withallyourmind.net

On Sunday, March 4, at 9 pm, the Discovery Channel will air a feature on the “so-called” tomb of Jesus’ family called The Lost Tomb of Jesus. This special presents the claim that the bones of Jesus, his mother, his brothers, his wife, and his child have all been found. This, of course, would be quite disheartening to Christians whose faith is based on the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

However, the Discovery Channel special turns out to be much ado about nothing. I would recommend two assessments of this affair. One, found here, is by respected New Testament scholar, Ben Witherington III. The other, more concise and readable for the average person, written by Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, is found here.

Long story very short:

1. This information is not new. Scholars have known about these findings since 1980. There has been no great noise because the findings are insignificant.

2. The names on the ossuaries are all very common names and in no way can be identified as Jesus Christ and family members.

3. There is no tradition whatsoever – Christian, Jewish, or secular – that any part of the Holy Family was buried at Jerusalem.

HT: Mark Roberts

Both systems are united with one another and cut off from some - not all- modern thought by their conviction that Nature, the totality of phenomena in space and time, is not the only thing that exists: is, indeed the least important thing. Christians and Platonists both believe in an “other” world. They differ, at least in emphasis, when they describe the relations between that other world and Nature. For a Platonist, the contrast is usually that between an original and a copy, between the real and the merely apparent, between the clear and the confused: for a Christian, between the eternal and the temporary, or the perfect and the partially spoiled. The essential attitude of Platonism is aspiration or longing: the human soul, imprisoned in the shadowy, unreal world of Nature, stretches ouot its hands and struggles towards the beauty and reality of that which lies (as Plato says) “on the other side of existence.” Shelley’s phrase “the desire of the moth for the star” sums it up. In Christianity, however, the human soul is not the seeker but the sought: it is God who seks, who descends from the other world to find and heal Man; the parable about the Good Shepherd looking for and finding the lost sheep sums it up.

- C. S. Lewis, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, “Edmund Spenser, 1552-99″ (1954), para. 36, p. 144

Yesterday, I went with my wife and daughter to see Amazing Grace, the story of William Wilberforce and his struggle to abolish Britain’s slave trade. Wilberforce’s Christian faith is evident throughout the film. The movie does not make his faith the central focus of the film, but neither is it ignored. It was refreshing to watch a well-made movie in which a Christian’s faith is prominently displayed and presented in a positive light. You can find a review of the movie by Christianity today, here. The review is concluded thusly:

What’s particularly interesting about Amazing Grace is that the abolition of slavery is the driving force behind it, yet the movie is more about one man’s response to injustice—thus hopefully inspiring reactions of our own. It’s an example of how we’re called to step out of our comfort zones, even when our words and actions are not easily embraced. It’s a well-told cinematic example of a man who used his faith and God-given opportunities to change the world for good.

Fred Sanders, of Middlebrow, has a nice discussion of Wilberforce here.

Is there any inherent danger in creedal Christianity? I think the obvious answer is yes. Many oppose creeds out of their concern that the creeds may supplant the Bible as the ultimate rule of faith. Most creedal Christians, however, do not understand creeds in this manner. John Webster writes:

Creeds and confessions have no freestanding existence; they are not a replacement for, supplementation of, or improvement upon Holy Scripture; they are not even a nonnegotiable, normative ‘reading’ of Scripture.

Creeds are authoritative only insofar as they are scriptural in content.

An additional danger which concerns some is the risk that creeds may take the place of a dynamic living relationship with God. Recitation of creeds may become a substitute for vibrant trust and faith in the Object of the creeds. This is certainly a possibility, but is by no means entailed by either the use of creeds in worship or study. Alister McGrath, concerning this danger writes:

A creed is not, and was never meant to be, a substitute for personal faith. It attempts to give substance to a personal faith that already exists. You do not become a Christian by reciting a creed. Rather the Creed provides a useful summary of the main points of your faith.

Given the fundamental importance of theology and doctrine to an individual’s spiritual growth and the health of a group of believers, the creeds may be helpful in providing a firm foundation upon which to build. We can learn much from the great Christian thinkers of the past which will assist us in striving for unity, in personal discipleship and training of new believers, in combating false beliefs, and in evangelizing in our contemporary culture.

Yesterday, I briefly discussed Christianity and the creeds. Today, I continue that discussion with a quick look at the purposes which may be served by the creeds of Christianity.

Creeds may serve at least four important purposes in the corporate life of the church and in the life of the individual Christian. First of all, they help to define and give structure to the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. When even the concept of truth is assaulted on many fronts, it is important to affirm some foundational truths without which one may not rightly claim to be Christian. Creeds may keep both churches and individuals from falling into error on important theological issues such as the relation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to each other, and the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Second, creeds may serve as a unifying force among Christian churches. They do so by pointing to a common historical Christian heritage. Not only can they unify churches and denominations today, but they also provide a bridge unifying individual believers in the present with the believers of much earlier times.

Third, the creeds may provide a foundation for systematic teaching of Christian doctrine. They help us to organize our thoughts and beliefs and study them in an effective manner. Not only useful for discipleship, they also serve to help the church in its evangelistic efforts. By being familiar with the creeds, one is able to briefly summarize the essentials of the Christian faith for presentation to others.

Fourth, the creeds have apologetic significance. All four of the ecumenical creeds of the church were written to combat specific heresies of their times. The errors of old are recycled through the ages and are present with us even today. In response to a loss of even the concept of heresy, John Webster claims:

What is so grievous about the loss of an operative notion of heresy is that it is symptomatic of the loss of an operative notion of truth.

We can learn much from the creeds and the controversies which birthed them.

Tommorow… Might the creeds be dangerous or harmful?

Creeds have been an important part of Christianity since its inception. The term creed is derived from the Latin credo which simply means, “I believe.” So, a creed is a statement of belief. More precisely, a creed usually attempts to set forth in some concise manner the essential beliefs of a particular group of people, in this case Christians. The creeds – of which there are four formal ecumenical creeds: The Apostles’ Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed, and the Creed of Chalcedon - attempt to define the essence of what one means when one claims that he is a Christian.

What is the relationship of the creeds to the Bible? Some claim that the very concept of a creed is unbiblical. With cries of “sola scriptura,” they reject any attempt to provide any authoritative teaching outside of the scripture. The problem with this is that the church of the first century had creeds. Perhaps the earliest creed was the simple proclamation, “Jesus is Lord!” The early Christians understood by this that Jesus was Yahweh, a profound central tenant of Christian belief. There were other creeds held by early Christians. For example, I Corinthians 15:3-4 contains what is felt to be an early Christian creed used as early as 2-5 years after Christ’s death and resurrection. It provides the essential teachings of the early Christian faith, “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures.”

As the church grew and the gap since the beginning of Christianity grew larger, there was a need to provide a more detailed summary of Christian belief. This led to the development of The Apostles’ Creed in the second century (It took several more centuries for the creed to obtain its present form), The Nicene Creed in the fourth, and The Athanasian Creed and the Creed of Chalcedon in the fifth.

Next, what purposes the creeds may serve.

Today’s post concludes a series in which I summarize Greg Koukl’s responses to objections made by those who support same-same sex marriages. The last response is to the following objection:

Marriage is just a social construction that we can define as we please.

This objection really does get at the heart of the matter. Just what is marriage? Koukl explains that there are two possible answers to this question:

Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural “teleology”) or they do not. If not, marriage is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times. Marriages defined by convention can be anything culture defines them to be. No particular detail is essential.

He goes on to assert that it is not possible that marriage is a social construction. Some have tried to defend the traditional concept of marriage by arguing that every higher civilization has always defined marriage as joining members of the opposite sex. To argue this (while the position is generally accurate) concedes the argument to those favoring same-sex marriage. The role of cultures has not been to define marriage. Marriage is not an entity constructed by culture, rather it is an entity which has been uniformly described by culture. Marriage is not a social convention which is subject to alteration by society, even if the very concept has been stable for centuries.

Culture does not build marriages. Marriages build culture. Koukl points out that families are logically prior to society. Societies are large groups of families. Since families constitute society, society cannot define them, but must merel observe and describe them. Laws are made by society, not to define marriage according to their convention, but to protect families as being essential to the whole.

Why does the government get involved with licensing marriages at all? The answer to this question is central to arriving at the correct position on same-sex marriages. The reason societies care about marriage, and have characterized families as unions of men and women is because men and women are the natural source of children. Children, in turn, allow that civilized culture to persist. Koukl argues that this understanding of marriage is the only one which makes sense of the definition, structure, and government entitlements of marriage. Marriages begin families which are the building blocks of cultures.

Playing linguistic games like trying to redefine marriage as a union between two same-sex individuals can’t change what marriage truly is. By nature, marriage is established as a place for raising children. A same-sex marriage proponent may counter, “But, same-sex couples can adopt children.” While, unfortunately true, this changes nothing. Koukl argues:

This, too, subverts the purpose of marriage by robbing families (and children) of a vital ingredient: mothers and fathers. By licensing same-sex marriage, society declares by law that two men or two women are equally suited to raise a child, that mothers and fathers contribute nothing unique to healthy child-rearing. This is self-evidently false. Moms and dads are not interchangeable.

So, marriage begins a family which will produce the next generation. By our deepest intuitions, we understand this, and this is why every higher civilized culture has recognized families as they have. Governments have no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship. It affirms marriage in order to protect the future of civilization. As stated in a previous post, marriage is all about the children. That is why same-sex marriages are meaningless concepts. In conclusion, Koukl argues:

Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids.

Same-sex marriage is radically revisionist. It severs family from its roots, eviscerates marriage of any normative content, and robs children of a mother and a father. This must not happen.

Homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country. Gays are allowed to pursue their “lifestyles” without reprisal, even to the point of forming committed, monogamous unions. They may not be universally respected or admired, but they have the liberty to live as they choose. This is all they have the right to demand.

As part of a continuing summary of Greg Koukl’s article at Townhall.com in which he answers objections to maintaining the traditional understanding of marriage made by advocates of same-sex marriages, today I examine a sixth objection. In previous posts I have made the point that marriage has everything to do with children, and less to do with love. In response, some object…

Not all marriages have children.

This is obviously the case. Some choose not to have children and some are unable to produce children. The fact that not all marriages produce children, however, does nothing to diminish the natural tie of marriage to procreation. Koukl argues that…

… marriage is still what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized.

Exceptions do not nullify a rule, but in fact prove the rule. Marriage exists for and about children.

Next, the last objection which points us to the very meaning of marriage. In that post, we will hopefully tie up any loose ends and make a more positive statement about what marriage is.

This is the fifth post in a series summarizing an article by Greg Koukl found at Townhall.com. In this article, Koukl responds to objections raised by those who favor same-sex marriages to those who wish to maintain the traditional understanding of marriage. It is not meant to be a positive point-by-point presentation of an argument for traditional marriage, but a response to individual objections raised against a traditional understanding of marriage. Another objection often raised against a maintenance of the traditional understanding:

Marriage is constantly being redefined.

There have certainly been variations in what exactly marriage means, but the overarching definition has been unchanged. In all cultures throughout time, marriage has always been between men and women. An example of variation in marriage is that historically some have been denied the ability to marry. There have been changes in how old one must be to marry, for examle. Interracial marriages have been denied in the past. At times, some were allowed to marry more than once, either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy).

In the midst of all these various changes, the essential core of marriage has remained the same. That essential core, argues Koukl, is that marriages have always been between male and female. Why is this? That is the subject of the next response.

This is the fourth post in a series summarizing the responses of Greg Koukl to the common objections raised by same-sex couples to opposition to the revision of the institution of marriage. Koukl’s entire article can be found at Townhall.com. The fourth objection raised has to do with the very nature of what marriage is:

As long as people love each other, it shouldn’t matter whether they are the same sex. What’s important in marriage is love.

Is marriage really about love? At face value, this seems to be a reasonable way of reflecting on marriage. However, upon further reflection, it’s clear that love and marriage are not always associated. In fact, the two are often not associated. Throughout history (and even today) many marriages have been arranged. Love may be a part of the relationship later in this case, as a result of marriage, and not as a reason for it.

Further, what is the purpose of the marriage vows? Why say “for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health?” As Koukl points out, vows are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. They keep the marriage intact, not for the sake of love, but for the sake of children. Marriage is not about love. The state requires no proof of love when granting licenses for marriage. Why? Love is not the reason for marriage. Now, hopefully it is found in marriages, but no proof of passion is required to gain a marriage license. Marriage is about something other than love.

Next, another response.