To the Thousands on the Fence

Richard Dawkins is still at it, currently absent from teaching at Oxford and on a world tour presenting an apologetic for Darwinism. This morning he was on WFAE's Charlotte Talks with Mike Collins promoting his new book The Greatest Show on Earth, an explanation of Darwinian evolution that promotes it as scientific fact and addresses some of its criticisms. During the interview, Collins mentioned that there are creationists who will never change their minds and evolutionists who will never change their minds, and then asked Dawkins who the intended audience of his new book is. After making some baseless and degrading remarks about creationists, Dawkins answered that his book is for the "thousands on the fence." I do not pretend that theses thousands read this blog. It has not been updated in more than a year. I guess I'm keeping it with the hopes that it might one day serve a purpose, about the time I finish school and get back to a relatively normal life. Still, whether one of the thousands happens to read this or if it only lasts to serve as a reminder of what I hope to develop later on, I would like to add some advice to the "thousands on the fence".

I have taken and tutored a logic course, and have had enough philosophy as a philosophy major to know that an argument against a person is not an argument against his or her claims. But before anyone considers listening exclusively to Mr. Dawkins, I would like to point out Mr. Dawkins' reluctance to follow his own prescription of critical thought. During the interview I heard this morning, Dawkins labeled religious rearing of children as a "form of child abuse". He claimed that children should have the opportunity to learn of the marvelous and beautiful fact of the evolutionary process that accounts for our very existence instead of being "brain washed" by "idiots" spreading the myths of "dogmatic scripture". Dawkins further asserts that all evidence points in the direction of the evolutionary account of existence and that there is no serious evidence for creationism. A lot of generalizations were used liberally by Dawkins, and he well illustrated his apparent ignorance of creationist beliefs, leading me to wonder if he has considered the evidence that refutes his claims.

Each November, Southern Evangelical Seminary hosts the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in Charlotte. Last year the conference ended with a debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza on the existence of God, and this year D'Souza will be debating the topic with "new atheist" Christopher Hitchens. Interestingly, debate organizers from SES tried to arrange a debate between William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins, an invitation to which I am told Dawkins responded by saying he didn't know who Mr. Craig was and that he was not willing to travel to some "hick town" to debate a bunch of "flat-earthers". Yet, Mr. Dawkins apparently has no trouble traveling to said "hick town" to promote his own views without confrontation. So much for critical thought, which entails viewing all sides of an argument. If Dawkins were a religious leader, he would be slandered as a hypocrite. Not a delightful title for an Oxford biologist.

So, to the thousands: I more than admit that this is not by any means a refutation of Darwinism, nor do I intend it to be. It's not even a developed argument against Dawkins' views, but simply an accusation that Dawkins is encouraging the very thing he rails against - non-critical thought. If you are inclined to read Dawkins' book, read it. I would if I had the time. Just don't accept it as the truth until you have considered its refutations. I know, Dawkins claims to have handled evolution's critics in his book, but I highly doubt he has considered anything of much significance. Else he would likely know who Mr. Craig is. William Dembski and Michael Behe have fully developed arguments likely ignored by Dawkins, and within a relatively short period of time there will be full critiques of Dawkins' new book. Like a jury in a court case, consider the best of both arguments. Brain washed is a terrible state, but especially so if one is brain washed with error.

DetermiCalvinism

The first topic I began studying in philosophy is the debate between what is commonly known as determinism versus free will. For some reason, I have been fascinated with this issue, perhaps because it has so infiltrated Christianity as well. It seems a belief system based on an all-loving God so involved in the redemptive work of His beloved creation would necessarily require a libertarian point of view, but determinism is widespread in Christianity under the guise of Calvinism. Some of my favorite people to listen to label themselves as Calvinists, including Steve Brown and Greg Koukl, and these and many others are more than willing to not only defend their position, but also explain why they are not determinists as I have said Calvinists are. While I admit I have not done extensive study on the topic by way of reading various books and essays, I have listened intently to Greg Koukl’s defense of Calvinism against the labeling of it as determinism, and his explanation of what Calvinism is confirmed my understanding. With his explanation I still take issue, not to claim that Calvinism is clearly false, but rather that it is in deed determinism.

In a recent podcast, Koukl began by explaining that Calvinism is based on the idea that choices are free at two levels. The first of these levels is the obvious, that actions may be considered freely chosen if the individual both chose the action and could have chosen otherwise. For example, as I write this, I am sipping a frozen mocha, though I could have ordered a latte. By an act of my own free will, I not only chose the frozen mocha, but I did so when I could have freely chosen a latte instead (or both!). The other level of choice is the level at which an action is also chosen by the person, but chosen in accord with that person’s nature, even though that person’s nature does not allow him or her to do otherwise. Koukl relates this to the expression “bound and determined” often used in our culture. It is a matter of saying that, though the person chose an action, there was no other choice for the person to make because of the state of his will. The action is still free because the one acting chose, though he chose in accord with his will and was determined to make that choice and not another.

Considering these two different levels of choice, Calvinism further recognizes that humankind is in a fallen state; the will of each person, by nature of the fall, is set against God. The choice of men and women to rebel against God overall, then, though it is a choice, is a choice on the second of the two levels described above. We cannot of our own accord choose to turn toward God because our wills are set against Him. We choose to rebel consistent with our nature. In response, God, by an act of his own grace, chooses to change the wills of those whom He “elects” so that those individuals can make the choice to turn to God in defiance of their fallen natures. The wills of others, however, God does not choose (“elect”) to change, and they remain in their fallen state, having chosen by their natural wills to reject Him. Thus, Koukl demonstrates that Calvinism is not determinism.

While I can think of ways in which this would be possible without being inconsistent with what I believe the Bible teaches about God’s nature and mankind’s choice, I want to stick with the topic of whether Calvinism is or is not determinism. Perhaps I will write about other issues on this matter at a later time. Determinism, according to the determinist philosopher Robert Blatchford, holds that all events or actions are caused by either heredity (nature) or environment (nurture). If the Calvinist maintains that humans are set against God and choose against Him by virtue of their natural wills, as Koukl explains, then humans are caused by their natures to rebel. Contrary to Koukl’s illustration of the expression “bound and determined”, which implies that a person has chosen of his own accord to set his own will in a certain direction, the fallen state of mankind is not chosen by each individual, but is passed on to all of mankind because of the choice of the first man Adam. The fallen state is passed on from generation to generation. Thus, by way of heredity, Calvinism is determinism.

Church and State: Institutions and Individuals

The principle of separation of church and state has been one of the most passionately debated issues of recent times, finding relevance in a number of other arguments such as those regarding abortion and gay rights. On one side of the argument are strict separationists who claim that the establishment clause found in the First Amendment of the Constitution provides an absolute dichotomy between religion and government, allowing neither to influence the other. From this perspective, government must not only protect freedom of religion, but must also be protected by freedom from religion, thereby ensuring a truly secular state. On the other hand, anti-separationists argue that freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. America’s historical record is truly saturated with appeals to the Almighty and references by the founders of the nation to certain basic religious beliefs. Stuck in between the two is a position of political passivity held by a number of people with religious beliefs who are afraid they will act inappropriately or even unconstitutionally if they let their religious convictions have any bearing on their political voices. These political passivists remain as neutral as possible in public matters, believing their energies would be better vested in a single, spiritual focus, leaving politics to the politicians and others so inclined. While the Constitution and other early American writings contain certain separation language to be sure, the intended and proper separation is for the purpose of protecting the integrity of each institution, simultaneously allowing every individual freedom to choose his or her own religious beliefs and participate accordingly, both privately and publicly.

The disagreements stem from the seeming vagueness of the Constitutional amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The interpretation of this has great implications for how religion affects government and how government affects religion. Government leaders are in a particularly difficult predicament, as they are somewhat responsible for how the Constitution is interpreted, yet have the simultaneous responsibility of representing the constituents who elected them. After all, American government is a republic, that is, a rule by representatives of the people. As the people disagree over the application of what has become known as the establishment clause, elected officials almost inevitably find themselves misrepresenting their constituents to some degree regardless of their own interpretations. As for the voters themselves, the interpretation of separation may influence if, how, and to what extent their political beliefs may be expressed if those beliefs have any indication of being derived from religious considerations. If the non-establishment clause is taken to mean that government must be entirely free from religious concerns, voters who hold religious convictions may be relegated to either dissociating their beliefs from the public square or not participating at all. Of course, religious organizations are in essence limited in their potential effectiveness if their “life-changing” brand of faith is not allowed to influence one’s political views, and such a case could lend itself to oppression of religion, which is also in clear contradiction of Constitutional prescription. At the same time, anti-religious organizations and certain secular establishments want to free public polity from religious influence all together in order to preserve the respected plurality of American government. Accordingly, those who are affiliated with this perspective may maintain a biased concentration on the non-establishment portion of the clause, giving unfair lack of consideration to the free exercise portion. In any case, American citizens want to preserve the proverbial “wall of separation” and cringe every time an event occurs too near in proximity.

Most recently, Reverend Jeremiah Wright caused a great deal of controversy to intensify around a church member of his who happened to be a strong Democratic Presidential candidate. By comparing Barak Obama to Jesus Christ and claiming from his church pulpit that the underprivileged, single-parent raised, African-American Obama faced a disadvantage in the presence of the rich and white Hillary Clinton, many believed Reverend White blatantly leaped the sacred wall between church and state, perhaps all but equating voting for Obama with spiritual salvation. Some years before, the soon-to-be President George W. Bush added fuel to his already controversial candidacy by responding to a public questioner that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher. Jesus had changed his life, Bush claimed, giving his rejecters what they saw as justification for their attempted discrediting of him. His faith was going to affect his political philosophy, which was an unquestionable infringement of the separation principle. On the state level, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue gained some publicity after he called for and followed through with a public prayer at the state capitol building during his state’s significant drought in 2007. In the midst of protestors, Governor Perdue gathered with other Christians and called on God for relief from the persistent lack of rain. Of course, the separation issue goes beyond the political big houses and seems to find a persistent venue within the public school systems. Recently Robert Escamilla of Enloe High School in North Carolina was heavily reprimanded and reassigned to another school after having a formerly persecuted Christian speak to Escamilla’s religion class. The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union felt that Escamilla had joined with his guest speaker to proselytize students into an anti-Islamic sentiment. In spite of the controversy surrounding the nature and facts of the incident, those in positions presiding over the situation agreed that the Constitutional clause had been breached and action was taken accordingly. These and many more circumstances and events continue to amplify the controversy of church and state separation, and the need for a consensus on its meaning and application.

First of all, it should be noted that, however it is interpreted, the restricting portion of the establishment clause unarguably refers to institutions of government and religion, not individuals (Colson 135). Individuals are mentioned secondarily, in that they may exercise their religious beliefs free of government interruption or coercion. The same is true of Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists organization, which gave rise to the currently referred to “wall of separation.” Since the primary brand of religion in the church and state separation debate is most commonly Christian belief – a point Ed Doerr seems to have overlooked in his argument for freedom from religion as he briefly described early American settlers developing separate Christian communities as Baptists, Anglicans, Catholics, and so forth – it is within reason to consider the responsibilities of the two institutions from that perspective (Doerr). As Gregory Koukl points out, Christianity is also the religious perspective that influenced the founders of America (“America’s”). From this biblical perspective, it is the duty of the church to reflect the general will of God for people, and the duty of government to provide a safe society for its people (Colson 100). This Christian perspective of the church could be applied to all religious institutions with some variance in its articulation, since the most commonly shared belief among religions of all types is the need to share their particular ideals that are relevant to people for the fulfillment of their lives. Conversely, the purpose of American government from the beginning, as stated in the Constitution, is to provide for the general welfare of its citizens. Immediately, we can clearly see that these institutions are purposed toward different goals. The church’s purpose is to proclaim and help make possible the fulfillment of God’s will for each individual; government’s purpose is to provide a relatively safe environment conducive to each individual’s quest for personal fulfillment. In fact, it could even be said that American government was designed in such a way as to allow those who were inclined to lead religious institutions complete freedom to do so as they felt directed by their God. As Koukl notes, all of the restriction language of the establishment clause seems directed toward government (“Political”). Even separationists will agree that the Constitution prevents the two institutions from imposing themselves upon one another; however it is important that we note the wall stops there, restricting the institutions alone. The institutions of church and state must remain focused on their respective purposes, each leaving the other to its own business.

This distinguishing between individuals and institutions helps us to understand the role of individual convictions that must be allowed in matters of legislation and public debate. When the argument is made that separation of church and state prevents religious beliefs from playing any part in public discourse and governmental decisions, the argument defeats itself, as legislation is inherently a moral matter. In fact, without morality, there can be no real legislation (Bauman). It must first be admitted that religious beliefs always lead to moral beliefs, even though moral beliefs are not always spawned by religious beliefs. While morality can sometimes be wrought without a religious foundation, religious foundations always lead to morality. In any case, regardless of whether a particular moral is rooted in religion, morals are always the basis for legislation. This is necessarily true because laws always demonstrate a judgment of value. Murder is illegal because human life is more valuable than the object of one’s envy. Racial discrimination is illegal because all people are intrinsically valuable based on the very fact of their human existence regardless of their race. Conversely, people resist laws only when those laws conflict with their particular values. Feminists will argue for women’s rights because they appreciate the value of equality regardless of gender, but on the other hand, argue against pro-life legislation because they value women’s rights above the rights of an unborn child. Those who argue against the death penalty do so because their moral opinions claim such punishment is immoral. If morality cannot be allowed consideration in public matters, laws cannot be formed and society cannot be structured (Bauman). Government must have moral values, and moral values can always be articulated from religious beliefs. Since America desires safety from criminal chaos, and is a republic representative of the people, the people’s moral convictions, whether religious in conception or not, must be allowed a voice, which is to say religion must be allowed influence in government.

At this point, it should be noted that there often appears a difference between the ways separation should be applied as argued by the separationists and anti-separationists. Much of the time, separationists claim not to seek an abolishment of religion, but a prevention of government supporting religion in any way. Anti-separationists often feel the separationists’ arguments are infringing, or are dangerously close to infringing, upon the guaranteed right to free exercise of religion. While separationists’ arguments may often appear differently targeted in this respect, their arguments may be more discriminatory than noble. A point of recent conflict of this nature can be identified in former Missouri Senator John Ashcroft’s charitable choice and President Bush’s faith-based initiative. The first of the two acts, Ashcroft’s charitable choice, was a provision of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which allowed religious organizations to apply for and receive federal funds for treating those with drug addictions and helping those on government welfare find work, all without requiring the organization to develop a separate secular sub-organization. In an extending measure, President Bush’s faith-based initiative further allowed religious groups to participate in programs such as mentoring the children of prisoners, preventing youth delinquency, and offering housing for teenage mothers (Glazer). Upon hearing such proposals, separationists irately proclaimed a breech of the separating wall, claiming tax dollars should not be spent on religious proselytizing efforts (Gey). It must be considered, however, whether this is a legitimate complaint. Even laying aside the fact that allowing religious groups to participate would expand the possibility for relief distribution, is it fair to argue against such a use of funds because it conflicts with the wills of a relatively small number of citizens, when, indeed, the same monetary source is used for a number of other questionable expenditures? What a clear example of the previously made point that legislation is both supported and rejected based on moral values. In this argument, separationists disagree with the use of tax funds for charity only if religious charities are included. How many pro-life citizens disagree with the use of tax money to pay for elective abortions through government-provided medical care? How many pacifists disagree with the use of their tax dollars to support military provisions? How many citizens would rather their tax dollars not pay the salaries of politicians they voted against? Out of sheer consistency, those who argue such a line against inclusion of religious organizations in charitable relief funding must argue the same line in every area in which they disagree with the use of tax money. Surely we could all find at least one disagreeable appropriation of a significant portion of our earned incomes.

Perhaps just as clearly, it further appears that to not include religious organizations in distribution of federal relief funding would be to violate anti-discrimination laws. In a society that frowns so heavily upon any organization that discriminates on the basis of gender, race, or religion, it seems odd that government is required to do just that. Can any strict separationist offer a non-religious reason in opposition to charitable choice or faith-based initiatives? If religious organizations are not allowed such participation because they are religious, they are being discriminated against based on religion. If the concern is that those organizations would be dishonest in their uses of the money, using it to pay for new buildings or uniforms for their softball teams, for example, then government may prohibit their funding for reasons of misappropriation. Otherwise it is religious discrimination and nothing less. The Constitutional amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is a matter of refusing to give one brand of religion legal advantage over another or indiscriminate legislative power, which is a far cry from discriminating against religious organizations because they are religious. Furthermore, the Constitutional duty of Congress is to provide for the common good of the people. We should not demand that Congress limit the reaches of this provision by casting aside some organizations based on their religious orientations.

In all fairness, there is some question as to the most precise meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Does this mean that Congress will not make a law that will lend itself to establishing a religion, or does it mean that Congress will not make a law that gives any religion what it wants? Based on the religion-friendly perspectives of the participants of the Constitutional Convention and other evidence from various historical records, the former interpretation appears most practical. All of the restricting language is clearly applicable to the separate institutions, and the separation of the institutions is necessary to provide an environment in which each has opportunity to carry out its respective duties. When government tries to control a religious institution, or when religion tries to perform the duties of the state, oppression is incubated and some of the greatest evils against mankind are brought to fruition, as the historical record shows. While disastrous events such as the Inquisitions and Crusades are often remembered as examples of religion being given governmental status, overcompensation in avoiding potential repetition of such atrocities lends itself to a governmental oppression of religion, devastating the personal freedom so foundational to the Declaration of Independence. Religion cannot be eliminated from the public square altogether without unfounded discrimination, and moral-free legislation is purely mythical. Religion always leads to morality, which is the basis of value, and value is the basis of every law. If nothing else, religion, generally speaking, values people and because of that value does much to help the common people, which is the Constitutional goal of the American government. Separation of church and state must be applied to prevent one from encroaching upon the proper operations of the other, allowing both to fulfill their respective responsibilities, and nothing more. Casting religion from the public, political square is impossible and, if it were possible, impractical. Only when we realize this concept will every voice be allowed its proper hearing at the table of debate in a government truly representative of the people, created by the people, for the people.

Works Cited:

Bauman, Michael. “Dispelling False Notions of the First Amendment: The Falsity, Futility, and Folly of Separating Morality from Law.” Christian Research Journal 21.3 (1999). 23 April 2008. .

Colson, Charles. God and Government: An Insider’s View on the Boundaries Between Faith and Politics. Michigan: Zondervan, 2007.

Doerr, Edd. “Church and State: Freedom of Religion, Freedom from Religion.” The Humanist May / June 1993: 31-33. SIRS Researcher. SIRS. Gaston College Libraries, Dallas, NC. 1 April 2008. < http://sks.sirs.com>.

Gey, Steven G. “Charitable Choice: Would Jesus Have Accepted Federal Funding?” Liberty: Magazine of Religious Freedom Jan. / Feb. 2001: 16-21. SIRS Researcher. SIRS. Gaston College Libraries, Dallas, NC. 1 April 2008. <http://sks.sirs.com>.

Glazer, Sarah. “Faith-Based Initiatives: Is U.S. Funding of Religious Groups Constitutional?” CQ Researcher 11.17 (2001): 377-400. CQ Researcher Onlilne. CQ Press. Gaston College Libraries, Dallas, NC. 23 April 2008. <http://library.cqpress.com>.

Koukl, Gregory. “America’s Unchristian Beginnings?” Stand to Reason 2007. 28 March 2008. <http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5097>.

- - -. “Political Passivity – Vice or Christian Virtue?” Townhall.com 30 April 2007. 1 April 2008. <http://www.townhall.com/ columnists/GregoryKoukl/ 2007/04/30/ political_passivity%e2%80%94vice_or_christian_virtue?page=full&comments=true>.

Presented to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, April 28, 2008.

Marriage as Glaser Sees It

In matters of morality, one of the most hotly debated issues concerns homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage in particular. Recent political action has addressed the question of whether homosexual unions should be given marital status, and, because of its historical stance on the subject, the Christian Church has found itself at the center of the argument even outside of the religious realm. Of course, the Church’s position has not only been attacked from without, but also within, as many homosexuals have battled for their rights to church membership, ministry, and leadership. One such person holding church membership and simultaneously engaged in a homosexual relationship is Chris Glaser, who attempted to defend his approval of same-sex marriage in an essay entitled “Marriage as We See It.” Throughout the essay, Glaser relates his own experiences as a called minister in his Presbyterian church and as a homosexual in a committed relationship, as well as his interpretation of biblical teachings and Western culture to encourage a reinterpretation of marriage that includes recognition of committed same-sex relationships.

Glaser begins his argument by claiming that American culture is adverse to same-sex marriage because it provides a convenient scapegoat for the disintegration of traditional family function, given the circular reasoning for ostracizing members of the gay community. Early on, gay relations were opposed by the claim that they could not be enduring relationships or conducive for raising children. Once experience showed this to be unfounded, the argument became homosexual relations were unacceptable because those involved were unashamed in announcing their lifestyle. Also, the previous argument that gays were “selfish” and “irresponsible” has been disproved by their willingness to serve others, so the antagonists now attack gays because they want to serve. Turning to the realm of religion, Glaser relates his experience being involved in his denomination’s study of homosexuality. During his time of involvement, he realized that, while the group as a whole was willing to discuss whether ordination should be extended to homosexuals, the question of homosexual marriage was taboo. Similarly, a denominational committee some years later prescribed what it considered an acceptable ethic of sexual relations equally applicable to both heterosexual and homosexual unions, a presentation which caused irate reactions because of the very notion that homosexual relations could include any measure of good. To many, the report’s allusion to subjugation of women, marital rape, incest, and adultery within heterosexual relationships was not able to justify redefining marriage to include anything other than what was traditionally acceptable. Glaser further argues that the Bible accepts practices such as extramarital relationships, which are also considered inappropriate in Western culture, and suggests that Jesus is really the one who redefined marriage since he redefined family based on spiritual relations rather than physical. According to Glaser, Jesus’ teachings emphasized faithfulness rather than gender in relationships, and Western culture originally emphasized the economics of marriage rather than the intimacy. Glaser concludes with an emotional appeal by telling of another gay couple who did not ceremonially vow themselves to one another in the presence of their church family. When one of the men was killed in an automobile accident, the other did not receive the extent of support from his church family he might have received had the church been aware of the couple’s commitment. For all of these reasons, Glaser states that gay couples are entitled to the same benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples, and same-sex unions should be recognized and offered marital status.

Prior to reading Glaser’s essay, I was opposed to homosexual relationships, and after reading Glaser’s essay, I am still opposed to homosexual relationships and remain unconvinced that marital status should be granted to same-sex unions. I am willing to consider any argument to the contrary, but Glaser’s essay is ineffective as his supporting evidence is not well reasoned. His claims that homosexuals are being blamed for the dysfunction of traditional families and that reasoning for denouncing gay marriage is circular are beside the point. These may or may not be true observations in some cases, but they do not support the promotion of redefining marriage. Glaser’s appeal to religion is not very substantial, either. He reasons that gay marriage should be a discussable issue because, at least within his denomination, ordination of homosexuals is discussable. However, if he refers to a religious institution, he should consider that institution’s text. The Bible, including New Testament passages such as Romans 1:24-27, indicates quite clearly that God does not approve of homosexual behavior, meaning neither the marriage nor the ordination of someone living a homosexual lifestyle should be acceptable in any case. Glaser is also deficient in offering problems that do occur in marriage as grounds for accepting homosexual marriage. Failures within a marriage do no constitute redefining marriage any more than a sports team’s losing record constitutes redefining that sport.

One of the greatest errors in Glaser’s argument, however, is his misrepresentation of both the biblical and social understandings of marriage. In claiming that the Bible supports extramarital and non-marital practices such as polygamy, “concubinage,” and sexual relations with the wife of one’s deceased brother, Glaser grossly neglects the fact that the Bible nowhere endorses such practices in any way. It should first be noted that there is quite a difference between reporting customs as they are and actually approving of them. Furthermore, a thorough reading of the Bible reveals that God clearly defined his planned design for marriage between one man and one woman committed to each other for life, he warned against deviant practices, and disobedience often resulted in tragedy. In the matter of Jesus’ teachings, for Glaser to claim that Jesus was more concerned with fidelity than gender in relationships is to put words in Jesus’ mouth that he never spoke. Likewise, the idea that Jesus meant for the human concept of family to be entirely replaced by Christian brotherhood is to stretch an easily understood metaphor into a mystical view that denies the sanctity of the physical all together. From a biblical perspective, God instituted the concept of family from the beginning and it is sacred even in its physical sense. I also take issue with Glaser’s claim that Western culture originally viewed marriage from an economical point of view. Just because certain benefits of marriage were recognized, it does not necessarily follow that the intimate purpose of marriage was ignored. Glaser’s concluding point that the man who lost his loved one was not comforted as much as he would have been had his relationship been considered equal to marriage is touching, but unsupportive of his claim. While it is saddening any time a human being experiences loss (and homosexuals are certainly capable of loving one another), “what might have been” is purely speculative and matters of morality must be decided upon fact rather than emotion.

Homosexuality is a difficult topic because love is a difficult, yet wonderful part of human existence that we cannot very well do without. When emotions are considered and evidence of genetic homosexuality is being discussed, the issue becomes especially complicated, and many people do not consider the Bible a valid authority on the matter. Of course, if a religious text is not revered as authoritative in a particular instance, its words will be meaningless to the ones involved in the discussion. In this case, however, Chris Glaser is a member of a Christian church and references the Bible himself. Unfortunately, Glaser’s interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, as he apparently ignores many of the passages that relate specifically to the issue of his interest. His argument as a whole is founded on empty and unsupportive evidence and is unconvincing apart from emotional appeal. I do not dispute in any way the notion that homosexuals are capable of love and commitment to one another to some extent, but I do dispute the strength of the evidence Glaser presents. If he wishes to be convincing in his argument, he is going to have to offer some support that substantiates his claim on a factual and authoritative level.

Submitted to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, March 3, 2008.

Immigration's Silent Victim

Recently the Charlotte Observer investigated a poultry processing plant based in South Carolina to observe the employee makeup and the risks they were subject to. Throughout the course of the investigation, reporters unsurprisingly noticed that many of the workers were Hispanic. What did appall them, however, was the physical toll the job was taking on the bodies of many of these workers, and how management of the plant appeared to be exploiting the immigration status of the workers, thereby keeping company overhead minimized. One of the personal stories reported by the newspaper told of the difficulties of Karina Zorita, who entered the United States illegally and obtained a job at the plant’s branch in Eastern North Carolina. After about six months at her job, Karina could no longer bear the burning pain in her fingers that resulted from the repetitive motions her job demanded. She had been to see the company nurse, who sent her back to work, and even after she had visited a doctor not employed by her company, Karina’s supervisor denied the lighter duty the doctor prescribed. The pain worsened, causing her to take three weeks off work. When she returned, she was told she was no longer employed; she had missed too much time, regardless of the fact that two of the three weeks she missed were paid. Unemployed, she still is unable to straighten her fingers, cannot grasp even a cup of water, and may lose hand function altogether. She is young, has small children, and hands that “don’t work anymore.” There are many stories similar to Karina’s, and while there are a number of legitimate concerns resulting from seemingly uncontrolled immigration into the United States, an often overlooked and alarming problem is the exposure of the disintegrating state of American employer ethics. Immigration regulation must be reformed, if for no other reason, to help prevent the development of a new subclass of poorly treated human beings.

As in Karina’s case, many Hispanic immigrants send a large portion of their American wages home to their families. Karina was sending $150 dollars per week to her mother, who was caring for Karina’s children. What makes this so astounding is that these workers are employed in low paying jobs, making hourly wages many Americans would never consider. Employers generally pay less money for jobs that require fewer qualifications, jobs that primarily rely on physical labor and a willingness to work. Education often figures heavily into the qualification equation, and because of their education status, many Hispanic immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, have few employment options outside of those that require physical labor and offer lower pay. They do not often complain about receiving what Americans would consider minimal pay because the pay is still usually greater than it would be in their own countries. Employers are able to take advantage of immigrants’ willingness to work for less money and reduce their own overhead. In fact, due to cultural differences, employers may even feel that they not only save money in payroll, but also get greater production from immigrant labor than they would from Americans who seem to have grown into a culture always demanding more for less. Many employers are more than willing to hire immigrants, even if they are in the United States illegally, in order to keep productivity high and overhead expenses low.

Unfortunately, however, these physical jobs are known to be rather demanding on the body. We may consider, for example, many of the jobs in a poultry plant. In processes of removing bones, shearing, and cutting various poultry parts, employees may make the same repetitive motions some 20,000 times each shift, according to the Charlotte Observer’s report. Recently, Duke University released a study in which 43% of the 300 poultry workers interviewed reported symptoms of musculoskeletal disorders. While these problems may be treated much of the time, they must first be diagnosed. However, the Charlotte Observer reporters found that when employees took their concerns to the attention of their supervisors, they were, in so many words, told to ignore their problems and get back to work. In fact, Doctor Jorge Garcia, who works at a medical practice in South Carolina, told reporters he has seen about 1,000 poultry workers in the past seven years, and is frequently asked by his patients not to tell the plant operators he had been consulted. They are afraid they will lose their jobs. While a response from plant operators should be allowed, it may be perfectly clear why employers at high-risk jobs frown upon employees visiting medical professionals; medical care is expensive. As mentioned above, employers envy demonstrating large positive gaps between production and expenses. Earlier I stated that payroll is the most controllable expense, but perhaps it would be more precise to say employee compensation in general is most controllable. Even if a company has to pay an employee two or three dollars above minimal wage, avoiding medical expenses, especially related to company liability, is a sure way to keep overhead from consuming fiscal profits. This figures in quite easily for employers of illegal immigrants, since employers can refuse medical care by threatening loss of job, or, worse, authority notification and deportation.

If one were to ask a number of American citizens what complications result from illegal immigration, he or she would likely get a varying array of responses, perhaps including lack of jobs for citizens, overcrowded schools, and potential increases in crime. Surely there are news stories and research statistics that qualify these responses, but should we not take notice of what immigration is telling us about ourselves? When someone crosses our boarder and takes up residence illegally, a crime has been committed by that person and he or she should be held accountable. After all, the term “illegal immigration” was so named purposely, and broken laws must be met with consequence in order to retain any meaning. Still, it should not be overlooked that many employers are profiting from this epidemic of crime at the expense of the health of others. Rick Thames, editor of the Charlotte Observer, compared the subclass developing by this situation to that created by slavery in America’s history. While I am not certain that is the best analogy, it does have some legitimate parallels, as people are being taken advantage of in an unacceptable manner. If immigration described the process of some inanimate objects falling from the atmosphere on to American soil, we could very well use immigrants for whatever purpose best suits us. Immigrants are not inanimate objects, though; they are human beings in every way just like American citizens and, while their illegal actions should be met with the appropriate consequences, their human qualities should be met with human consideration. The controversial occurrence of immigration has caused a number of problems and even tragedies in our society, but it has also exposed a problem of long existence within ourselves. That American people could conceivably exploit the poor decisions and disadvantages of other human beings for the sake of the financial bottom line is shameful in every way. Laws may not change the nature of man, but they may minimize the damages done by that nature if they reduce the opportunity. If the United States does not take the necessary steps to control its immigration problem, American citizens may find themselves having gained very temporary success by having passively inflicted very lasting pain.

Submitted to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, February 22, 2008.

The Reliability of the New Testamet Gospels

Of all of the religious figures who have lived on earth, none has been the subject of controversy as much as Jesus of Nazareth. Throughout the centuries, even back to his own time, people have questioned and argued over who Jesus really was, what he really taught, and how he should be understood. This debate has resurged in the past several decades, especially with the emergence of organizations like the Jesus Seminar and stories like Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code. Many people find the orthodox understanding of Jesus to be unacceptable, and claim we must distinguish the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.” In order to overthrow the accepted account of any historical event or figure, one must challenge the historical record. In the case of Jesus, the primary historical record is the collection of the gospels in the New Testament, particularly the first three, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These three have been targeted by many skeptics who have claimed that the accounts we read in these books developed out of a faith bias on the parts of the authors, and are therefore, unreliable as historical records. However, if all of the evidence is taken into honest consideration, it is apparent that the gospels are reliable historical accounts of Jesus and should be accepted just as orthodox Christianity has held all along.

Recently, I read an article in the November 2007 edition of Decision magazine in which Sean McDowell presented a brief overview of some of the most compelling evidence for the authenticity of the gospels. In the article, McDowell noted that, while most ancient books have fewer than ten extant manuscripts, the New Testament has more than 5,000 partial or whole extant manuscripts in the Greek language alone. In response, some critics claim that there are too many variations among the manuscripts to conclude that we can be certain of obtaining an accurate translation. However, McDowell noted, 80% of the variations are nothing more than spelling errors, and all of the remaining discrepancies are incidental, with absolutely no effect on any foundational Christian teaching. Critics searching for a point of attack on the historical record have apparently embellished the severity of minor variations that are to be expected in dealing with so many hand-copied documents. How many times has a student made a mistake in copying homework questions from a textbook? Academically speaking, a misspelled or misplaced word may be cause for a deduction in grade, but if the central point is not changed by the mistake, a sentence or paragraph will still convey the proper thought. Finding such minor mistakes in such a large volume of different ancient texts should not discredit the reliability of those texts. On the contrary, the fact that there are so many manuscripts that all convey the same basic information should strengthen the consideration for that information’s reliability and accuracy.

Besides the consistency among such a large number of manuscripts, the reliable historicity of the New Testament gospels is further strengthened by evidence that the gospels were written so closely in time to the events they report. While some scholars have tried to support the idea that the gospels were written as late as the second century, there is convincing evidence that they were written much earlier. As McDowell observed, the book of Acts, which even skeptical scholars accept as having the same authorship as the gospel of Luke, records the history of the Christian church as it became established after Jesus left earth. Among the more notable events recorded in Acts are the martyrs’ deaths of Stephen and James. However, Acts does not record any information on the deaths of Paul or Peter, which, according to the article I referred to above, took place between 63 and 66 C.E., although the book does record the works of both Paul and Peter in particular detail. Nor does Acts mention the war between the Romans and the Jews in 66 C.E., or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. As McDowell mentioned, omitting these events from the historic account of the church would be similar to omitting the events of September 11, 2001 from a historic account of the United States. Based on the significance of these events, it is resonable for us to conclude that the book of Acts was written before the mid-60’s C.E. Since even critics of the New Testament accept that Luke was written before Acts, and generally agree that Matthew and Mark were written before Luke, it is apparent that all three of these gospels were written within 30 years of Jesus’ life, well within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who would have most certainly confronted any embellishments or mistakes.

Furthermore, given the popularity of Jesus and the influence of his life, it is difficult to imagine that accounts of him could have been erroneously fabricated in such a short period of time.
Even if the gospel writers had waited much longer to write their accounts of the words and actions of Jesus, there is other evidence that indicates they did not change the story, an indication which scholars commonly refer to as the “embarrassment factor.” One thing that we all must admit is that, by nature, we want others to notice our good qualities and overlook our bad. In a lot of cases, this causes many of us to tell lies, skew facts, and exaggerate in order to improve or protect our reputations, even at the expense of others. This may be especially true if we feel our work is of great importance. Considering the costs of following Jesus for the early believers – excommunication from society and family, even brutal death in many cases – the work of the gospel writers was certainly of extreme importance, and the leaders of the beginning church would have been greatly admired. In spite of the opportunity for building prominent status for their own selves, however, the gospel writers included a number of incidences that could have proven quite embarrassing for the church. Some of the incidents McDowell pointed out are Jesus calling Peter “Satan”, the disciples’ failure to understand Jesus’ stories, and Jesus scolding the disciples for their lack of faith. At other times, the disciples were unable to perform miracles Jesus had already empowered them to perform, displayed their own selfish ambition by arguing among themselves over who was greater, two of them who were brothers had their mother ask Jesus to give them places of honor in the afterlife, and, perhaps most familiar of all, Peter denied even knowing Jesus during his “moment of truth.” Historians often consider this “embarrassment factor” when judging the validity of a historical record, and by this standard the New Testament gospels fair extremely well, again indicating that the writers sought to portray the truth as it was, not as their pride may have wanted it to be.

While there are many more things to be considered and studied by scholars, these three criteria alone indicate that the New Testament gospels are accurate historical records of Jesus’ life. Still, critics continue to posit skeptical ideas about how the gospels were produced and in what ways the story of Jesus was changed to develop the religious figure we speak of today. In the very face of evidence, these theorizers develop their own compilations of the Bible books to include erroneous documents such as the late-written “Gnostic Gospels” and the purely hypothetical, non-extant “Q Document”, claiming that the orthodox Jesus is not the same Jesus who walked the lands in and around Jerusalem. There are no historical documents that contradict the biblical accounts, yet we are told we must distinguish the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.” Should we not trust the sources of information we do have, rather than draw conclusions based on sources that are proven inferior or do not even exist? The historicity of the New Testament gospels is strongly supported by all of the evidence we have in existence and should be trusted as such. Otherwise we will be making up our own ideas of Jesus, which will reflect our own subjective thoughts and imaginations, most certain to be void of historical facts.

Presented to Alicia McCullough, Argument Based Research, January 28, 2008

Jesus On His Own Suffering

A little less than two years ago, I was on a plane and struck up a conversation with the lady sitting next to me. Interestingly, she had taken part in inventing some type of baby product that Angelina Jolie wanted to endorse and was on her way to meet with Angelina's people to work on putting the deal together. I was not so interestingly on my way back home from a conference, but decided I could make the "about me" part of the conversation more interesting by turning the subject to religion. I used some kind of open-ended question to get on topic, probably asking her what religion she belonged to or what kind of church she attended. Catholic, I think, was the answer, but when I pushed a little further, I got the "all roads lead to heaven" answer that is terribly popular.

I've talked with people before who have expressed this belief, and my favorite thing to do at this point is bring Jesus into the picture. After all, of the many roads that lead to God, Jesus is certainly a big (perhaps the biggest) one of them all. Given the amount of suffering he endured, however, there must be some misunderstanding somewhere. If there are multiple ways, or even just one other way to God, doesn't it seem foolish for Jesus to have agreed to such merciless beating? If I were Jesus, I would have to have backed out at that point in the negotiations. Pass that one off to Muhammad or Buddha. Or, better yet, let the ever popular Mr.-Do-Enough-Good-Works assume the suffering role. He's fictional, anyway - wouldn't even feel the pain! So, I asked her, if there are multiple ways to God, why Jesus went through all of the beating and crucifixion. Her answer surprised me a little. She told me the reason for Jesus' suffering was to encourage us and help us through our own suffering. Whatever we have to face in life - cancer or whatever - we could get through it because Jesus endured the cross.

I agree there is some truth in her statement. Isaiah told us long in advance that Jesus' wounds would be for our healing, and even the writer of Hebrews encouraged his readers to remain strong in their stance against sin by remembering their suffering had been far less than that endured by Christ. I guess this interpretation of the Passion could be rationalized if only considered in the context of our own minds. Each major player in world religions could teach us something about a particular aspect of our lives. The problem is, we cannot be content to leave our interpretations of anything to the context of our own minds. We must consider all of what we as human beings have collectively rather than what we as individuals have happened across ourselves. Since we have records of what Jesus said, not only of what he did or was done to him, it makes sense that we should consider what he said regarding his suffering.

While a lot of the New Testament tells us why Jesus suffered, I want to notice particularly how Jesus viewed his suffering, even in advance. In Mark 14:27, Jesus, quoting Old Testament prophesy, tells us exactly what he thought of the Passion. "God will strike the Shepherd..." (NLT). Before the first punch was thrown, before the first stripe was laid, before the first nail was driven, Jesus said he would be stricken by God. This leads me to think of the severity of what Jesus endured. Jesus knew he was to not simply pay for sin, but feel and experience the totality of the punishment God's righteousness demanded. God would drop the hammer on Jesus himself. Jesus viewed his death as nothing less than his being smitten by the hand of God. How, then, should we consider the cross?

This seems much more to me than being an provision of encouragement during difficulties, especially if we consider the nature of God being inclined toward the oppressed and downtrodden. How many times in Scripture do we read of God's heart tuned to the oppressed? Time after time in the Bible God assures us that he hears our cries and is with the hurting. (One of my favorites is the story of Sarah's maid Hagar and Hagar's son Ishmael in Genesis 21). It would seem overly rude and heartless for God to plan such chastisement for Jesus just to say again what he had already said. For God to "strike the Shepherd", he must have had more in mind.

I won't take time now to write all of my musings on what all Jesus must have endured, but I will say it must have been much more than we generally think. After all, Jesus, knowing he would rise again from the dead, still considered his Passion dreadful enough to pray for another way. Given his Deity, the fact that he himself was God, how terrible the suffering must have been for him to desire a deviation from the master plan. In any case, he knew he was doing much more than setting an example of endurance alone. In feeling and experiencing the full weight of judgment sin demanded, "...he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins." (Isaiah 53:5, NLT)

Analysis of Romans 2:25-29, presented for Introduction to New Testament

Throughout Christianity’s history, The Apostle Paul has arguably been one of the most highly esteemed founding fathers of the Church. As currently divided in the New Testament, 13 books are generally attributed to him. Of these writings, the letter to the Romans, written about 57CE, has been one of the most important in many circles of Christianity, often used as an authoritative source for explaining foundational Christian doctrines. Christendom has frequently argued within itself concerning the relation between the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament and the “free grace” law of the New Testament, a heated debate to which the letter to the Romans speaks.

An important aspect of this conflict to the early Church was the matter of circumcision. According to the Jewish Scriptures (Genesis 17:10 and following), circumcision was the primary sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, promising Abraham would be the father of God’s own nation. In this covenant agreement was also included that every male of Abraham’s line would be circumcised, and the more formal law given later to the Israelites at the time of their exodus from Egypt even stipulated that any outsider who wished to join the Israeli nation, particularly in observance of the Passover celebration, must be circumcised (Exodus 12:48-49). With the new Christian belief system claiming such deep roots in Judaism, many Jewish believers undoubtedly felt the outsiders (Gentiles) coming in should have been required to fall in line with the law that distinguished Judaism from other religions.

While it is uncertain how many Jewish believers were in the church compared to the number of Gentile converts, the church in Rome was certainly not exempt from the conflict. According to F. F. Bruce, former Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England, the Christian belief of the church may have been influenced by Jews who were present to hear Peter’s message on the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2 (Acts 2:10), and a Jewish community had already been established in Rome by the second century BCE (Bruce, p15-16). On the other hand, Bruce notes, Marcion’s own canon, which Marcion compiled in the second century CE, included an introduction to the letter to Romans which claimed the church had been visited by “false apostles” who had convinced the Roman church to submit to “the authority of the law and prophets…” and that Paul’s letter “call[ed] them back to the true faith of the Gospel…” (Bruce, p22). In any case, it is generally believed the church in Rome was indeed in conflict regarding the matter and that Paul’s letter provided an authoritative opinion.

It is also possible, however, that the church may not have been in conflict and that Paul’s letter to the church was written more for an alliance-building purpose. In his commentary on Romans, Bruce speculates that Paul, although a born citizen of Rome, had never been there and longed to visit. Once Paul decided to further his missionary work by going into Spain, he knew his path would take him through Rome (Romans 15:23-24), and may have hoped to establish a base in Rome from which to conduct his venture into Spain (Bruce, p14). In this case, the detail in Paul’s letter may have been to establish his acceptance among the church there. Regardless of Paul’s reasons for writing, however, the Christian Church as a whole certainly would endure heated collisions of opinions in the matter of whether every believer should be required to undergo circumcision – a debate into which the following words of Paul in Romans 2:25-29 weigh heavily:

Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God. (NRSV).

Though the letter to the Romans was probably not the first letter composed by Paul, it is found first in the New Testament, perhaps because it so formally sets forth a salvation based on faith through the righteousness of Christ. By the time Paul records his position on circumcision, he has already stated his assurance that the “gospel… is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith…” (1:16, NRSV). He then goes on to expound the need for God’s salvation of all people, as the Gentile has been condemned because of his willful ignorance of God’s desire (1:18-23), the moralist has been condemned because his sin is still judged regardless of his accusation of others (2:1-16), and the Jew has been condemned because of his inability keep the law of God (2:17-29) (Ryrie Study Bible, Introduction to Romans). It is in his case for the condemnation of the Jew Paul tackles the issue of circumcision before explaining how the “righteousness of God is revealed” (1:17, NRSV) and applied in the believer’s life.

The words of Paul regarding circumcision in chapter 2, verses 25-29, may be considered more of an example than a main point. In the preceding verses, Paul directs a number of questions toward the Jewish portion of his audience, causing them to look at their lives in relation to the law they are so proud of possessing. After pointed references to theft, adultery, and idolatry, Paul culminates his questioning by asking, “You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” (2:23, NRSV). Thus, Paul’s following use of the practice of circumcision gets to the heart of what may be the Jews’ objection to their own need for individual salvation along with the Gentiles.

In the first volume of his commentary The Book of Romans, Dr. Robert Picirilli states that Jews were not only proud of having been the recipients of the Mosaic Law, but were also proud of the practice of circumcision, which symbolized their place in the covenant between God and Abraham (Picirilli, p37). In verse 25, Paul concedes that circumcision may be a valuable practice, but only if the law is kept. According to Picirilli, “only if the law is kept”, in the original Greek, means a continual action of keeping – as if every second of every day carried an obligation for the circumcised Jew to continue in an unfailing observance of Torah practice (Picirilli, p37). The New American Standard Bible may convey this idea more evidently by translating “For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law” (emphasis added). Bruce seems to maintain this view, writing “Circumcision… carries with it the obligation to keep all the rest of the law…” (Bruce, p89).

Negatively, however, if it is keeping the law that gives genuine value to circumcision, breaking the law would devalue circumcision, making it as if the circumcision had never taken place. In Paul’s words, “…if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” (2:25, NRSV). The Authorized King James Version (KJV) renders this part of the passage “…if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision” (emphasis added). Commenting on this translation, Picirilli notes the negative action is put in the noun form “breaker”, which, according to Picirilli, is Paul’s method of identifying the circumcised Jew as a breaker of the law (Picirilli, p37). Similarly, the New American Standard Bible translates “if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision” (emphasis added). Following Paul’s logic, if one is a breaker or transgressor of the law, he may as well be an uncircumcised person altogether. If the Jewish audience were offended by this logic of Paul, Bruce notes Paul’s conclusion is well founded in the Jewish Scriptures. “The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will attend to all those who are circumcised only in the foreskin: Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab… For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.” (Jeremiah 9:25-26, NRSV) (Bruce, p89). If other nations practiced circumcision but were rejected by God because of their persistent disobedience to the law, why should a disobedient Jew be considered differently based on his own circumcision?

If it has been established, then, that the ritual of circumcision is void of meaning apart from submission to the law, it follows that keeping of the whole law is the real necessity. This continual observance of the law is more a point of character – a state of being or continual action of the person – than a one time ritual that happens to a person. Deuteronomy 10:12-16 explains, “So now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? Only to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord your God and his decrees that I am commanding you today… Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be stubborn any longer.” (NRSV, emphasis added. Since it is circumcision of the heart, so to speak, that is ultimately required by God, Paul argues those who keep the law, though not circumcised, will be considered as having been circumcised physically, and the right living of the uncircumcised will bring to light the failure of the circumcised (Romans 2:26-27). While the NRSV uses the word “condemn”, reading “those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you…” (verse 27, emphasis added), the NASB and the KJV both render the word “judge”, which seems to indicate more clearly that the testimony of the obedient uncircumcised would be used to show the delinquency of the disobedient circumcised. The stronger word used in the NRSV may be misconstrued to communicate that the actual uncircumcised people themselves would be issuing a negative judgment. In any case, Picirilli calls this “equal opportunity for the uncircumcised.” It is the “logical ‘other side of the coin’ to verse 25”, Picirilli writes, that “if circumcision for a (Jewish) law-breaker is counted as uncircumcision, then uncircumcision for a (Gentile) law-keeper is counted as circumcision.” (Picirilli, p38). In essence, Paul is putting all people on the same plain here. As he would write a little further in chapter 10, verse 12, “…there is no distinction between Jew and Greek…” While the words in chapter 10 are within Paul’s explanation of the solution to mankind’s need for redemption, he is making the same point in chapter 2, that God has no more respect for the disobedient Jew than for any other person.

In verse 28, Paul takes his argument a step further by claiming invalid one other point of Jewish confidence – lineage. By saying “a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly,” Paul implies that a racial Jew may not necessarily be considered a Jew in the sense of God’s intended meaning of the word (Picirilli, p39). If a Jew could not be proud of his circumcision or the law he has broken, surely he could still be proud of being a Jew. After all, his race was a matter of birth – something we now know as genetics – and no one could possibly take that away. However, Paul seems to be reminding his readers that God’s promise to Abraham was that the Jewish nation would be God’s own nation defined by the people’s adoration of and devotion to God, an expectation that seems evident in the first of the Ten Commandments, as well as other messages by the Prophets. Therefore, Paul reasons, a real Jew (God’s person) is one who chooses to belong to God, rather than one who is born into the classification without any choice. No, a true Jew is not such because of race, nor is true circumcision such because of a physical ritual. “Rather,” Paul states in verse 29, “a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart – it is spiritual and not literal.” (NRSV). In the NASB rendering of verse 29, Paul is quoted as saying more than circumcision is spiritual rather than physical. By translating “circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter…” (emphasis added), the NASB indicates Paul is teaching that inward circumcision is performed specifically by God. If this is compared with Picirilli and Bruce’s agreeing observations of verse 25, that circumcision requires a continual keeping of the law, it may be concluded that Paul is saying, while the self-righteousness of outward circumcision is necessarily a continual, uninterrupted act, God’s inward circumcision is a one time change, facilitated by the Holy Spirit, making the person permanently righteous regardless of the potential imperfection of law-keeping. Though the King James Version does not make the same inference as the NASB, working with the KJV, famed commentator Matthew Henry draws a concurrent conclusion (Henry, p380). Also commenting on the KJV, however, Picirilli notes this part of the passage implies the difference between keeping the “spirit” (intended meaning) of the directive and the “letter” (literal definition) (Picirilli, p40).

Since real Jewish classification and circumcision are intended by God to be more internal than external, more a matter of character than appearance, Paul concludes that the internally circumcised Jew, regardless of outer circumcision or racial heritage, is the person who is not only accepted by God, but receives praise from God (verse 29). By distinctively claiming God’s “praise” of those who follow the law from the inside out, Bruce notes that Paul is again alluding to Jewish heritage. The Hebrew word for the verb “praise” is associated in its original language with the name Judah, the name of the ancestor of the Jewish people from which the word “Jew” was derived (Bruce, p89-90). It seems that Paul is, for one last emphatic time, using Jewish heritage to be sure his readers understand clearly that neither God’s judgment nor his approval is racially based, but is solely based on state of heart. God takes seriously those who take him seriously in all of the matter, not only in the matters of single event such as race or physical circumcision.

Summarily, Romans 2:25-29 is Paul’s attempt to direct the attention of his Jewish audience away from their own claims to righteousness and back toward what were perhaps conveniently forgotten revelations of God’s focused desire – the desire that his people’s national identification stem from the inward matters of cognition and volition, rather than from outer matters of race and circumcision. Paul wants his readers to recognize the equal importance of all of the law of God rather than only the easier-to-keep outer parts, ultimately (as his letter goes on) to lead them to realization of their own depravity and need for redemption, as keeping of the entire law is practically impossible. The important thing, Paul argues, is not what is done to a person, but what is done by a person – not what rituals a person performs, but what instruction one obeys. In fact, one might conclude, outward, ritualistic obedience without inward obedience is worse than inward, heart-felt obedience void of an outward appearance of obedience because the former is not only empty but deceptive, representing on the package something that is not contained within. False advertising it may be likened to – a deception even modern western laws view unfavorably. In what some may consider commentary, others translation of Scripture, Eugene Peterson’s The Message paraphrase of the Bible renders Paul’s arguments in the following:

Circumcision, the surgical ritual that marks you as a Jew, is great if you live in accord with God's law. But if you don't, it's worse than not being circumcised. The reverse is also true: The uncircumcised who keep God's ways are as good as the circumcised—in fact, better. Better to keep God's law uncircumcised than break it circumcised. Don't you see: It's not the cut of a knife that makes a Jew. You become a Jew by who you are. It's the mark of God on your heart, not of a knife on your skin, that makes a Jew. And recognition comes from God, not legalistic critics.

While some differences may be found among the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the King James Version, those differences appear more by way of emphasis and, perhaps, allusion to further doctrine. None of the differences seem to alter in any way what specifically Paul wished to do with his comments on circumcision, which was to divert his Jewish readers’ attention away from their own “righteousness”, which Paul demonstrated as terribly delinquent of true righteousness, and direct their attention toward the apparent necessity for a redemption of their own disobedience, which must come from some source other than their selves. As Paul would continue in his letter to logically make evident permanent salvation through faith in Jesus (chapter 10 and following), it was necessary that his readers realized and admitted their own depravity and not fall into the grace-defying attitude of rejecting the message due to their own empty righteousness of race and ritualistic circumcision. This overall point appears quite similar to Jesus’ words to his Pharisee critics who complained over his association with “tax collectors and sinners.” Apparently alluding to the self-righteous pride of that religious group, Jesus said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (Matthew 9:12, NRSV). As is obvious from numerous confrontations between the Pharisees and Jesus, Jesus was not approving of the Pharisees’ self-perceived perfection, but was reminding them only those who admit an illness will seek and receive the help of a doctor. Thus, because of the importance of the message Paul was preaching, he sought to decimate every argument that would lend itself to a rejection of the message due to a reliance on inadequate human means of redemption. Matthew Henry summarized nicely, “…he is no more a Christian now, than he was really a Jew of old, who is only one outwardly… but he is the real Christian, who is inwardly a true believer, with an obedient faith.” Romans 2:25-29 is, therefore, only a small portion of a systematic argument to reveal the impossibility of human salvation apart from a substitutive grace that would meet all of the imperishable requirement of a perfect God on behalf of hopelessly deprived mankind.

WORKS CITED / BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F. F. Romans, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. 2nd. Ed., Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1985.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.

Picirilli, Robert. The Book of Romans, volume 1, Tennessee: Randall House Publications, 1973.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. “Outline of Romans”, Ryrie Study Bible, Illinois: Moody Bible Institute, 1994.

(Report Submitted November 13, 2007)

It's a little after midnight, Shannon and Jayden are asleep, and I don't have any seriously pressing homework due tomorrow. I guess that means I have some free time on my hands, since I'm a good 45 minutes away from my typical bed time. I've got so much I want to get out, but don't know where to start. Even if I did know where to start, I wouldn't have time to get very far. Still, I do have a little free time and want to post something.

I have five classes this semester, including American Government, Intro to Ethics, and New Testament Survey. Just as I managed to do with history last semester, I underestimated the extent of thought-provoking information that would be covered in American Government, so, once again, I find my brain seemingly overloaded. It's funny that, no matter what the class, previously held ideas of mine are questioned constantly. Now, this is not always a negative thing. In a number of ways I find where I may be imposing my own reason over the words of Jesus, putting words in His mouth that He really didn't say. On the other hand, however, I am realizing very clearly that the war between wrong and right is thicker and heavier than we tend to consider. By the way, Biblical Christianity is more on the defensive side of the ball than we like to think, too.

Now, I understand that by going to a secular school I freely put myself in the middle of it, and had I continued my education under more conservative instruction my mind would be more at ease. I didn't think that was the way God wanted me to go, though, and still don't. Even though I am facing challenges and criticisms quicker than I can turn my head, I am certain God is working in all of it to get me where He wants me to be. In the mean time, He has helped me understand the value of faith.

The analogy of the armor of God in Ephesians is very popular among Christians. There has been an innumerable amount of discussion and preaching on the matter, and we have been given a lot of different perspectives on application. Lately, though, the shield of faith has been of particular interest to me.

It's simple, really, so I won't try to drag it out. As I mentioned before, nearly every day I find myself in the middle of the ongoing attack against Biblical Christianity. I've learned a lot by way of defense of my belief, and in plenty of cases the absurdity of the ungodly claims are too simply clear. There are other cases, though, where the answers aren't so clear, and the arguments against Christianity seem to have some validity.

So what do we do in those cases? The shield of faith. Satan's attacks against the truth of God have been called "fiery darts." I like to imagine an antagonist realizing arrows are dangerous, but lighting them on fire causes a rush of destruction before the attacked can even think about what to do. Satan likes these kinds of arrows: "blow them away before they can even realize it." Now I like to consider the words, "take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one." (Ephesians 6:16 NIV). Extinguish the fire, eliminate the "shock and awe" of the attack, give yourself some time - time to think, read, study, consider, seek the perspectives of others, weigh the evidence, and, most of all, PRAY. After all, why would you storm out on Someone with whom you've had a relationship at the heated accusation of some unrelated third party? And don't let the third party accuse you of ignoring reason to side with faith. That's what the attacker wants you to do! He wants you to trust his "reasoning" before taking time to consider the whole of the issue.

As I've stated before, I believe there is an acceptable answer to every criticism of true faith in Christ. Sometimes it takes faith - the shield of faith - to make possible the search.