The Joy of Seeking Something Great

I was recently reading the second chapter of Matthew with my children when I was struck by the contrast between the Magi on the one hand and Herod and the people of Jerusalem on the other.

Consider the Magi, the aptly named “Wise Men”, for a second. They see a star and then they think: I bet that signifies the birth of a king! There is no proof of this—indeed, what type of proof could you have that a star signifies something like that? They don’t know who this king is or even where exactly he is; consider for a moment that they stop and ask for directions en route! And yet despite the lack of proof that they will find anything, they travel for months through harsh climate and hostile territory on the chance of meeting and worshiping this supposed king. They were men that pursued evidence, no matter where it led, and passionately sought after the thing that the evidence pointed to all in the hope of finding something greater than themselves. They sought the Truth, and as Christ promises, they found Him. When they found Him they worshiped him and rejoiced.

Contrast this with Herod and the people of Jerusalem. When the Magi tell them that a king has been born they are disturbed and even, according to some translations, afraid. Unlike the Magi who sacrificed vast quantities of wealth and traveled for months on the chance of meeting the newborn king, Herod and the people of Jerusalem would not travel a few hours to see this supposed king. (For Jerusalem and Bethlehem are very close, a ten minute cab ride today.) What is more, in his fear of this new king, in his fear that there might be someone or something greater than him, in his fear that he, Herod, might not be the center of his own life and that he might in fact be accountable to another, Herod unleashed violence against a number of innocent babies in an attempt to destroy the newborn king and secure his own power.

Two thousand years later we are in the same position as Herod and the Magi. There is evidence that a King has been born. Will we imitate the Wise Men and seek Him out? If we do, we too will be filled with joy when we find and worship Him. Or will we be filled with fear like Herod and the people of Jerusalem? Will our fear lead us to lash out as we try to protect our place as “king” of our own lives? These are the only two options open to us—we can worship and follow God or we can worship and serve ourselves.

As a father and head of a classical Christian school I encourage my sons and daughters and I encourage my students to seek and find Christ the King. I want them to see the evidence for His divinity, to dig into this evidence as they honesty seek the Truth, I want them to find Him and then worship and rejoice in Him! I pray that this Christmas season God gives grace to many to overcome fear and pride so that they may seek and find Him, the Goal of all seeking, the embodiment of all Truth, and the source of all Joy.

The False Doctrine of Rob Bell and the Remedy of a Grounded Tradition

C. S. Lewis once observed that a well-traveled man is unlikely to fall prey to the local superstitions of his village; in the same way a scholar, because he has “lived” in many ages, is not likely to fall for the folly and nonsense of his own age.

Every age has its own nonsense, but each age tends to have its own “brand” of nonsense. This is why it is absolutely essential to understand our Christian tradition. Without knowing our tradition it is impossible to know if an idea or doctrine is in keeping with orthodox Christianity or if it is a heretical innovation. Providing young men and women with a foundation in the Christian tradition may be the most valuable aspect of a classical Christian education. To illustrate the value of this I’ll discuss a new, popular book about the Bible.

I recently picked up a copy of Rob Bell’s most recent book What is the Bible? at the library. First a disclaimer: I did not read the whole book. That being said, I have read significant chunks of it (it is broken up like a series of Twitter threads, so it reads really fast).

Bell’s book takes an innovative approach to the Bible. When discussing the question of whether or not the Bible is inerrant, Bell writes the following. “Where did people get the idea that without error is the highest form of truth? Is the sunset without error? Is the love between you and the person you’re in love with without error? Is the best meal you’ve eaten without error? You don’t think about those experiences in those terms because that would rob those experiences of their depth and joy” (page 282, the italics and bold are in the original).

To begin with, these are very poor analogies! The Bible is not like a sunset! It repeatedly says things that are either true or false and if its promises are not true, we are fools to believe in them. “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.” That is a truth claim; it is not something we enjoy like a good meal. If it is true we had better submit to Christ and trust Him for our salvation; if it is false we had better find another way. “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” That is not analogous to being in love! That statement makes a truth claim: it is either true or false. If it is false my hope for salvation is in vain; if it is true then I can be confident and live in hope and joy.

When considering the question “Did Jesus Have to Die?” Bell answers “No. He didn’t. He was killed” (page 240). However, in the Gospels Jesus repeatedly stated that He had to die. After His resurrection both His Apostles and His Church came to share this understanding (c.f. Acts 3:18 and 4:28). On what reasonable basis can one believe, like Bell, that when Peter said “God was fulfilling what all the prophets had foretold about the Messiah—that he must suffer these things” Peter was simply sharing his perspective, but when, in the very same breath, Peter said “Now repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away” Peter was saying something that we can rely upon and that we should believe? How can anyone rationally divide the two and accept the latter claim, while rejecting the former? Peter’s understanding of salvation must be right or wrong—there is no rational or Biblical principle that allows us to divide it up and claim part is right and part is wrong. Furthermore, on what basis is Bell claiming that he is right that Jesus did not have to die and that Peter is wrong? And why on earth does he think we should not read the Bible in terms of truth and falsehood?

This is where it helps to be able to put together what Nietzsche (a very bad man, for what it is worth, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day) called “a genealogy of morals.” There are a ton of unspoken assumptions in Bell’s book. However, students like ours that have read a number of original sources will be able to see what sources Bell is drawing from. This in turn will allow them to better understand unstated and underdeveloped assumptions and premises.

For example, when discussing the crucifixion Bell states that it is “a story about humanity growing in maturity, leaving behind the idea that the divine needs blood. . . . The Bible is a reflection of a growing and expanding human consciousness” (page 245). In similar fashion, when discussing the conquest of the Promised Land Bell writes “when you read that God told them to kill everyone in the village, someone wrote that. That’s how someone understood that event. Don’t drag God into it. The Bible is a library of books reflecting how human beings have understood the divine. . . . What you’re reading is someone’s perspective that reflects the time and the place they lived in. It’s not God’s perspective—it’s theirs.” (page 295, italics and bold in the original.) Do you get that? According to Bell, the Bible is not God’s word about Himself and man, it is man’s word about God. This is not how orthodox Christians have seen the Bible. But if Bell’s is not an orthodox view of the Bible, where did it come from? 

A student familiar with the history of ideas will immediately say, “oh, that’s a mixture of Hegel and Natural Religion. Bell also has a lot of existentialism (c.f. chapter 40), with a pinch of post-modernism (c.f. chapter 37), all covered with a light glaze of New Ageism (c.f. pages 266-267). [I apologize that I only refer to these ideas, but this post will become far too long if I develop all of them.] This is nothing new! I’ve seen these ideas before, I’ve seen them articulated far more persuasively and effectively, and I’ve already worked my way through many of them. Bell believes the Bible is a collection of books written by people who put words and ideas into God’s mouth that He never said; if this was true, I wouldn’t trust these people to give me directions to Kwik Trip, let alone to instruct me in God’s plan for salvation. Ultimately Bell believes that the Bible is man’s Tower of Babel—it is our creation, something that we have constructed in our attempt to reach God (c.f. pages 304-305). I’ve read enough to know how that works out!” 

Specialists trained to spot counterfeit bills don’t spend their time looking at every type of false bill. Instead, they look at authentic bills over and over and over and over and over again. Because they know the truth they are able to spot the false. In the same way, a student, like our students, that has read Athanasius, Augustine, Bede, Benedict, Boethius, Dante, Luther, Lewis, and many more great authors has seen the truth articulated over and over again—in many ways, in many genres, and in many ages. Our students have a knowledge of the Christian tradition and because of this knowledge they can recognize whether or not someone is within that tradition. Knowing the Christian tradition they will recognize that Bell does not read the Bible as Christians historically have (he does not even read the Old Testament the way the New Testament authors do). This isn’t to say that the tradition is automatically right and Bell is automatically wrong, but instead of directly engaging the tradition and showing why he is right where Aquinas, Edwards, Irenaeus, Origen and countless others have been wrong, Bell time and time again side steps difficult questions by saying he “isn’t interested in those types of things” or that he is after “higher truths.” A student trained in logic will not find that compelling in the least! Finally, knowing the Bible, when they read passages wherein Bell does things like doubt the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus (page 185) our students will rightly see Bell for who he is: a false teacher. That is what a classical Christian education provides and this education is sorely needed.

History, Archaeology, and Biblical Reliability

"Because of the temporary nature of their buildings and towns, no major archaeological trace of the Hunnish empire has been found." -Jesse L. Byock

I recently read the Penguin edition of the Saga of the Volsungs. In the introduction I was surprised to read the above quote. The Huns controlled a tremendous amount of territory. Their domains began east of the Volga and ran as far west as the borders of modern-day France while encompassing all the land between the Baltic and Black seas. What is more, the Huns wreaked havoc far beyond their borders. They ruled in a period that is firmly historical (the 5^th century AD), a period of which we have fairly extensive records. And yet there is no major archaeological trace of their empire. Despite this lack of evidence, no serious scholar doubts their existence.

Now consider for a moment the case of the Exodus. There are a number of scholars, like my old Biblical Studies professor, that argue that the Exodus is complete fiction. One of the main arguments he and others deploy against it is that despite the fact that the Hebrews wandered in the Sinai desert for forty years, there has been no archaeological evidence found of their presence there. (Note: we don’t have any evidence for the Hunnish Empire and yet we expect to find evidence of a wandering, nomadic people? What on earth does anyone think they would leave behind that we could reasonably expect to find?)

Consider the two cases for a moment: there is no archaeology evidence for either and yet the Hunnish Empire is universally accepted and the Exodus is largely doubted. This begs the question: how do we know about either? We know about both because they were recorded; we learn about both through historical study. Why is one accepted while the other is often doubted? That is a question I don’t know enough to fully answer, but I reckon that it has something to do with the fact that we have one source for the Exodus and multiple sources for the Huns; it also undoubtedly has something to do with the propensity of man in his sinful condition to doubt the word of God.

Instead of trying to answer this specific question I think it is better to step back and ask the broader question: why do we accept some historical accounts and reject others? The short answer is that if we think an author is honest and informed we accept his account; if we think he is dishonest (i.e. biased or self-interested) or ignorant (i.e. he wasn’t an eyewitness, he only saw part of an event, or he lacked access to specific information) then we reject his historical claims.

Many parts of the Bible give historical accounts. By that I mean that many sections like Exodus and Nehemiah and Acts claim to give factual accounts of certain periods and people (other sections, like the Psalms or the Epistles make historical references, but their main purpose is to communicate truth poetically or indicatively, respectively). As historical accounts we should examine the reliability of the authors: if the authors are reliable they should be accepted and believed; if the authors are unreliable they should be rejected. But to reject a historical claim because of a lack of archaeological evidence is preposterous! That is not how either archaeology or history operates—they ask different questions and use different methods to answer them.

Let me give one more, related, example. I have a study Bible written from a theologically liberal perspective. It argues that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles because the Gospels portray the Pharisees as the main opponents of Jesus when the Pharisees only rose to prominence after the destruction of the temple at the end of the first century. These “scholars” argue that since the Pharisees were the main opponents of the (unknown) authors of the Gospels these Gospel authors anachronistically made the Pharisees the opponents of Jesus to legitimize their own position against them. This is a specious claim for a couple of reasons.

First, just because the Pharisees were not dominant or prominent until later in the century does not mean they did not exist at the time of Jesus (they did and no one doubts this). They could have been Jesus’s opponents even if they were more of a minor sect and it is illogical to conclude they weren’t His opponents simply because they came to greater influence later.

Second, on what basis do these scholars think the Pharisees came to prominence later? Archaeology is silent—we can’t dig up pottery shards and figure out which ones were used by Pharisees and compare them with the ones that were used by Sadducees. No, this is a historical question. How many historical sources do we have from first century Israel? Not a whole lot!

Again we are left with a question of history and questions of history are solved by determining the reliability of the author. Questions of history must be answered historically. Can we prove the Exodus happened or that the Pharisees were outspoken opponents of Jesus? Not scientifically or mathematically, but these are not questions of science or math! To apply non-historical criteria (like archaeology) to (most) historical questions is like asking for scientific proof that I like ice-cream. You can’t “prove” it, but it is obviously true that I like ice-cream! In fact, there is a lot that we know that we cannot scientifically prove (e.g. Beijing is the capital of China, Augustus was a Roman emperor, my parents love me, etc.). To reduce all knowledge to what can be proved scientifically, which is what people are doing when they look to archaeology to validate history, is to destroy most of what we know. Instead, we judge the reliability of our knowledge based on its type: we answer historical questions historically, subjective questions subjectively and so on. 

Questions like the actuality of the Exodus are questions of history, and though I don’t have time to go into this further, I firmly believe the evidence clearly points towards the reliability and truth of the Biblical account.