources support the main details about Jesus. The authors of the New Testament were either eyewitnesses to Jesus themselves or interviewed eyewitnesses, so we have accurate historical accounts about Jesus (e.g., Lk. 1:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-8; 1 Jn. 1:1-3).
There are reasons to trust the Bible from an archeological (and even an astronomical[16]) perspective as well. For years, many people thought the Hittites the Old Testament talks about did not exist. However, archaeological research has since revealed that the Hittite civilization did exist. There are many similar examples.
Various inscriptions support things we see in the Bible. The Pool of Siloam, once doubted, has been found. The James Ossuary seems to support facts about Jesus’ family. The Shroud of Turin, though debated, is potential “hard evidence.” In fact, “No book from ancient times has more archaeological confirmation than the Bible.”[17]
The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are attested by various historical accounts. I believe a persuasive argument can be made for the validity of the actual physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I believe the resurrection of Jesus best explains why the disciples were willing to die for their claim that Jesus was the resurrected Messiah and why the Jews would switch from gathering for worship on the Sabbath (on Saturday) to gathering on the Lord’s Day (Sunday, the day Jesus rose from the dead). I think it best explains why people, including Jews, would worship Jesus. It best explains all of it; the church,[18] the New Testament, and various parts of the Old Testament. So, we can trust the Bible to give us accurate historical accounts.
Notes
[1] Darrell L. Bock and Mikel Del Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament” in Bibliotheca Sacra (vol. 175, January-March, 2018), 98.
[2] Darrell L. Bock and Mikel Del Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 98.
[3] Bock and Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 98.
[4] Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 252.
[5] “The New Testament grew in size from the earliest copies to the latest copies—fourteen hundred years later –by about 2 percent. That is a remarkably stable transmissional process” (J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2006], 55).
[6] Bock and Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament,” 99.
[7] Eusebius, Church History, 8.2.4.
[8] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands A Verdict, 9.
[9] The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, 131.
[10] Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God?, 162.
[11] Bock and Rosario, “The Table Briefing: Engaging Challenges to the Reliability of the New Testament,” 104-05.
[12] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2006), 82.
[13] See Josh McDowell, Evidence the Demands a Verdict, (San Bernadino, CA: Here’s Life, 1972). Homer’s Illiad is the best-attested ancient work after the New Testament.
[14] John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity, 29. “Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the N. T. is likewise assured” (J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 16).
[15] Tacitus, Annals 15.44. There are other examples we could look at. A Rabiniac writing says, ““Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, ‘He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.’ As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve” (Sanhedrin 43).
[16] “Astronomical records show that there were several significant celestial events around the time of Jesus’ birth” (Paul W. Barnett, “Is the New Testament Historically Reliable?” 246 in In Defense of the Bible. See esp. The Great Christ Comet). This is significant because of the “star” (or comet?) that was connected to Jesus the Messiah’s coming.
[17] The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, 139.
[18] For example, “The creation of so many texts and their survival is remarkable and counter-intuitive. Jesus was a Jew, and anti-Semitism was rife in the Greco-Roman world. He came from Nazareth, a tiny village in Galilee, a remote landlocked principality. He was crucified, a brutal and humiliating form of execution reserved for the lowest orders to deter subversives, troublemakers, and slaves like those who followed Spartacus” (In Defense of the Bible, 228-29).
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦
Is Christmas True?
Is Christmas true? Or should we assume Christmas is just a fairytale like Santa Claus?
Our starting places or assumptions have a big impact on the way we weigh evidence. For instance, in Harper Lee’s book, To Kill a Mockingbird the correct verdict could not have been given in that context (i.e., Maycomb’s racist white community) because people excluded the possibility that anyone other than the black man, Tom Robinson, was guilty. Despite the strong evidence that Atticus Finch put forward, Tom was still convicted. Why? Because people were prejudiced against the truth. The people’s a priori assumption, that Tom was guilty because he’s black, led them to not honestly look at the evidence and pronounce the correct verdict.
This sadly still happens. It happens in the court of law and it can happen when people consider evidence about Jesus too. But, if God exists and wants to be born as a baby, as Christmas says, then certainly God can do that.
The Bible says Christmas is true. It even says the “star” guiding the Wisemen is true. Are there actual reasons for believing in the historical accuracy of Christmas? I believe so. But will people openly weigh the evidence?
Honestly, there’s a lot to look at. Here I’ll just share two pieces to consider.
Jesus’ Biographies
Although the Gospel accounts in the Bible may not be exactly like our biographies today, they really are biographies. Or they certainly claim to be. They purport to give actual history about Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible has four historical biographies about Jesus, often referred to as the Gospels.[1] Two of them explicitly claim to tell us what Jesus actually did and said, and they claim to be based on eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-4; John 21:20-24). And so, Justin Martyr, a second-century Christian writer and philosopher, referred to the Gospels as “the memoirs of His apostles.”
This is what Luke says:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Lk. 1:1-4).
Luke is basically making the claim to be a journalist or historian.
The Gospels place themselves in a historical context. They don’t start with imaginary elements. There is no “once upon a time.” Instead, they give us identifiable time stamps. They say things like: “Augustus was emperor of Rome,” “Quirinius was governor of Syria,” “Pilate was governor of Palestine,” “Herod was king of the Jews,” and “Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin” (e.g., Matt. 2:1; 27:2; Mk. 15:1, 43; Lk. 2:1-2; Jn. 19:38). These were not made-up people or made-up positions. They repeat historical realities because the Gospels claim to be historical documents.
Many of the events that the New Testament writers wrote about were well-known. The Apostle Paul could tell king Agrippa: I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped your notice, since these things have not been done in a corner(Acts 26:26). The early Jesus followers did not follow cleverly devised myths about the Lord Jesus Christ but claimed to be eyewitnesses (2 Pet. 1:16).
C.S. Lewis knew a lot about legends and he didn’t think the Gospels read like legends. In Lewis’ own words: “Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.”[2]
The “Star” of Bethlehem
Matthew’s telling of the story of Jesus includes a lot about a “star.” But if you read the account, he says things about the “star” that do not make sense if he is talking about a literal star. The way he describes what the “star”[3] does would not make sense unless he was knowledgeably aware of the peculiar movements it made. The star was “His star” and it “rose,” “appeared,” “went before them,” and rested “over the place where the child was.”
The sign in the heavens convinced the Babylonian magi—the NASA of the day—to pay a visit to Jesus. They were aware of the Jewish promise of a coming King and what was transpiring in the sky made them think something very significant was happening.[4]
What did the Wisemen see? This would be super random to include in a story about Jesus unless the writer knew it to be factual and significant. Otherwise, the writer could have said something simpler: “a bright and mysterious light shown down on the blessed child.” Instead, the author describes the movements of a beautiful comet, something like the Great Comet of 1811. The potential issue with describing something so seemingly outrageous is that it’s visible to a lot of people. Many people could have come forward and said there was never anything in the sky like that. But that didn’t happen. Instead, later on, Origen rightly identifies the “star” as a comet.
Here’s what Origen said (circa 248):
The star that was seen in the east we consider to have been a new star, unlike any of the other well-known planetary bodies. Yet, it had the nature of those celestial bodies that appear at times, such as comets…. It has been observed that, on the occurrence of great events, and of mighty changes in earthly things, such stars are apt to appear, indicating either the removal of dynasties or the breaking out of wars. … There is a prophecy of Balaam recorded by Moses to this effect: ‘There will arise a star out of Jacob, and a man will rise up out of Israel.’
Ignatius said (circa 105), “The light from this star was inexpressible, and its uniqueness struck men with astonishment.”
So, unless this event with the Wisemen and Comet happened, what would one gain by fabricating the story? The Babylonian Wisemen would not be popular with the Jewish people. The Babylonians took Jewish people into exile and were idolaters and the Wisemen were seen as magicians who practiced sorcery against the LORD’s command (Deut. 18:10–12; Mal. 3:5; Gal. 5:19–21). And so, the God/child receiving charity from such people would probably not be seen positively.
If your premise is that the whole story was fabricated and made up to fool people, why would the author have risked claiming such a visible and verifiable phenomenon? On the other hand, if you look at Matthew as a historical work, there’s nothing that should be excluded outright. For one, Matthew certainly gets king Herod’s personality right. The historian Josephus recorded what a gruesome man Herod the Great was. He put his favorite wife to death as well as three of his sons and killed other family members too.
The slaying of the 15 to 35 babies, known as “the Massacre of the Innocents,” referred to in Matthew 2 may not be mentioned in other surviving historical accounts but it is in keeping with what we know of Herod.[5] And again, why mention this historical datum if it wasn’t accurate? Wouldn’t it be possible as the account of Jesus circulated for someone from Bethlehem to hear about the account of the massacre? Wouldn’t the story of Jesus be on unstable footing if just one lie was found out? Why then would the author take such risks?
Imagine I wanted to lie and make you think I’m good at baseball. There are all sorts of ways I could do that. I could say, “I’m really good at baseball.” I could say, “I played college baseball.” But the more specific and fantastic I get about my lie the higher the risk. If I say, “I played baseball for the Yankees” you’re going to have lots of questions and you’re probably going to seek out verification. A nondescript lie is a lot safer and can still accomplish my purpose of making you think I’m good at baseball. The claims about Jesus are not like that. They are distinctive. They—especially in the first century—are falsifiable.
The biographies of Jesus go beyond saying “Jesus was good at baseball,” and even beyond saying “Jesus played shortstop for the Yankees and batted cleanup.” They give loads of information that could have been found to be false but were never proved to be false. Again, why include so much fantastical false information? And remember, the Jesus movement didn’t take decades to form.
Anyhow, I’m trying to stop writing… There are many reasons to believe Christmas is a true story. We’ve very briefly considered two.
Notes
[1] Gospel means “good news.” In Greek, it is euangélion (εὐαγγέλιον) and it is where my daughter, Evangelina, gets her name from.
[2] C.S. Lewis, “What are we to make of Jesus Christ?,” 169 in God in the Dock.
[3] “Star” here is the English translation of the Greek word aster (ἀστήρ), and it’s where we get our English word “asteroid.” Aster can refer to various lights in the sky.
[4] See Colin R. Nicholl, The Great Christ Comet: Revealing the True Star of Bethlehem (Crossway: Wheaton, IL, 2015).
[5] Remember the infant mortality rate would have been high in that day and the massacre was all boys aged two and below so the number would have likely been relatively low for someone like Josephus to report
Religion and Obligation – But I don’t want to obey?…
People often don’t like religion because they don’t want to obey
A lot of people react to religion and want nothing to do with it. Not because they’ve considered its truth claims but because they feel it is constricting. Interestingly, we got our modern English word “religion” from the Latin word religio meaning “obligation” or “bond.”
So, it has been recognized for a long time that religion is binding. The question is, why? Why should anyone obey a religion?
If the religion’s truth claims are accurate then there would be a good reason to obey. Otherwise, I’m not going to be bound by a religion just because that’s what my grandma believed… No. If you’re going to tell me what I can do and not do, you better offer some good reasons why I should listen.
God demands obedience
1 Kings 8:60-61 says, “The LORD is God; there is no other. Let your heart therefore be wholly true to the LORD.” It is admittedly a big claim that “the LORD is God,” and He alone. But if that claim is true it seems to make sense that the LORD could demand obedience.
So, the question it seems we need to answer is not: “Should I obey?” But: “Is it true?” A lot of times it seems we’re tempted to go at it a different way. We’re tempted to think: “I don’t want to obey, therefore I won’t consider if it’s true.”
We can see the ridiculousness of that thinking when we apply it to a different context…
Imagine you’re driving on the highway with me. I’m going 95 when the speed limit is 70. You’re concerned because you know there are often speed traps in the area. Also, you don’t want to die. So, you say, “Perhaps you should slow down. There could be a speed trap.”
I, however, am rather content with the speed I am going. But you see a police car ahead. You very kindly warn me: “Um, that’s a police car… See it?! He’s right there! Slow down!”
But I don’t listen. I want to drive fast so I ignore the possibility of a cop car.
Religion and obligation
Ignoring information that might be pertinent because we want to do what we want to do might be problematic. Just because we don’t want there to be a cop to enforce the rules does not at all mean there is no cop.
I understand people not wanting to be obligated by a religion. We all naturally want to be in charge; we want to do what we want to do. We want to be God. But we can’t be God if God is God.
If God is, then God is in charge. He is God. If the religion is real, it necessarily leads to obligation.
That brings up the very important question: “Is God?”
Deconstruction
Deconstruction is in vogue
I recently looked at #exchristian posts on Instagram. There are a lot of them. It’s pretty popular to recount what is wrong with the Church. Why? And how far should it go?
What’s deconstruction?
Deconstruction is more than just saying what’s wrong with church. A lot of times it’s saying what’s wrong with the Christian faith. It’s saying Christianity is essentially stupid. That’s often what deconstructionists say. But, they don’t so often set out to prove their claims.
Memes in no way prove that a worldview has no meaning or validity. And proving that there are problems with a church, the Church, or particular people in the Church is not the same as proving that Christianity gives an inaccurate picture of the world.
Deconstruction has happened before
Deconstruction is not new. The hashtags are new but deconstruction has actually been happening since the beginning of Christianity.
For example, the apostle Paul and other early Christians argued for the truthfulness of Christianity while others sought to disprove it (see Luke 1:3; Acts 1:3; 9:22; 17:3; 18:4-5, 28; 19:8; 24:25; 26:22-26; 28:23).
People have sought to deconstruct all sorts of aspects of Christianity. Early Christians were accused of cannibalism because of confusion over the Lord’s Supper. They were accused of atheism because they didn’t believe in the pantheon of Greek gods. And they were accused of political disloyalty because they wouldn’t give ultimate allegiance to the empire or offer sacrifices to the emperor.
There are things that should deconstruct
Many memes convey important messages, important critiques that should be taken to heart. There are many sad and despicable things that happen in the church. My family and I have experienced some of those things.
Spiritual abuse, sexual abuse, making idols of pastors, legalism, pridefulness, inhospitality, just to mention a few, are unacceptable and should be condemned as such. Many movements have important things that should be gleaned from them. There are things that can be learned from #exchristians. There are also things that should be confessed and cried over.
Jesus Himself “deconstructed” things
Jesus criticized the religious leaders. He was a rebel with a cause. He reached out and welcomed the Samaritan woman even when that was socially unacceptable (Jn 4). Jesus tipped tables in the Temple. He composed a letter through the hands of John partially to critique and challenge the Church (Rev. 2-3).
Jesus wasn’t silent. He brought up stuff but also proposed solutions. The apostle Paul modeled the same approach.
I believe church leaders should take the same approach. They should take the opportunity to listen, learn, and lovingly address problems.
How does one know what should be deconstructed?
Friedrich Nietzsche, the famous and influential German philosopher, came from a very devout family. Yet, he ended up a very articulate deconstructionist. He very poetically and memorably said: God is dead and we killed him.[1]
Nietzsche didn’t stop there, though. He spelled out what that means for our lives. He reasoned, and I think rightly, that if God is dead, then there is no actual meaning or morality. It is might that makes right. The strong slay and the strong say what is right and what is wrong.
Nietzsche lit a fuse and dynamited God and with Him all basis for morality and actual meaning.[2] So, how much should be deconstructed and destroyed? How do we know? On what basis can we judge what is right and wrong?
If we’re going to prune for the sake of health and good fruit, how much do we cut back? If we cut back too far do we not lose all hope of fruit and flourishing?
There is a point to pruning but if we prune back the very existence of purpose that seems like a cut too far. It seems to me that’s not going to serve the purpose of the pruning.
If one of the problems we’re critiquing is people’s failure to love it seems foolish and unproductive to cut off the possibility of the existence of actual love. And yet, that seems to be what many are doing. Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist said in his book, The God Delusion, that morality and love are simply a “blessed precious mistake;” a happenstance of evolution.[3]
Yet, as G.K. Chesterton said, if we rebel against everything we lose the grounds and ability to rebel against anything. So, is there a basis for actual truth? If so, what? And how does one know? If not, how does one know what should be deconstructed?
What are the reasons for deconstruction?
“Christian” Hypocrisy
Christians and so-called “Christians” often fail to live the Christian ethic. They fail to live a life of love. Often they even carry out evil actions. Sexual abuse seems to have even become prevalent. And so people reason, not so unreasonably, that Christianity is pointless if not also a plague on society.
Problems with people acting immorally, of course, don’t actually prove that Christianity is a shallow or wrong worldview though. This is especially the case if people are using Christian criteria to critique Christianity. Yuval Noah Harari has said,
“Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are “equal”?[4]
It doesn’t make sense to say Christianity is wrong and yet also use Christian morality as a measurement of what is morally wrong. If someone is to critique Christianity they must have an epistemological basis to do so. That is, they must have knowledge of what is right and wrong.
Is that knowledge just innate? If so, why? And how does it work?
Empty Dogmatism
Some people grew up attending a church that only offered empty platitudes and forced dogmatism. Their genuine questions were not able to be asked and certainly weren’t honestly answered. And so, when they confronted challenges or hostility with their beliefs they give it up. They don’t feel they have solid grounds for continuing to be committed to it.
Morality
Some “former Christians” deconstruct Christianity not because of reasoned augmentation but because of Christian morality. Some people don’t like what Christianity says about sexuality or other moral issues.[5] So, they criticize Christianity on moral grounds although they may have no warranted ground for their sense of morality.
Notes
[1] See his work Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
[2] Nietzsche grounded meaning in a doctrine he called “eternal recurrence.” He essentially proposed living in such a way that if your life was to eternally reoccur that you would be living in such a way that it would be less terrible. Nietzsche grounded purpose in this fictitious notion. Fictitious because Nietzsche did not actually believe in God or in the reoccurrence of our lives.
[3] Dawkins says, “Could it be that our Good Samaritan urges are misfirings”? By Dawkins account we have “programmed into our brains altruistic urges, alongside sexual urges, hunger urges, xenophobic urges and so on…. We can no more help ourselves feeling pity when we see a weeping unfortunate (who is unrelated and unable to reciprocate) than we can help ourselves feeling lust for a member of the opposite sex (who may be infertile or otherwise unable to reproduce). Both are misfirings, Darwinian mistakes: blessed, precious mistakes”). (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 252-53).
But, if we are brutes, why shouldn’t we be brutal? Nietzsche, for instance, promotes the strong acting like “large birds of prey” and freely abusing the weak “lambs” because after all that’s what comes naturally and there is no God to impose morals. He said, “I expressly want to place on record that at the time when mankind felt no shame towards its cruelty, life on earth was more cheerful than it is today,… The heavens darkened over man in direct proportion to the increase in his feeling shame at being man” (See par. 7 of the Second Essay in On the Genealogy of Morality).
Jean-Paul Sartre said, “The existentialists… thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is not infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, what we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a plane where there are only men” (Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotions, 22).
If we don’t acknowledge God then the moral laws that flow from His character are gone as well, and we are left with blind skepticism and relativism; every person doing whatever is right in their own eyes. As we consider this we should never forget that, as Martin Luther King Jr. exhorted, “everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal.’”
[4] Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (New York: Harper, 2015), 109.
[5] As Romans 1 says, “people suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”
Photo by Aaron Burden
Back to Virtue by Peter Kreeft
I recently read Peter Kreeft’s book Back to Virtue. Kreeft is a Roman Catholic philosopher, theologian, apologist, and a prolific author. He is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and The King’s College.
Here are some quotes from Back to Virtue that stuck out to me:
“We control nature, but we cannot or will not control ourselves. Self-control is ‘out’ exactly when nature control is ‘in’, that is, exactly when self-control is most needed” (Peter Kreeft, Back to Virtue, 23).
“Nothing is so surely and quickly dated as the up-to-date” (Peter Kreeft, Back to Virtue, 63).
“It is hard to be totally courageous without hope in Heaven. Why risk your life if there is no hope in Heaven. Why risk your life if there is no hope that your story ends in anything other than worms and decay” (Kreeft, Back to Virtue, 72).
“The only way to ‘the imitation of Christ’ is the incorporation into Christ” (Ibid., 84).
“There are only two kinds of people: fools, who think they are wise, and the wise, who know they are fools” (Ibid., 99).
“Humility is thinking less about yourself, not thinking less of yourself” (Ibid., 100).
“God has more power in one breath of his spirit than all the winds of war, all the nuclear bombs, all the energy of all the suns in all the galaxies, all the fury of Hell itself” (Ibid., 105).
“We can possess only what is less than ourselves, things, objects… We are possessed by what is greater than ourselves—God and his attributes, Truth, Goodness, Beauty. This alone can make us happy, can satisfy the restless heart, can fill the infinite, God-shaped hole at the center of our being” (Ibid., 112).
“The beatitude does not say merely: ‘Blessed are the peace-lovers,’ but something rarer: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’” (Ibid., 146).
“There is only one thing that never gets boring: God… Modern man has… sorrow about God, because God is dead to him. He is the cosmic orphan. Nothing can take the place of his dead Father; all idols fail, and bore” (Ibid., 157).
“God’s single solution to all our problems is Jesus Christ” (Ibid., 172).
“An absolute being, an absolute motive, and an absolute hope can alone generate an absolute passion. God, love and Heaven are the three greatest sources of passion possible” (Ibid., 192).
Justice and the Just One
I was considering the word and concept of justice today so I looked up the definition of “justice.” The search returned a few definitions that stuck to me: “moral rightness,” “the quality of being just,” and “moral principle determining just conduct.” To understand or seek justice then, we need to have an idea of what it means to be “just” or “moral.” We have to have a “moral principle” whereby we can measure “just conduct.”
In America today we have calls for justice. Justice is right and good. Christians especially are called to do justice and love mercy (Micah 6:8). Do the majority of Americans, however, know what “moral principle” we are basing our measurements of “just conduct” on? Do most Americans believe that there is a “moral principle” that guides us? If so, can most Americans articulate where our “moral principle” comes from?
It seems to me if the foundation for “moral principle” has eroded then justice does not have a foundation upon which to stand. Thus, I say this not because I am not for justice, I say this because I am for justice.
Perhaps with our calls for justice in America, we should also consider the foundation of justice: moral principle. Perhaps we should consider if justice can have a steady place on which to perch.
Perhaps we should also hear calls to return to moral principle and the bedrock of truth. Without truth, calls for justice ring empty.
I believe there is a basis for justice. Because I believe there is truth.
Jesus Himself actually said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Jesus is truth made tangible. He lived and walked justice. He is in reality what everyone should be and live.
I believe in justice and that we have a “moral principle determining just conduct” because the LORD has given it to us. Because He is righteous and “He loves righteous deeds” (Psalm 11:7) and “hates the wicked and the one who loves violence” (Psalm 11:5).
“O LORD, you hear the desire of the afflicted; You will strengthen their heart; You will incline your ear to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.”(Psalm 10:17-18).
C.S. Lewis on Scientism in Out of the Silent Planet
Have you ever heard of C.S. Lewis’ book series, The Chronicles of Narnia? It’s good. But, Lewis’ Ransom Trilogy is even better. And one of the reasons for that is because he confronts scientism.
Scientism
Scientism exalts the natural sciences as the only fruitful means of investigation. In the words of Wikipedia: “Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.” In short, scientism is the view that says science, and science alone, tells us what is right and true.
Science, of course, is different. It is the study of the natural world through systematic study (observation, measurement, testing, and adjustment of hypotheses). Scientism goes beyond science and beyond the observation of the physical world into philosophy and ethics.
How can observations about the natural world tell us how to think and live? How can science tell us how to best do science? What can be said about the problems of scientism? C.S. Lewis gives us a few things to think about, and in a very enjoyable way.
Out of the Silent Planet on Scientism
Weston, one of the main characters in C.S. Lewis’ book, Out of the Silent Planet, holds to a form of scientism and belittles other ways of acquiring knowledge. Unscientific people, Weston says, “repeat words that don’t mean anything”[1] and so Weston refers to philology as “unscientific tomfoolery.” The “classics and history” are “trash education.”[2] He also says that Ransom’s “philosophy of life” is “insufferably narrow.”[3]
When science is the sole means of knowledge then we are left without theology, philosophy, and ethics. We are left to decipher ought from is. And it can’t be done. Or not in a way that prevents crimes against humanity. “Intrinsically, an injury, an oppression, and exploitation, an annihilation,” Nietzsche says, cannot be wrong “inasmuch as life is essentially (that is, in its cardinal functions) something which functions by injuring, oppressing, exploiting, and annihilating, and is absolutely inconceivable without such a character.”[4]
Weston concurs. He is ready and willing to wipe out a whole planet of beings. He says, “Your tribal life with its stone-age weapons and bee-hive huts, its primitive coracles and elementary social structure, has nothing to compare with our civilization—with our science, medicine and law, our armies, our architecture, our commerce, and our transport system… Our right to supersede you is the right of the higher over the lower.”[5]
It is about life. Looking at life, looking at survival alone, leads us to think that alone is the goal. My life versus your life, Weston’s life versus the Malacandrian lives. That’s what we get when we derive ought from is. “Life is greater than any system of morality; her claims are absolute.”[6] And so, if it would be necessary, Weston would “kill everyone” on Malacandra if he needed to and on other worlds too.[7] Again, Weston finds agreement in Nietzsche: “‘Exploitation’ does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function.”[8]
Conclusion
Is Weston’s view correct? No. And we know it. That is the point C.S. Lewis makes. He offers a narrative critique of scientism in Out of the Silent Planet as well as through the whole Ransom Trilogy. He shows the havoc that scientism sheared of theology, philosophy, and ethics can unleash.
The answer is not to discard science, however. That is not what Lewis proposes either, though that is what some protest. The answer is to disregard scientism. Science is great and a blessing from God, but science on its own is not enough as our guide. We cannot, for example, derive ought from is. We cannot look at the natural world around us, at what is, and find out what we should do, how we ought to live.
Notes
____
[1] C.S. Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet (New York: Scribner Paperback Fiction, 1996), 25.
[2] Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet 27.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals.
[5] Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet, 135.
[6] Ibid., 136.
[7] Ibid., 137.
[8] Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond God and Evil, par. 259.
C. S. Lewis on Longing
Introduction
You can trace the theme of longing through most of Lewis’ writings. In some places, it is explicit in other places it is implicit. For example, Perelandra does not so much make an argument as much as make you desire and long to experience something of what Lewis wrote. When reading some of Lewis, we often find ourselves hoping what he writes about is true. Lewis’ argument is not really cognitive and logical as much as it is “kardialogical,” that is, reasoned from the heart. As Blaise Pascal said, “The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.”[1]
It is also important here to look at what Lewis meant by longing or desire. Lewis himself said, “From the age of six, romantic longing—Sehnsucht—had played an unusually central part in my experience.”[2] Sehnsucht is a German term that communicates the longing that all of humanity has. It means “longing,” “yearning,” or “craving.” It is a way of saying, “something is intensely missing, there must be more.” Joe Puckett defines Sehnsucht this way:
The aching, and yet pleasurable, intense longing for a life that we cannot yet have but naturally and universally crave. It is the feeling of having lost something that we once had—giving us a sense of homesickness and discontentment with the less-than-ideal world we currently find ourselves in.[3]
Lewis was specially equipped to discuss longing since from a very young age he had experienced such longing and had the ability to write about it with apologetic force in both narrative and essay form. My thesis is that Lewis is correct, our longing does point us beyond this world. Our longing ultimately points us to the Lord and His coming Kingdom.
in X 