Like a number of others tonight I have just watched Jesus: The Cold Case on TV One, presented by Bryan Bruce. Here are my thoughts on what I have seen. First off, who is Bryan Bruce?

Bryan Bruce is an award winning producer, writer & director who lives in Wellington, New Zealand. He has a MA in Sociology, Psychology & philosophy from Canterbury University. A former musician and schoolteacher, he began his television career in 1984 as front person and writer for a TVNZ arts show. Since then has won awards for Best Director and Best Factual Writer and his work has made the finals of several international festivals, including the New York Television Festival and the prestigious Banff Awards.

The overarching message that Bryan Bruce is gravitating towards in this documentary is that the biblical and subsequent Christian message on who killed Jesus, namely, “the Jews” in some broad sense, is false, and what’s more it is responsible for centuries of great evil.

Something that strikes the viewer quite early on is that Bruce quite simply doesn’t believe that the Gospels accounts are true in general terms. “Many,” he says, “now believe that the Gospels contain more fiction than fact.” Throughout the documentary we hear from a number of academics who lend their credibility to the various claims Bruce makes.

One of the immediate worries about the presentation is that although we’re led to believe that the presenter is applying rigorous criminal investigation methods to the case, to those familiar with the world of biblical scholarship, his list of authorities suggests otherwise:

• Emeritus Prof. Geza Vermes (Oxford)
• Emeritus Prof John Dominic Crossan ( St Pauls)
• Prof. Elaine Paigels (Princeton)
• Bishop John Shelby Spong (USA)
• Prof. Lloyd Geering (New Zealand)
• Dr Helen Bond ( Edinburgh)
• Prof . Israel Hershkovitz (Tel Aviv)
• Dr Shimon Gibson (London)

Does this read like the list a careful investigator consults if he wants a decent shot at getting to the unvarnished truth, rather than a somewhat partisan perspective?

According to Vermes, Jesus was resurrected in the hearts of his followers, but not literally from the dead.

Crossan claims that Jesus’ followers had a kind of spiritual visionary experience
Paigels writes that early Christians didn’t believe in physical resurrection at all, seeking instead a state of spiritual knowledge and enlightenment Spong says that Jesus’ resurrection had nothing to do with him coming back to life, but with the subjective – but real – experiences in the hearts of his followers.

Lloyd Geering, who himself does not believe in any such being as God, claims that the body of Jesus remained buried and that the story of his resurrection was a later story concocted on the basis of a re-reading of the Old Testament.

Now of course this isn’t a documentary on the resurrection, but the pattern is somewhat striking. It looks fairly clearly as though the presenter has intentionally stacked the witness stand with those hostile to the Christian story. It will hardly come as a surprise that, given such a uniform and narrow sample, the testimony will (rather gleefully!) point away from the traditional version of events surrounding the death of Christ. We might just as easily consult the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary and claim that using rigorous scrutiny, we have reached the conclusion that the biblical portrait of Jesus’ death is, well, inerrant! Given that those consulted would be placed at one extreme of the spectrum on whether or not we can generally trust the Gospel accounts or the teaching of the early Christian movement, the interests of balance would surely call for less radical voices, the likes of Craig Evans, James Dunn, Luke Timothy Johnson or N. T Wright. One example – Lloyd Geering is quoted as assuring viewers – completely unchallenged – that the details of the crucifixion was no more than what people “imagined” had probably taken place. When it comes to the story of the resurrection, Geering is explicit – Jesus was probably buried by the Romans and that was that. No tomb, no stone rolled away, and no angels. Geering laughs, “the very fact that you’ve got angels [in the story] shows that we’re dealing with myth, not history.” There was not a single challenge raised. Not even an innuendo that Geering’s view isn’t the scholarly consensus. This was said just minutes after the narrator told us that the Gospel was more fiction than fact.

This type of concern rears its head among a more sceptical audience when the evangelical likes of Lee Strobel seeks to do just what Bryan Bruce is doing: Apply critical scrutiny to the facts concerning the life of Christ. And yet we frequently hear the complaint that Strobel consults only committed and usually conservative Christians, people who are unlikely to disagree strongly with each other – or with Strobel. I would hope, then, that this same type of sceptical, professedly critical audience will likewise regard Bruce’s offering as a biased, selective survey of a very thin slice of the scholarly community. For example, says Bruce, the author of Mark says that the land was covered in darkness when Jesus was crucified. But how does he know this, Bruce asks, since he wasn’t there? He must be relying on hearsay, and we are therefore not reading eyewitness testimony. What then does Bruce make of the work of Richard Bauckham, who, in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses makes the case that in fact we have much that is eyewitness testimony in the Gospels? Well, we don’t know. As a scholar who reaches the wrong sort of conclusion, Bauckham does not appear to have been on Bruce’s reading list.

Herein lies the flaw in so much of what is passed of as a fresh, new, surprising, maybe even scandalous new look at the evidence to get at the real facts of New testament events. There is nothing fresh, new or surprising about it. Material like this seems to gain some traction from the rather popular but simply false assumption that any enquiry concluding that mainstream Christianity has fundamentally gotten things wrong must be fresh, honest and critical. The assumption itself, of course, is about as uncritical as assumptions get, because it is already committed to the belief – or perhaps the hope – that whatever the truth is, it’s certainly not whatever “the church” thinks. That’s what makes this project interesting to many. It’s not that there’s a surge of interest in why Jesus was crucified. Rather, there’s a sense of delight in hearing that stuffy, old, doctrinaire, cherished but uninformed Christian belief is wrong.

On to the documentary…

Strolling through the life of Jesus, Bruce starts with the birth, and with John Shelby Spong. Spong – like Geering on the resurrection – quite bluntly tells the audience that the birth story is simply made up. Since Jesus is called Jesus “of Nazareth,” and apparently for no other reasons, Spong says that “if we want to be historically accurate” we should be singing “O little town of Nazareth.” After all, Spong says, as though it will be obvious, given the number of generations between Joseph and the number of wives King David had, David would have had about ten billion descendants at the time of Jesus, and it would be absurd to believe that ten billion people would have returned to their ancestral town of Bethlehem for the census.

“In other words,” Bruce immediately says, “the Gospel writers made up stories about Jesus’ birth, just they did about his death.” It’s quite clear what has just happened. Spong’s claim has been presented as the scholarly one that we should have no problem with. But how much evidence have we really seen? If Jesus grew up in Nazareth, then the epithet “Jesus of Nazareth” would be perfectly understandable with no special need to deny the Gospel claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. But hey, we’ve got a ell known figyure saying that the biblical writers are wrong, and that’s, well, a little bit naughty.

Next, Bruce goes on to tell us that two Greek copies of the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and breaks the news to the public: They’re different! This is where it becomes clear that Bruce’s audience is essentially the same as that of the popular work of Bart Ehrman: It’s the masses who don’t know anything – anything at all – about biblical scholarship. Yes, it’s true that we don’t have the original copies of the Gospels. Shock horror, they were written in the first century! Yes, over time there are going to be differences between copies as more and more copies are made. This is not news. But it does enable Bruce to add in the suggestion that really, the church was “changing” what the Bible said. What’s more, noted Bruce, there are differences between the Gospel accounts of the same events. Again, this is surprising as an attempt to stir up doubt about what we read in the Gospels, but an understandable way to prime an audience that might be quite unaware, even of the basics.

John Dominic Crossan, clearly the favouraite source of the documentary maker givent he number of times he appears on screen, is asked to comment on the historicity of the crucifixion account atthis point, and he tells us: When Jesus says “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” “I don’t think Jesus ever said that.” Why not? Well, that doesn’t seem to matter. Crossan just doesn’t think so. In immediate response, Bruce says that “clearly we have to be careful” when taking such Gospel accounts as historical. After all, Crossan doesn’t believe it. Just… because he doesn’t. This is a surprising pattern that begins to reappear throughout this documentary. A person in an armchair appears on-screen, declares that they don’t personally think that something in the Gospels really happened, and the narrator, in effect, strokes his beard (OK he doesn’t really have one) and says “Well, fascinating, there you have it.” But what do other scholars say? What are the reasons for agreeing with the talking head we’ve just seen? And what reasons to others bring to the discussion table for another view? None of that matters. Crossan says it. Bruce agrees. That settles it.

There are times where even the scholars that Bruce hand picked to reinforce his stance on jesus don’t seem quite negative enough about the traditional portrait of Jesus. Remember that in the Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as reading to the congregation in the synagogue. As Geza Vermes explains to Bruce, early Jewish sources like Philo of Alexandria indicate that Jewish boys were taught to read and write – given a basic education. But Bruce suddenly decides that it’s best to get a second opinion, because “just when a matter seems certain,” another scholar comes along and tells you something different. He goes back to old faithful, John Dominic Crossan, who says, apparently citing no particular source, that Jesus was probably illiterate. For no obvious reason, this seems to be Bruce’s preferred option. What’s interesting is that for some reason when the opinion being expressed is the most far left, least orthodox and least compatible with historic Christianity, Bruce never seems to see a need for a second opinion, or even evidence. Some guy in an armchair saying “I just don’t believe it” seems to settle the matter forever. At least one end is served: The Gospel portrait of Jesus is denied. Evidence? Let’s not bother about that, it only gets in the way!

Next Bruce says a few words about the political backdrop of Jesus’ life. Herod the great, who ruled at the time of Jesus’ birth, was rich and powerful. He had grand buildings and vast wealth. This, says Bruce, suggests that the account of Herod ordering the death of babies in Bethlehem “is a lie.” He was nasty, yes, admits Bruce, and he even killed family members, but there’s nothing in the literature saying that he ever killed any babies. Of course, even the Gospels don’t say that just as Herod himself killed family members, Herod also killed babies. The former was done by Herod, the latter was done by soldiers, according to the Gospels. But perhaps more importantly is this: As historians like Josephus note, Herod was a brutish man, responsible for a lot of bloodshed. According to Matthew’s Gospel, Herod’s order was to kill male children, under two years of age in Bethlehem and the immediate surroundings. As even fairly liberal sources like the BBC are willing to point out:

In fact, demographic clues from first century Palestine reveal that Bethlehem was a small village, with a population between three hundred and a thousand. Experts estimate that, at any given time, the number of babies under the age of two would be only between seven and twenty. So numbers alone may be the reason why Josephus does not mention the murders.

SOURCE

This was not an enormous slaughter of dozens, even hundreds of babies, as portrayed in films like Jesus of Nazareth or in artwork. That no such massive scale killing is recorded then, is to be expected.

John the Baptist’s message, says Bruce, was politically important. “Things wouldn’t come right for the Jews until they put things right with God and repented.” You see, says Bruce, John believed that the world was about to end and only the pure – the baptised – would be saved. But where exactly is his evidence? None is actually cited, but it is likely that Bruce is thinking of the biblical claim that John preached that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Presumably Bruce thinks that this is a reference to the end of the world, but if this is so then he has simply got to expand his reading before embarking on further works like this. The idea that first century Judaism was looking forward to some sort of end of the world is simply false. But as this does not play any major role in the remainder of the documentary, there’s no need to embark on a correction of this falsehood here. But he is right about one thing, that John was indeed calling Israel to repentance, just as the Old Testament prophets had done.

According to Elaine Paigels, since John baptised Jesus, John must have been Jesus’ teacher. Jesus therefore got his message from John, and that’s why some might have thought Jesus was a political worry, since John’s message was so political. What revealing about short comments like this from Paigels is that it offers an insight into the slender basis that the more radical wing of biblical scholarship actually has for so many of their interesting sounding claims. John the Baptist was really Jesus’ mentor? How do we know? Well, he baptised him! But was he the teacher and mentor of everyone he baptised? Well no, but gosh it does sound interesting doesn’t it? John Dominic Crossan adds here that John the Baptist thought that once enough people were baptised, once the movement had reached critical mass, God would show up and effectively consummate history. And how does he know this? Sadly, Crossan chose not to share that gem.

But if Jesus is “of Nazareth,” asks Bruce, why did he go to Capernaum to begin his ministry and not stay in Nazareth? “It seems to me,” Bruce says, that “those closest to Jesus didn’t believe that he was the son of God, so he left.” I don;t know why Bruce thinks he needs to rely on his own intuitions, since the Gospels themselves tell us precisely that. In Luke 4, Jesus did visit Nazareth, where he declared that “no prophet is accepted in his own hometown.” Bruce could have quoted this, but here as elsewhere, he prefers the glasses-adjusting chin stroking method of saying “it just seems to me that…” and banking on the credulity of the audience. They don’t need evidence, they’ve got a detective like Bryan Bruce!

Next the subject moves on to the death of John the baptist, as the death of Jesus draws nearer. Vermes rejects the biblical reason for John the Baptist’s death, namely that he had rebuked Herod for taking his brother’s wife. He was not killed for that reason, “but because he was a potential troublemaker. His eloquence might have led a revolution.” What revolution did he threaten? Well, we’re not told, but John was a wild kinda guy, so hey, let’s just throw the possibility out there.

Staying with the death of John the Baptist a little longer, Bruce notes that Matthew and Mark include an account where the daughter of Herodias danced for Herod at a party, and it pleased him so much that Herod promised to give her what she asked for. Prompted by the request of her mother, the woman Herod had married (the woman John said he ought not to have taken), she asks for the head of John the baptist. However, the story of this dance isn’t mentioned in Josephus, so, Bruce says, it didn’t happen. It’s another example, he says, of Christians making stuff up. Again, here’s a good example of how what passes for “critical” scholarship is done. Without anything by way of evidence, just declare that an account in two of the Gospels is pure fabrication – after all, Josephus doesn’t tell the story, and unless it’s mentioned by Josephus then it’s not true. Don’t worry that your argument lacks any merit. As long as you’re discrediting a Gospel account you’ll get a pat on the back from some people.

So now John the Baptist was dead, and we’re greeting again with the face of John Dominic Crossan. This time, he’s on screen to tell us again that John had predicted the end of the world (I think we’re supposed to have believed this claim previously so that we won’t raise an eyebrow at it now). When John died and this cataclysmic event had not happened, Jesus had a crisis. God didn’t arrive! Jesus now had to totally re-think his approach.

Bruce observes that the Gospels talk about crowds following Jesus, “but I suspect that having seen what happened to John, Jesus took a low key approach.” As for what the Gospels say about the ministry of Jesus, Bruce opines, “We don’t know if these stories have any truth to them.” Where does this come from? What led to it? Nothing that we’re told about. No particular evidence, no considerations, Bruce is just sharing his thoughts. What does it contribute? Little, other than a general air of “we’re above believing this stuff.” On the healing of Lazarus at Bethany, Bruce says, “I find it suspicious that only John’s Gospel has the story of Lazarus, so I think he made it up.” That was it – the whole argument verbatim. And this is the way so many things are dismissed in this documentary. If anyone doubts that a biblical event took place, then that’s the end of it. It didn’t happen.

On to Passover and the events leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion. Bruce wonders if this was Jesus’ first time in Jerusalem, “as three of the Gospels say that it was.” This had me checking the Gospels to see whether even one of the Gospels said this, let alone three. I came back empty handed. Matthew does not say this, and neither do Mark, Luke or John. Where does Bruce find this? Will he share? Apparently not, he simply tells us that this is so and that is that, as with so many of his quips.

Crossan is back, telling us that in a politically tense Jerusalem, Jesus started a demonstration. He did this by riding a donkey, which amounted to a Messianic claim – since the prophets referred to the king riding on a donkey (Zechariah 9). This was dangerous – given that the Jews were celebrating deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Given that the Jews were under Roman bondage, this environment was a fragile one and any Messianic claims during passover were potentially volatile. Incidentally, Bruce offers his wisdom here again, saying that the next time that Jesus entered the city (the next day), the crowds that hailed Jesus were no longer there, so Bruce says that the crowds of Palm Sunday simply never existed. Naturally. Perhaps Bruce thinks that the next day the streets were empty!

Shimon Gibson chimes in here, saying that while Jesus’ triumphal entry was a “very important event” for the Jesus group – those who knew or followed Jesus, as far as the geography goes and the huge number of pilgrims who travelling that route anyway, the event probably didn’t have much significance. It took place in the midst of a crowd and would not have dominated the scene. This could have been an ideal moment for Bruce to retract his comment about the whole affair being invented – but why bother?

On the cleansing of the Temple while in Jerusalem for the passover, Bruce says “This may have been a much smaller event than the New Testament suggests.” After all, the Temple court was huge, and this could have been a small skirmish. However, he acknowledges that most theologians and NT scholars agree that this is actually what got Jesus into trouble with the Jews that week, trouble that led to his arrest. At the very least, as Helen Bond says at this point, the Jewish authorities saw that Jesus is doing something out of the ordinary in the Temple at Passover. They wanted the feast to run smoothly, and any suggestion that Jesus might have disrupted that could have prompted them to alert the Romans.

Crossan seems to support the Gospel accounts here, saying that Jesus was protected by the crowd and that is why he was not arrested sooner. Bruce however doesn’t buy it – not the Gospel accounts, nor even his hand-picked scholars. After all, when Jesus was killed, there was no outcry. This too then, has to be fabrication. Unsurprisingly, Bruce also doubts the whole account of Jesus’ betrayal. “Some scholars” have called the biblical account into question. And who is Bruce referring to? John Shelby Spong. Spong says that Judas just means “Judah.” What’s more, the Apostle Paul didn’t mention the betrayal by Judas specifically. Betrayal with a kiss, pieces of silver – these are all elements found in either the Old Testament or Jewish literature, and they are used as Midrash, fictional embellishments.

Bruce adds: If people re-wrote history (his way of summing up the practice of using Midrash) in this way in those times, then we need to ask if the Christians did this as well to place the blame on the Jews. The first clue that the Gospel writers “made it all up” when recounting the betrayal of Jesus is the fact that the version of events in each Gospel is not quite the same as the other. The naivete of this sort of judgement is just staggering, and it is instructive to bear in mind that the man has absolutely no background in either history or biblical studies. That events are recounted differently by different authors does not contribute in the least to the conclusion that the events in question never happened.

Elaine Paigels, author of The Gnostic Gospels, says the trial probably never happened at all. The Sanhedrin did not meet at night. And, she says, we don’t even know that they had the jurisdiction to sentence a man to death. Crossan adds that it couldn’t have been an official “trial,” just a decision. But none of this is useful in the least. The Gospels never claim that the Sanhedrin passed judicial sentence on Jesus, so the fact that they would not have had jurisdiction to do so is just not relevant.

Elaine Paigels says that there’s evidence that Pilate was a hard man, brutal in killing people and quite happy to insult the Jews, so the Gospel account of this man who did not want to get on ther wrong side of the people by having Jesus killed (or not) must be false. Crossan adds, “I can’t even imagine any Roman Governer allowing a crowd to scream at him.” Helen Bond too says that Pilate had a military background. Jesus was peasant, and Pilate wouldn’t have had a second thought about sending him to the cross. The argument is basically that while this indeed the way the Gospels portray the actions of Pilate on that day: as wanting to appease the crowd, this doesn’t sit well with what we know about Pilate’s personality. I don’t think it’s a particularly compelling argument on its own, but I’ll say that this is as close to a sensible argument as anything that the documentary contains.

But then observe how Bruce immediately pours on the rhetoric saying that “It’s clear that much of the passion story was made up by the Christian writers,” when no such thing is “clear,” even if Bruce believes that there are reasons for doubting some of what is purported to have happened. He only makes it worse by asking, “Why would the early Christians tell stories that they clearly knew to be untrue?” That they knew to be untrue now? The strength of the rhetoric is very obvious out of proportion to any evidence based arguments, but the rhetoric is there for a reason. Bruce is whipping up his audience to make them credulous for what is about to be said. He has got to get them hearing words like “lie,” “untrue,” “why would they,” “what could motivate them,” “they knew to be untrue.” In order for his accusations that follow to fall upon receptive ears, he needs to build up a picture of a Christian community that was strongly motivated to tell deliberate lies to exonerate Pilate and blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. Evidence or not, this is what he’s got to convey.

Now that he has set the scene and basically asked why the Christians were such a pack of liars, his selected scholars come in to offer answers. Paigels suggests that Mark blamed the Jews – rather than Pilate – for the death of Jesus because he was writing in wartime and wanted to stress that Jesus did not lead a revolt against the Romans, and that the Jews tricked Pilate into having Jesus crucified. This is what bruce was looking for, so he adds his own two cents: The Christians were keen to separate themselves from the Jews after AD 70. So they re-wrote history. They made Pilate into a nicer guy and made the Jews nastier. The Gospel writers “pulled off the greatest PR spin in history.”

This anti-semitic theme, says Bruce, was then wired into the Christian writings, until John’s “Gospel of hate” that blamed the Jewish people as a whole, where the ugly and plainly anti-Jewish message was laid out clearly. Christians turned the “spotlight of hate onto Judaism.”

Bruce sees further evidence of the spread of this anti-Jewish message in AD 144 when Marcion proposed a canon of the Bible and preached a clearly anti-Semitic theology. He portrayed the Jewish God as mean spirited and dark, while the Christian Saviour was good and loving. He wanted to strip the Scripture of its traces of Jewish sympathy. The trouble with this example is that Marcion was promptly and resoundingly condemned by the orthodox Christian community. Even in AD 144 this message that Bruce says had become dominant could not find a foothold. How strange!

From here, the version of history that the viewer is exposed to descends into madness of The Da Vinci Codeproportions. We are told that the controversy at the council of Nicea was settled – not by the assembled bishops, but by Emperor Constantine, who was the “head of the church,” and Arius, the man whose views were rejected, died “mysteriously” afterwards. A conspiracy is born. Again.

From here we leap into the twentieth Century, into the life of Jules Isaac, the Jewish author of Jesus and Israel. This book was Isaac’s own account of his life during World War II, while he was asking why Christian nations took such a dim view of the Jews. His wife and daughter had been murdered by the Nazis. “What was it that the Jews were supposed to have done that could possibly warrant such hatred,” asks Bruce. Hitler played on Christian contempt of the Jews to bolster his agenda. “The impact of those lies told by the early Christians” on Jews living in Europe was massive, says Bruce. Isaac’s wife and daughter were sent to Aushwitz. What they suffered, “we can only guess.” But we can’t just blame Hitler. Martin Luther railed against the Jews, calling on the Jews to be driven out like dogs. “How he came to this vile conclusion isn’t clear,” says Bruce, but the Nazis appealed to him. But wait a moment, that was important. How he came to his conclusions isn’t clear? But the clarity of the line of reasoning here is what is carrying Bruce’s thesis: Christians hate and kill Jews because the first Christians lied and said that Jews got Jesus killed!

Things get stranger still as we hear Spong at this point say that he was taught to hate other religions because “we have the only true faith” and he was given the message that “I will kill you if you don’t agree with me.” What? How could this possibly be true? What church did Spong attend where he was given the message that it’s alright to kill people who don’t agree with us?

So now we have lies – well, alleged lies, we still haven’t quite seen the evidence that the early Christians made this stuff up, but Bruce calls them lies, that encourage Christians to actually murder Jews, and which justify the Holocaust? Not to mention churches that tell people like Spong that murder’s fine if others disagree with you. The Holocaust reminds Bruce “how dangerous it is to repeat the lies” that the New Testament tells about the Jews. Apparently, even if the people who advocated that Jesus die were actually Jewish, then simply reporting that fact would be wrong!

But wait, suddenly a new bombshell is dropped. Bruce now silently retracts the entire argument, and says that even if further documents were unearthed that did show that the Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death, “How could that justify what happened here,” at Aushwitz?

Take a moment to appreciate the importance of that. Previously Bruce had been begging us to believe that the “lies” of the New Testament are dangerous because they result in things like the Holocaust. Now he’s telling us that even if they weren’t lies at all – even if the Gospels are absolutely correct, and Jewish people really did call for the death of Jesus, that would not justify anti-semitic persecution after all.

Ding, the penny should be dropping right now. That’s the point. The New Testament accounts don’t justify anti-semitism. If some Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus then that’s what they did, but none of this offers support for the persecution of Jewish people now or at any other time. Once Bruce has acknowledged this, what, exactly, is he accusing the New Testament of? Oh that;s right, being a back of lies. But the support for this contention has always been a bit murky, leaving only one thing clear throughout: This stuff in the Gospels is definitely made up!

But forgetting that again, Bruce is back in action, saying that if you need any proof of how unfair the Gospel account is to the Jews, “all you need to do is remind yourself of what happened here, at Auschwitz.”

Bruce closes by telling us: “The Jews did not kill Jesus. Pilate killed Jesus.” What Bruce might be enlightened to know is that the person responsible for Jesus’ death is named, and has been named for many centuries now (from probably as early as the fourth or fifth century) in the Apostles’ Creed, in which the Jews are never even mentioned. Instead, we read of Jesus, the son of God, who became man for our sake and for our salvation, and who was “suffered under Pontius Pilate.” And we certainly didn’t need this documentary to tell us that.

So what have we actually seen? Well, we finally got to a true statement at the end – one that Christians have taught for centuries no less – but just look at what we had to endure to get there! An almost unbelievably partisan selection of scholars, supposedly representing a consensus, along with a generous scattering of proclamations about the reliability of New Testament accounts that Bryan Bruce appears to have simply pulled out of thin air.

What’s worse is the knowledge of the way that wide eye, impressed viewers will see this. Here’s a person who’s willing to ask “hard questions.” What a breath of fresh air! Never mind that it’s the same stale air that has been circulating on sceptical websites and religious studies departments for years. Look, he’s got scholars backing him up! Never mind any of the published responses to those scholars, Bruce can rest easy in the knowledge that his audience won’t even have read them.

For a somewhat more informed read, even if only for the sake of providing balance to this documentary, see Craig Evans and N. T. Wright, Jesus: The Final Days.

Cross Posted at: Say Hello to my Little Friend: The Beretta Blog and Podcast

(See also Mark Keown’s Jesus the Cold Case: A Response)

I have read a few posts on the ‘one less god’ proposition. Stephen F Roberts originally put it,

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

elsewhere he says,

“We are all atheists, some of us just believe in fewer gods than others.”

I have read a few responses against this illogical claim.

One retort is to state that Christians do believe in several gods, it is just that the lesser gods are demons and Christians claim allegiance to the true God. Yahweh is not just a local deity (1Ki 20:23) but the true God, creator heaven and earth

And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD and said: “O LORD, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. (2 Kings 19:15)

the most high God,

Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have lifted my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth,…” (Genesis 14:22)

Though there is truth to this, depending a little on how one defines God, I do not think this rebutal gets to the crux of the problem.

Another response is to state that polytheists believe in gods for different reasons than monotheists believe in God. Polytheists believe X and monotheists believe Y, thus the monotheist’s refutation of X does not refute Y, which the atheist is claiming. In other words, the reason Christians reject other gods is not the same as the reason they accept the Christian God. This is logically true, and hints at the atheist error, but does not get to the heart of it. It is inadequate though because it is not immediately obvious that polytheists and monotheists have significantly different reasons for theism. Romans 1 suggests that there are some basic reasons why all people are theists, but our fallen nature means this may be distorted such that theism becomes polytheism or, as per Romans, animism and pantheism.

A related response is to state that Christians see polytheism is a distortion of monotheism. As such, removal of the distortion does not remove the argument. The dismissal of the wrong elements of theism is not an argument against theism. This gets closer to the problem.

The primary problem with the atheist position is that it makes a category error. The following analogy demonstrates this central issue. As such the analogy is useful, but for several reasons I think it is inadequate and could be improved upon. Nevertheless, if it illustrates the problem it is helpful.

“Let’s say that people are debating the best colour for stop signs. One person may prefer red for stop signs. Another green. Still others think that any colour can be used and no standardisation is necessary, and others promote the use of all colours on every sign.

The atheist response is like saying you can’t agree on what colour to use because there are in fact no colours. Colours do not exist.”

Debating colour preference is not the same as debating the existence of colours. Dropping from one god to no gods is not a continuation of the number-of-gods argument, it is a completely different argument.

Consider the deity set. It is either empty: atheism; or not empty: theism. The argument over the number of members in a non-empty theism set is unrelated to argument about whether or not the set is in fact empty.

Douglas Wilson put it well in his response to Sam Harris,

“You say, “Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devote Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.” Well, no, not exactly. And well, actually, no, not at all.

Suppose we are considering a phenomenon that is, by most accounts, inexplicable by an unsupervised occurrence—three of us attend a sophisticated party uptown, and halfway through the evening at the party we find a trout in the punch bowl. At this point, the three of us divide into three schools of thought. I think that Smith, a practical joker, put it there; our friend Murphy thinks that Jones, the avant-garde performance artist, put it there; and you think that it has simply shown up as the result of natural forces. My central point is not to interact with the truth or falsity of your naturalistic position—except perhaps through the use of this absurd example of the punchbowl—but rather to show that you are arguing for something completely different from what Murphy and I are arguing. We all have an explanation but your explanation is of a different kind altogether.

The differences between two of us (between Murphy and me) concern who put the trout in the punchbowl. The difference between the both of us together and you iswhether someone put a trout in the punchbowl. And who and whether represent different questions entirely. Quite apart from who is right and who is wrong about this, it is important to note that we are not disagreeing in the same way or over the same kind of issue at all. Murphy and I are disagreeing over the relative behaviours of Smith and Jones, but not over whether the trout calls for an explanation. Maybe I am more hostile to Smith than I ought to be, and maybe Murphy is deeply prejudiced against Jones. Maybe we are both wrong about who put it there. But thinking someone’s explanation is inadequate (when we agree the phenomenon must be explained) is quite different from arguing with someone who says it calls for no outside explanation whatever.” (Letter from a Christian Citizen)

RELATED POST:
Selling Atheism

Here is a snippet of Galbraith’s post from the beginning:

There are quite a few academic and quasi-academic studies in which statistical analysis seems to be employed as a substitute for thinking. It is, perhaps, fairly understandable why some people are tempted by the allure of numbers. Those mysteriously complex formulae, mindnumblingly boring statistics and obscure mathematical notations lend a magical aura of scientific objectivity and plausibility to even the most patently absurd claims.

What gets me talking about this at this moment is my dumbfounded reading last night of an article published by Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew, entitled“The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth” (2009). In this article, the McGrews utilize Bayesian probability in order to argue to the “scientific” conclusion that the probability of the resurrection of Jesus is a “staggering” 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000 to 1.

Are you staggered? overwhelmed? swooning? Were you previously skeptical about the Christian claim that Jesus was resurrected, but now you’re feeling pretty silly? Perhaps not.

The post goes on in the same vein to accuse the McGrews of trying to trick people into belief in the resurrection. It is littered with terms like “flimsy basis”, “populist apologetics”, “fanciful” and “deeply and unavoidably farcical” and is illustrated complete with a giant white-robed Caucasian Jesus wistfully looking heavenward as he steps out of the tomb. It finishes with Galbraith laying out his understanding of their mathematical reasoning, the tone at this point is dripping with lashings of smug, self-congratulation at how easily he, PhD student from Otago whose research area is giants in the Old Testament narrative, had dispatched two of the top philosophers of religion working in this field, both specialists in probability theory.

Not being qualified remotely in Bayesian probability theory myself, and therefore not wanting to presume anything beyond assessing the tone as exceedingly arrogant, I passed on Galbraith’s criticisms to the McGrews on Facebook. Well it turns out that Galbraith isn’t the only non-qualified liberal/atheist to take a punt at their reasoning on this piece. Tim McGrew explains that straw men have been popping up all over.

Straw Men Burning: Misinterpretations of our Article on the Resurrection

One of the hazards of writing technical philosophy is the risk that someone who lacks the appropriate expertise will attempt to critique it. In the case of the article on the resurrection that Lydia and I wrote for The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, this has already happened. It is hard enough to correct misimpressions of this sort on a relatively neutral topic; when the subject rouses passions of the sort that, as Hume reminds us, religious disputes are apt to generate, then the difficulties are redoubled.

But one thing that we did not anticipate is that people who are completely clueless would undertake to explain the article to the rest of the world, in the process completely garbling the central claim and shedding absolutely no light on any of the surrounding issues. Since this particular exhibition of aggressive incompetence is now being uncritically rebroadcast by people who are unable or unwilling actually to read the article, it is worth making a few salient points:

1. Nowhere in the article do we give, estimate, or suggest “odds on the resurrection.” Near the outset we explicitly disclaim any attempt to do so, writing:

Even as we focus on the resurrection of Jesus, our aim is limited. To show that the probability of R given all evidence relevant to it is high would require us to examine other evidence bearing on the existence of God, since such other evidence – both positive and negative – is indirectly relevant to the occurrence of the resurrection. Examining every piece of data relevant to R more directly – including, for example, the many issues in textual scholarship and archeology which we shall discuss only briefly – would require many volumes. Our intent, rather, is to examine a small set of salient public facts that strongly support R. The historical facts in question are, we believe, those most pertinent to the argument. Our aim is to show that this evidence, taken cumulatively, provides a strong argument of the sort Richard Swinburne calls “C-inductive” – that is, whether or not P(R) is greater than some specified value such as .5 or .9 given allevidence, this evidence itself heavily favors R over ~R.

The ratio of 10^44 to 1 is a likelihood ratio, not odds. People who do not understand the difference between these two ratios should not attempt to discuss the mathematical parts of the article.

2. We are very explicit about our assumptions. In the online version of the article, on p. 39, we make it plain that our calculation

is predicated on the assumption that in matters other than the explicit claims of miracles, the gospels and the book of Acts are generally reliable – that they may be trusted as much as any ordinary document of secular history with respect to the secularly describable facts they affirm. And where they do recount miraculous events, such as Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, we assume that they are authentic – that is, that they tell us what the disciples claimed. This calculation tells us little about the evidence for the resurrection if those assumptions are false. We have provided reasons to accept them, but of course there is much more to be said on the issue.

3. We are quite aware that the assumption of independence is critical, and we discuss this matter extensively on pp. 40-46. It is wearying to see commentators who have not bothered actually to read the article confidently proclaiming that we have overlooked the possibility of dependence.

Readers are of course free to disagree with our actual conclusions. It would be cheering, however, if they would first take the trouble to understand what those conclusions are.

As a holiday weekend that coincides with the most significant festival on the Christian calendar, Easter, concludes we should reflect on the freedom of religion we have in this nation. The Human Rights Commission is calling for submissions on a draft statement on freedom of religion and belief that includes the statement:

‘New Zealand has no official or established religion.’

Race relations conciliator Joris de Bres has publicly said that New Zealand’s absence of a state religion is a statement of fact[1]. Former Prime Minister Helen Clark was also quoted as saying there is no state religion, there will be no state religion[2]. These comments may be a surprise to those Kiwis who thought rugby has the role of a national religion!

Given the above comments by influential New Zealanders and the tax payer supported Human Rights Commission it must be clearly correct legally to say that New Zealand has no official religion.

Well, actually, no, it is not.

Does New Zealand Have an Official Religion?
An important distinction needs to be made at the outset. A state with an established religion is one in which a particular religion or church is effectively an arm of the state, and the state identifies with a particular religion. A state with an official religion gives special recognition or privileges to a religion. While an established religion and an official religion are usually found together, that is not always the case.

One of the most (if not the most) important offices in New Zealand is that of our head of state. New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy and the head of state in New Zealand is our monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II.

The Accession Declaration Act 1910 provides New Zealand’s head of state’s oath of office’ This accession declaration states:

“I … do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”

The accession declaration provides that the Queen must claim to be a Protestant. This is inconsistent with the notion that New Zealand has no official religion. It also refers to other laws which “secure the Protestant succession.” These other laws are the Bill of Rights 1688[3] and The Act of Settlement 1700[4]. All these acts of parliament were re-affirmed as part of the law of New Zealand by our parliament as recently as 1988 in the Imperial Laws Application Act (which, curiously given her comments above, Helen Clark voted in favour of passing[5]). The other laws that secure the Protestant succession are intended to ensure that the King or Queen of New Zealand is always a Protestant Christian. These laws are, incidentally, identical to the current law in the now multi-religious United Kingdom. Where New Zealand differs from the United Kingdom is that neither the Anglican nor Presbyterian churches are established.

The legal requirement that New Zealand’s head of state must be a Protestant Christian means that in our constitutional form at least we are a Christian nation. Technically our official religion is Anglicanism[6]. Having an official religion of course in no way requires New Zealanders to profess a particular religion. But does an Official Religion pose a threat to Religious Minorities? To answer this question lets refer to some overseas examples.

Having no official religion and a secular state has been no guarantee that freedom of religion and human rights generally will be respected in North Korea, Cuba and the People’s Republic of China, all of which have woeful human rights records.

By contrast the Lutheran church is the established church in Norway (there is even a minister of church affairs). It would be fair to say that Norway is not known for its suppression of freedom of religion or for having a poor human rights record.

Likewise, the established Anglican Church in England and the Presbyterian Church in Scotland has not led to a lack of freedom of religion. Indeed the tolerant Anglican Church is preferable for religious minorities to intolerant secularism.

It may come as a surprise to learn that there are leading Muslim and Jewish scholars who are actually against disestablishing the Anglican Church in the United Kingdom. To paraphrase their argument, an established but tolerant Anglican Church is preferable to a nation where all reference to the religious or sacred is ruthlessly excluded from the public domain[7].

The intolerant secularism rightly feared by religious minorities has been evident in France recently. France has already banned the Islamic headscarf and outward wearing of the crucifix, and other religious symbols, in state schools[8] and is considering banning the wearing of a burqa altogether, moves which are causing public discord in France[9].

Having an official religion is not necessarily any threat to freedom of religion, and may actually be more beneficial to religious minorities than aggressive secularism. The advancement of the rights of religious minorities and multi-culturalism should not be mis-used as a Trojan horse to advance intolerant secularism.

Conclusion
As a nation we should celebrate our tolerant Christian tradition, not attempt to falsely deny the legal fact that Christianity is a part of our national constitution. Ironically denials that Christianity is our official religion are playing down the Christian religious tradition that bought about the very religious freedom and tolerance the Human Rights Commission is attempting to promote.

We have nothing to fear and will gain by having a National Statement on Religious Diversity in New Zealand and a Draft Statement on Freedom of Religion and Belief that acknowledge the existence of New Zealand’s official religion rather than willfully ignore it.

[1] “There’s No State Religion –De Bres” New Zealand Herald 19 February 2007.
[2] As above.
[3] The relevant section of Bill of Rights 1688 provides:

And whereas it hath beene found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by and King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted that all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme.

[4] Section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 states (inter alia) “that whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England.”
[5] Hansard, 1988 (4^th Labour government 1984-1990).
[6] The Head of State is required to be an Anglican – refer to footnote 4.
[7] Tariq Modood “(Muslim) Establishment, Multiculturalism and British Citizenship,” Political Quarterly 65 (1994) pp.53-73; Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Ibid at 63-64; also Jonathan Sacks, The Persistence of Faith: Morality and Society in a Secular Age, London, 1991, cited in R Ahdar and J Stenhous et al God and Government The New Zealand Experience, University of Otago Press 2000.
[8] “Party Pushes Burqa Law Despite Public Discord” New Zealand Herald 10 January 2010.
[9] Ibid.

[Wikipedia have a chart showing which countries Queen Elizabeth II is currently head of state of.]

It was with great pleasure that I accepted TVNZs invitation to participate in this debate, and agree with Steve Franks who said it was truly a great thing for tvnz to open up this discussion in the public arena as a lack of serious debate plays a large part in perpetuating the troubles surrounding race relations and the treaty.

I completely agreed with his argument that the real treaty was not holding us back but that the bogus treaty separatist interpretations and sexed up versions were the trouble. I did not agree with his position that it was ok for the state to treat different peoples differently or that some of the favoritism was pragmatic common sense. This was in fact picked up by Matthew Hooten when he slammed Franks for claiming the favoritism that worked was not treatyism but that the rest was!

Hana Oreagan was nice enough in person, but the politics she espoused can only be described as flakey and hypocritical. For example she could not see that when she slammed the NZ government for being discriminatory against Maori in the 1920s ( Lower pensions for Maori was one example she used) that she her self was advocating the same type of discrimination be imposed today …favoring Maori…this completely escaped her just as she did not recognize that some of the favoritism in the 1920s was actually in favour of Maori such as exemption from rates.

Off air I did my best to show her this error and that what was needed was one equal law for all. Her claim the treaty can mean whatever we want it to mean just shows how flakey her ideas really are.

When the time came for me to present my arguments, I attempted to give as broad a range of the troubles as I could in two minutes, hoping to fill in the details later when interviewed. Yet Shane decided it was better to attack my views on taxation instead! This worked in my favour as it gave me opportunity to slam socialist rapaciousness.

I do want to add in here a couple of historic references to support my speech which I was unable to include in the debate. The first is Governor Grays declaration to the Waikato Chiefs about respecting the sovereignty of the queen and keeping the peace dated 11 July 1863 (as can be found in Richard Stowers book The Forest Rangers pg6) Governor Grey asked them to stop the evil acts against peaceable settlers…Grey asked for the free passage of Europeans in the Waikato district, in particular movement on the Waikato river. He also stated:

Those who remain peaceably at their own villages in the Waikato , or move into such districts as may be pointed out by the government, will be protected in their persons, property and land.

Those who wage war against her majesty, or remain in arms, threatening the lives of her peaceable subjects, must take the consequences of their acts and they must understand that they forfeit the right of possession of their lands guaranteed them by the treaty of Waitangi; which lands will be occupied by a population capable of protecting for the future the quiet and un-offending from violence with which they are now so constantly threatened.

A second reference is to Sir Apirana Ngata who stated in his ‘The Treaty of Waitangi, An Explanation’ that…

Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and they contravened the articles of the treaty of Waitangi, but the chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make Laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The Law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori Custom-revenge-plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The Confiscations can not therefore be objected to in the light of the treaty…

Finally I am happy I got a plug in against the anti freedom Nannyism and anti colonialism of Minto regarding Crime and health statistics that are used as vindication for socialist favoritism and ongoing regulation.

“Why are we trying to manipulate fat people I said?”

“That is not a duty of government but a matter of self responsibility!”

(Socialists believe its their right/duty to force you to be the politically correct weight)

I liked Matt Hootens smug grin…very amusing, but he said little worthy of note except that people will continue to use the current system to gain filthy lucre which more supported us and not them!

I think even Hana O Regan thought she had been paired up with a wally.

Valuable contributions from the audience came from:

• Martin Doutre, New Zealand’s foremost expert on the history of the treaty documents when he verified Steve Franks assertion that the modern treaty used by the separatists and current government is a fraud.
• Matt and Madeleine Flannagan both questioned the interpretations of the separatists … “How did they get their idea that the treaty obliged the state to teach and propagate Te Reo?” … “Why do they think a legal document like the treaty can be interpreted without applying the usual rules of law?”
• Prof David Round criticised the ongoing and deepening riff caused by the separatist treaty industry.

Most of the rest from the likes of Minto, Dalamere and co were the usual socialist rubbish that denies any responsibility of the Maori people to stand on their own two feet lumping the taxpayer with the burden of carrying them like babies.

It was difficult to follow much of the commentary as it was so muddled up with some truth and a hell of a lot of false assumptions/propaganda.

I was even dis-owned by my tribe for supporting equality before the Law! (Oh well, I shall continue to walk on alone if I must)

I was happy that in the last segment I got to slam our racially divided electoral system and parliament adding that what made the election of Barack Obama great is that he was elected in a proper non-racist election competing with white men and woman, unlike our current shameful apartheid system in NZ.

In closing I want to state for the record that…Just as the state education system is a propaganda machine of the theory of evolution…so too it propagates the lies of treaty separatism.

This exposes the travesty of having a democracy with state control of our schools and the urgent need to divest the state of its evil encroachments and control over our children’s minds. Privatize education!

The battle goes on…

RELATED POSTS:
View “Marae: The Great Waitangi Debate” Here
Sovereignty and The Treaty of Waitangi
Maori and Pakeha are Not Partners to the Treaty of Waitangi
(Our Review of the Debate)

The documents of the Church and the writings of most socially minded scholars are replete with exhortations for public figures to work towards the common good in all secular affairs. In response grand public works are begun, optimistic programmes launched, and a great many resources are shifted from one sector to another to achieve this lofty goal. However, it soon becomes clear that these programmes introduce further imbalances, insecurities and evils. Entire strata of society become addicted to welfare, economic protectionism make prices soar, unjust monopolies are established, and regulations are always too little too late. Some of these problems can be explained by ordinary political corruption and the general imperfection of man, however there is an even larger problem with all these methods: it’s literally impossible for them to work.

The problem is information:

• how to collect it;
• how to interpret it once you have it;
• and the time frame in which all this is done.

Governments simply cannot aggregate enough information in a timely enough fashion, and even if they could social and economic data are largely subjective and impossible to interpret correctly when distanced from the specific situation and the particular people involved.

Readers will be familiar with government economic data only coming out after the fact, often sometime after. This is because it takes time for sectors of the economy to report how they’re doing, there is always a delay requisite with the time it takes for individuals and businesses to aggregate their own data and to government requirements. Even then the data is often manipulated to make government policies look better so the reliability of the data is questionable.

The data are also very much subjective as the needs, wants, aspirations and acceptable outcomes of economic and social activities differs per person, business, city and region. The sheer immensity of this subjective information is too vast for any government to sufficiently aggregate and essentially impossible to even attempt to collect.

Governments who attempt this central planning of our social and economic lives are simply driving blind because they cannot have the information they would need to direct us effectively. This is why government programmes always encourage the wrong behaviour, leave certain groups and issues behind, grow stale and unresponsive, and generally spring leaks from every orifice.

The only way for the Common Good to be achieved is to unleash the power of individuals, families and groups to work towards their own benefit. The Common Good emerges out of this chaos with the most efficient use of resources, the most timely actions taken and no interpretation being necessary. The only people who have the necessary information to achieve their good, and in chorus the common good, are the individuals directly involved. Governments need to get out of the way and enable this process to occur instead of their futile attempts to conjure the common good from the top down.

There are a range of Christian theories on the moral acceptability of lying.

The issues around lying seem difficult to fully categorise in English. The problem is a lack of simple words to express subtle differences in meaning. To illustrate this note that the concept of lying can be considered analogous to killing. With killing we have sub-terms such as murder, manslaughter, and capital punishment. We also recognise killing in a variety of situations such as warfare and self-defence. The debate about the morality of types of killing is more transparent because we agree on meaning, even if we disagree or the moral acceptability of them.

Whereas “lying” merely means distorting the truth irrespective of the circumstances. There are terms such as deception, falsification, untruthfulness, but these are basically synonymous. There are situational terms though, such as perjury.

So is falsehood a single conceptual category? I have long thought it meaningful that the 9th commandment is not, “You shall not lie,” but rather, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.” I have previously distinguished between reality and what one perceives as reality stating that affirming a false belief is not lying. I have also made the distinction between voluntary and forced disclosure of information which I wish to expand on here.

The moral debate is that either:

• lying (or specific types or lying) is objectively wrong, that is, various forms of absolutism; or
• lying is not intrinsically wrong (for all people), (though it may be preferable to avoid in certain situations for other reasons), that is, forms of subjectivism.

Christianity claims that morality has its source in the moral law giver, thus it views the morality of truth telling as objective: the same rules for all people at all times. Here are particular forms of such absolutism.

1. Unqualified Absolutism

Lying is always wrong. People should never lie ever. No matter what the situation or consequences.

Doug Beaumont explains such unqualified absolutism.

Unqualified Absolutism is based on the idea that most moral actions are intrinsically right or wrong, and because sin is always avoidable there can be no actual moral conflict. Given a choice between telling the truth or lying to avoid a murder, for example, one must choose telling the truth for in that instance it is not the one speaking, but the murderer who is sinning. In that case it is better to permit sin than to commit it. This view states that moral “oughts” are viable regardless of their consequences, for any moral philosophy that has exceptions results in relativism. Moral law is based on God’s unchanging nature, therefore moral law itself is unchanging. Logically, if an act is intrinsically evil, it cannot become good because of a changing situation. Finally, God can always provide a third alternative to sinful actions.

This is how many people view lying. It is a somewhat reasonable but it lacks depth. Exceptions to rules don’t intrinsically mean relativism. True, exceptions can be special pleading or hypocrisy, but they may be legitimate (eg. age based rules). And as I note below, unqualified absolutism may conflate intrinsically different actions.

2. Conflicting Absolutism

Lying is wrong, but it needs to be considered within the situation. If lying conflicts with another moral commandment then one must do obey the higher moral. But lying, while required, is still sinful.

Such a position acknowledges that we have moral conflict (at least in this age). I think this is an improvement as it notes that as bad as lying may be, it may not be the greatest evil (though lying is a bigger evil than many acknowledge). This position encourages people to do good and love their neighbour.

It fails in that it suggests at times all options a man may have involve sin. However if we wish to do right, Scripture suggests we are able to do so (thru God). Further, how much less are we to blame when others have placed us in a dilemma, rather than our own prior choices.

3. Graded Absolutism

Lying is wrong unless it conflicts with a higher moral commandment. Obeying the higher moral by lying is not wrong or sinful.

This resolves the dilemma or not being able to make a right choice. It affirms moral conflict, but it claims that the choice to do the better is good. And not sinful if a greater good is being done. There may be some support from Jesus’ words to the Pharisees. It discussing tithing garden herbs Jesus states

“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

While one could claim that tithing herbs and doing justice are morally equal—Jesus does say not to neglect the former—the context would suggest that doing justice is a higher moral command. Apologists for unqualified absolutism could argue Jesus commands they do both, but there is no conflict between moral obligations set up here, so unqualified absolutism cannot be proven from the passage. I am merely illustrating that moral commands are graded.

It is important to note that this is not arguing that the end justifies the means. Yes, the end is considered, but for the sake of doing good, not for preferred result. Doing good may have unpleasant consequences.

4. Libertarian Absolutism

Lying is wrong if one is voluntarily giving information. One need not tell the truth if one is being compelled to divulge information. I am responsible for my actions, not yours.

This has the advantage over graded absolutism in that it recognises that voluntary information and compelled information are categorically different. It is somewhat analogous to saying that predatory killing is sinful but self-defensive killing is not.

Interestingly Jesus’ words may shed some light on our understanding here.

After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. Now the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand. So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” For not even his brothers believed in him. Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” After saying this, he remained in Galilee.

But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private. The Jews were looking for him at the feast, and saying, “Where is he?” And there was much muttering about him among the people. While some said, “He is a good man,” others said, “No, he is leading the people astray.” Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him.

About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching. (John 7, emphasis added)

Jesus said he wasn’t going but then he did. This implies that Jesus’ answer was not true. In fact some manuscripts say, “I am not yet going up to this feast.” Which would seem to make Jesus’ answer more honest. Looking at the passage it is clear Jesus wished to go without others initially knowing he was there. He is asked if he is going, however Jesus does not wish to tell this person. Being evasive may be construed as a yes. Jesus says that he is not going to this feast. Within the libertarian absolutism view a request is made of Jesus to divulge information he does not wish to give and he is at liberty to answer in a way that does not divulge same information.

This position is distinct from graded absolutism in that one is not weighing up morality in conflict. The distinction is in will for informing.

Although one could think nothing one hears in conversation is reliable, the solution is listen to what people wish to tell you.

5. Authoritative Absolutism

Non aggressive version

• Lying is wrong in non-aggressive situations. Self-defence against an aggressor allows for lying. Authorities are owed the truth.

Libertarian version

• One need not tell the truth if one is being compelled to divulge information unless being compelled by a legitimate authority.

Authoritative absolutism states the voluntary information must be true as per libertarian absolutism, or that all information must be true unless facing an aggressor. It states that, in general, compelled information does not need to be true though there can be variation on what is meant by compulsion.

But this position does allow an appropriate authority to force information (whereas strict libertarian absolutism would not). A person following libertarian absolutism would allow one to lie in court if he did not wish to divulge the truth. Non-aggressive absolutism would mean that it is eumoral (morally good) to tell the truth in legitimate courts and immoral to withhold it. Note the caveat: obeying a lesser authority is not required if that means disobeying a higher one. Obeying a policeman, a ruler, or a court is necessary even unjust ones, or in unpleasant circumstances; unless doing so compromises a higher earthly ruler or God.

Conclusion

People may argue for the legitimacy of any of these options within Christian theology. Unless one recognises that the concept of lying may include more than one category, graded absolutism is as far as one can advance and this seems to be the best approach. However the knowledge of a permissible sub-categorisation based on the distinction between voluntary and involuntary knowledge sharing allows for more nuanced views.

A lot of people have noticed that the top 10 Christian blogs here on MandM are ranking higher in the general rankings over time. It’s been suggested that the rankings themselves might be responsible themselves for this phenomenon, by making more people aware of the Christian blogs out there.

So I thought I’d put that hypothesis to the test.

I used Tumeke! Ranking data to trace blogs over the past year. I noted the rank of the blogs included in the MandM rankings, from the time they were first used in those rankings, not when they first appeared on Tumeke!.

I used Tumeke! for several reasons.

1. It’s more respected
2. It’s been operating longer
3. Halfdone rankings have tended to favour Christian blogs for some unknown reason. Thus the Tumeke! Rank becomes a “tougher” test of popularity
4. Basically, I’m too lazy to do both!

The first issue we have is that the data is problematic. New blogs come on the scene, old blogs fall off. So I tweaked the data a bit.

1. Removed MacDoctor – he scored very highly before being placed on the “Christian” list. I think most people would agree that him being a Christian isn’t the primary reason why people read his blog. So he’s not really
2. Removed Backchat Café and NZ Debate, both of whom started and ended within the survey period.

Charting what’s left, we come up with this (I’ve divided the Max score by 10 to keep it in the scale).

So the number of Christian blogs has increased. Also, as the blog rankings have grown the lowest ranked blog has pushed out lower and lower – i.e. if 300 blogs are ranked, clearly the lowest ranked Christian blog is likely to be in the 200s. No surprises with either of those. The average looks interesting, but we need to dig further.

Here’s the 11 blogs that averaged the highest score.

Note the highest score in a Christian blog that didn’t make it onto this chart is 62. That was by Samuel Dennis back in November, so our method didn’t eliminate any good starters thus making the trend look better.

The most impressive improvements over the year have been MandM and the Beretta blog. Both have come from very uninspiring rankings to sweep into the top 40.

Contra Celsum also made some good gains. I’ve highlighted these blogs to make their movement easier to see.

Not all blogs gained during the year. Kiwi Polemicist slipped after almost making it to 60. The Briefing room dropped right off after February.

But what has really gotten the attention of those watching the Christian rankings is the number of blogs that are now in the top 50/60. This can be clearly seen in this chart, with a mere 3 in the top 40 at the beginning. Now however, there are 8, 5 of those being in the top 40. That’s all in spite of TBR’s dropping off the pace.

Some of us have suspected that this is due to improving scores. That’s partially true, with Beretta and MandM improving drastically, but mostly it’s been due to already good Christian blogs getting included in the stats, and other blogs such as MacDoctor and Keeping Stock identifying or being identified as Christian.

Speaking of MacDoctor, in spite of his exclusion from the analysis, he is the only one who consistently makes it into the Tumeke! top 20.

Something for us all to work on, eh?

The film adaptation of Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons was released this year and, on top of Brown’s new novel, appears to have done a roaring trade. Reports suggest that this is a better effort by director Ron Howard than his The Da Vinci Code, although most critics would feel that making a worse film would have been a stiffer test.

For those lucky enough to be unfamiliar with the book, Angels and Demons is set in Rome where hunky Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, played by Tom Hanks, is trying to prevent the Illuminati from detonating an anti-matter bomb.  According to Dan Brown’s alternative view of history, the Illuminati are a secret society of scientists (Copernicus and Galileo were, of course, members) who were persecuted by the Catholic Church.  After a great purge in the seventeenth century, we learn, the society went underground and plotted revenge. For some reason, it has taken them over three hundred years to get their act together.

The Da Vinci Code launched the literary careers of a whole faculty previously-obscure professors of New Testament Studies. Admittedly, they had good reason for wanting to put the record straight about Brown’s distortions of early Christian history.  This time, it’s historians of science who might be upset by Brown’s misrepresentation. Because his contention that the Catholic Church has spent the last two millennia holding back the advance of science is as wrongheaded as the story that Mrs Jesus retired to the south of France with her kids.

Of course, it’s not just Dan Brown who believes in the battle between science and religion. While few people think that the Illuminati really were a group of scientists suppressed by the Church, the perception of an eternal conflict between reason and faith is widespread. It’s true that the Church did make a single significant mistake in 1616, when it banned Copernicus’s opinion that the earth orbits the sun. But the subsequent trial of Galileo over the issue had more to do with papal self-esteem than astronomy. And even in this case, the Catholic Church was siding with the scientific consensus of the time. Still, you can’t manufacture an eternal conflict from a single example, so proponents of the hypothesis have had to resort to a different strategy – inventing the evidence.

For example, in the book of Angels and Demons, Brown alleges that the Church had Copernicus murdered for his heliocentric model. While this is a more extreme allegation, there is a general belief that Copernicus feared persecution for his ideas. It’s widely thought that he refrained from publishing them until he was on his deathbed. In fact, he had circulated a pamphlet outlining his theory decades before he died. This was favourably received by senior churchmen and he was urged to publish by a cardinal. He even dedicated his great book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, to the Pope.

Alas, as long as the likes of Dan Brown sell far more books than historians of science, this is a myth that is unlikely to go away.

James Hannam’s book God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science is published by Icon. The best price we could find for it from a New Zealand bookseller, with free delivery, was through The Nile Online Bookstore at the above link. International readers can buy it through Amazon. As I have previously stated elsewhere, it would make a good Christmas gift…

RELATED POSTS:
The “Dark Ages” and Other Propaganda
More on the “Dark Ages” and Other Propaganda
Things They Don’t Teach you in Public Schools…
The Flat Earth Myth
Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth

Having a Beer… for the Glory of God!

What?… I did put it in the singular… “a beer,”… lest we also forget 1 Cor. 10:31, unless you are planning other excursions for the liquid refreshment?!

No, I don’t believe that this will be a candidate for the next issue in the Tui billboards dotting themselves over various parts of the Islands of NZ [for all you unfortunate individuals who are not so domiciled, these are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, culturally relevant statements, attached to the phrase "Yeah Right."].

… and No, I haven’t had one, let alone a few, quiet ones, before I sat my repository of blogging thoughts down before my little friend, the computer… I can talk to it for days and it will listen to every word, unlike some other people I know… Yes, I am referring to my fixer.

I am Jonny King is not a big fan of the amber ale as a drink of choice.  Maybe, it is an acquired taste, but surely such shows that I have probably not inculcated myself to such a reality.  Or, maybe, I need to pay for the privilege.  Therefore, whatever you think of my liquidity, I am not pushing my barrow in the pursuit of guilt-free cravings.

I, in fact, prefer something even darker… Now, there’s no need to be racial I am Jonny King, but what grabs me and torments my taste buds is not some sort of hedonistic home-brew!  Unfortunately, to burst the burgeoning bubble, I must affirm that Pepsi is my thirst quencher.  Yes, the sugary delights of caffeinated-to-carbonated Kool-aid… what more could a white boy want?

Nevertheless, the present fomenting could surely set the Tea-totallar straight to the pantry for another lump or three from the sugar refinery.  I realise that such a header could be bringing more heat than light to one’s present disposition, but let me invoke some authorial imagery and thump the pulpit, with the exclamation that I am indeed thinking in this pursuit… well, at least I think I am!

Let me digress a little and lead you along a little more, O naive follower, and let you listen a little, as you read out loud to all your workmates… slacker!

I am the son of an individual [no way, fancy that, such explains everything] who was a Pastor for the majority of my years [until recently] in the Salavation [no typo] Army, where drinking anything alcoholic was about as popular as a smacking parent at one of “surely we can now Sue” Bradfords greeny-get-togethers, where such would be cause to bring in the sliding scale to question one’s spirituality.

A woman in close relative proximity to Jonny King am I was so keenly committed to keeping her palate pure on one occasion many years back, when she found out that a cake she was presently enjoying had ingredients of the liquor variety, [although, as any old pro will tell you, such would have had its goose cooked... out], she responded to such information by disposing of the aforementioned contraband… perish the thought.  We have attempted to begin redemptive remedial action, by using such beverages in subsequent cook-offs.  I can confirm, she is making progress!

Therefore, the obscure point that I was covertly moving toward is this.

I understand the culture of abstinence, and I have no problem with an individuals personal pursuit, per see.  As a recovering Salvo [this is humour... giggle people], I am also aware of the damage that excessive and out of control amounts of “drink” can have on an individual, familial, and societal level, with such a reality, enough to cause the conscientious thinker to wonder if a certain coloured drink that goes through a given process is really worth the effort!

I am also aware that what I am trying to affirm can be misconstrued… after all, who would prostitute themselves to the point of postulating such prose… for the love of alliterated peas [it's that Green party again]!

However, I am wanting to do something quite novel in this area, do my best to think God’s thoughts after Him.  I know, in an area like this, it may seem to lead to an abolition of hope, but such a situation, “I object,” only affirms our religious condition, which is this… As each subsequent era of rabbinic school would subsequently build upon [e.g. Sophrim, Tana'im], the wanting-to-be-orthodox Jew who built a somewhat impressive fence [from a voluminous perspective] around the law of Moses, with the Oral Law [that they will claim was given by God to Moishe at Sinai], which in kind, we Christians have and are also presently doing a pretty good job ourselves in erecting our own fence around the law of Christ with the addition of various restrictions that don’t meet our cultural standards, with such a rambling reminiscent of such reality!

Maybe you are presuppositionally presupposing that drinking alcohol is fodder for the wrath of any number of authorial figures, but let me state what is generally accepted by many… the consumption of alcohol per see is not sinful… or should I say unbiblical… in the right and God-honouring quantities one should note.

In fact, while I like the good graces of grape juice [with the bubbles I will have you know], “red” preferably, which I do affirm tastes rather good on a good occasion, it does not seem to have the desired effect on gladdening the heart [Psalm 104:15], which makes sense as wine, if my fading memory serves me correctly, is a biblical symbol for “joy”… Smile Sinner!  [Hold the Phones, Stop the Pressing Sinner... I have just looked at my ESV Study Bible Notes {Every Bible Study must have the Study Bible contributor who is more than ready to share their notes} which says in connection with John 2:3 that an OT background that viewed wine {but never drunkenness} as a sign of joy and God's blessing {Psalm 104:15; Prov. 3:10; cf. Matt. 26:29}... so there you go].

When Jesus turned water into [John 2:1-12]… well, what did He turn it into?… Yes, the English text says wine, but who can trust scholars who are reading and interpreting the original languages, who have also committed themselves to this pursuit?  After all, everyone knows that it is the KJV that is the inspired version!  Such tomfoolery from I am Jonny King could lead one to perceive that I have an intoxication of the most absurd kind.

Nevertheless, there are those who will tell you that it was not wine, but grape juice… trust them. Inconveniently, there are two words in both the Hebrew and Greek that differentiate between the two.  Yes, I am also aware that such “wining” was probably more watered down, but when we are exhorted not to be drunk with… wine, but to be filled with the Spirit [Eph. 5:18], the presupposition should be clear for all to taste!… and when Timothy was encouraged to have a little wine for his stomach [1 Tim. 5:23], I am thinking it was a little more than “Just Juice!”

I am also aware that gluttony is a sin, and it is not phat to be… well, you get the burgeoning idea.  However, I am not thinking it spiritually prudent to abstain from calorising my interiors, and play make me a super model.

Such is often the case with much philosophic reflecting by Christians, as their thinking is often framed in the context of worst case scenarios where such individuals decide to get drunk with wine, instead of being filled with the Spirit [Eph. 5:18 again, which is clearly wrong].  However, such is no more reason to refrain from alcohol as an absolute rule, then it would be to refuse to eat food because individuals can not be “Spirit-filled” in such an area as filling their face, and there are too numerous examples in our culture… church, that is, where people are completing church growth in all the wrong areas… taking the body analogy totally out of context!

Such a situation also fails to integrate the Spirit’s job of maturing the child of God in all areas of life [Phil. 1:6], which means that such a reality gets circumvented when personal conviction gets substituted for legalism that is not a sign of maturity, but the very antithesis of it!

Lest I become a hoarse… Nay… I am not trying to be overtly flippant or culturally relevant at the expense of being biblically concise, in what I am thinking, or in what I will propose… but merely biblical in theory and so in practice, which is why, even though drinking alcoholic beverages is not biblically negated directly out of hand, there is the example of the weaker, more susceptible follower of Christ who might be lead down out of the Garden by the pathway of your decision, and if such could be the case, your love for the individual Christologically compels one to set aside our freedom in this pursuit for their Godly good [Romans 14:1-23], as love for God as exercised through your fellow follower Donald Trumps such freedoms.

Remember what they said about Jesus [Luke 7:34]… whom did He eat and drink with?  Yet, read verse Luke 7:35!  Now while one could claim that all that affirms is that Jesus spent time in those places in the mission, let me also say, as an side, Christians in removing themselves from the culture that Beer often represents, have also decided that such places are not a-ok for the believer, unless it is asking for cash for clunkers [now who could that be?]!

Let us spend a few more moments together, as what was formally was foundational to what will follow, as it is my conviction that the Christian exodus from the culture of “drink” is both harmful for our Gospel, and signals a detour for the message that we need to desperately communicate!

The situations where the culture of “drink” will impact on the believer are numerous, from work, to play [rugby], to the pub, our culture, and cultures worldwide, are “intoxicated” with its impact.

How do we Christians respond in such contexts and on such occasions?

More than likely, many of us will view such an as opportunity to return to our bunker and ride out the storm, which only affirms that we fail to follow the example of Christ, and fail to really think through our theory to practice.  Such does not mean that every opportunity that arises in such a context is wisdom from above for the believer, but it does affirm that on too numerous occasions we have not redeemed such an opportunity for the glory of God, by putting ourselves in the midst of the culture, showing how Christ makes a difference in that time and in that place.  We have, in effect, thrown our hands in the air and allowed a significant opportunity and cultural group to be devoid of a gospel witness, at a time when they may be most open to our forthcoming.

The result being that nowadays, Christians struggle to connect with a society that views alcohol as a significant part of relaxing and enjoying times of social and un-social activity.

Surely there is a better way!

Yes, there will be examples where such contexts are not appropriate because of age and/or maturity, but if such is not the case, how has one responded when the occasion has arisen?  After all, I am not suggesting you to become a Keg for Christ!

These are the places we need to be… a city on a hill, showing and affirming that such is only a drink to quench a thirst, not a culture to fit one’s life into, not a drug to control ones life, and like Jesus, we are sent!

Are we waiting for them to come?

Not only have we removed our witness from such contexts, in doing so, we have sent a confusing message of the Gospel to a world that is ignorant at the best of times! The general cultural perception is that Christians do not drink alcohol, and while I am not encouraging you the reader to do anything stupid in this area [as getting drunk is WRONG, and obeying the laws of the land is mandatory minor], I do believe that in removing ourselves from the culture that this past-time has in NZ, we have done damage to the witness of the Gospel that could be so potent in such contexts, and consequently, we have unintentionally put a fence around the Gospel that has sent a confusing message that salvation is about our works, not His work.

God, in Christ, has called us to be in the World, but not controlled by this world system.  In speaking out against excessive drinking [which is a good], I am wondering-thinking if we have unintentionally, by our practice [in removing ourselves, and so not speaking from the group with more credibility, which leads to understanding], encouraged the perception that drinking alcohol is one of the church-named “sins’ that one can not complete to be accepted into the group, thereby saying that those who practice such things are unacceptable, which means we have in-effect, presented to the public a confusing and inconsistent Gospel message [Read the words of Martyn Lloyd-Jones in this post].

Such can be illuminated by the following question, If there is not something wrong in such contexts [as a general rule], why is it so devoid of a Gospel witness?

Such a reality clouds the pure unadulterated Gospel message in an area where there is a good deal of freedom in Christ, according to the Words of the living God. The result is that Christians are perceived to be rules keeper, and while this is true from our perspective, as we are saved to good works, not by good works, the general Publican does not grasp such distinctions, and views Christians as those who don’t do this and don’t do that [which is true, but not as they perceive], instead of like-sinners saved by the love and grace of God, through the life, death, and resurrection of the Son of Man [I Cor. 15:3-4]… Now it is also true that many will not grasp such reality as the outworking of 1 Cor. 1:21 affirms, but this is no excuse for our adding to their ignorance.

I am becoming more convinced that we need to re-balance the scales on such a reality, and re-enter the domains of the drinker [not to ask for donations... trust me, they don't need it], showing to a lost world that Christians can drink [even if it will be Pepsi], responsibly and with full reality, as we really are the “lucky ones,” who have been given the cake and can eat it, in the power of the Holy Spirit, as we are a true HSV [Holy Spirit Vehicle] .

We are the ones, in the power of the Holy Spirit, who can speak to those, in their cultural context, on their terms, about the One whose love leading to joy lasts longer than a one night crawl, thereby removing the beer glasses from their vision, so that they see the Gospel for all that it is in its beauty, simplicity and grace that will truly radicalize ones existence.

Therefore, dear reader, think through what I am Jonny King is saying… Chew and Spit!… If such is not the biblical witness of the Spirit, through faith, you must act accordingly [Rom. 14:23].

However, for the love of the lost, I think it is at least time that we thought better how to connect with a culture that feels comfortable with a beer in hand, that feels free in the local, and that wants to have a quiet one in “their” quiet time, as we should be wanting to passionately pursue people to passionately pursue Christ.

If our past will be our future, we will have some “dry” days in our spiritual future in answering such a challenge!

If one is willing to follow Christ to the ends of the earth, around the corner is really not a world away that many in our churches perceive that it is!

It is time to engage!

Until Next Time

I am Jonny King (guest posting on MandM)