Review: The Bible Episodes 2&3 - lies from the pit of hell

I know the title of this review sounds harsh and shocking, but I believe it to be entirely accurate.  Rather than dealing with the individual errors in episodes 2 & 3 of The Bible (a task better left to those who have two hour daily broadcasts since there was not a single scene in the The Bible that accurately reflects the text of the Bible and the errors are simply too numerous for anyone who shepherds a flock and preaches every week to deal with in detail) I want to address two profoundly dangerous intentional theological errors that permeate these episodes.

The first thematic heresy is the elimination of sin and repentance from The Bible.  If a person who isn’t familiar the Bible were to take their understanding of God from the The Bible they would be entirely unaware of sin and God’s righteous wrath and judgment against sin and what a godly response to an awareness of sin in the life of a believer is.

This denial of sin and the need for repentance first comes to the fore in The Bible’s treatment of the book of Judges.  Through the voice of the narrator The Bible identifies the root of the chaos in Israel in the period of the judges is a “lack of strong leaders like Moses and Joshua.”  But Scripture clearly identifies the source of the problems in Israel as God’s judgment against Israel for doing what was evil in the sight of the LORD and worshiping idols.

It is not just sin that was ignored it was also repentance and it was ignored in a spectacular manner.  The treatment of two of the greatest chapters on repentance in the Old Testament, 2 Samuel 12 and Daniel 4 are illustrative of The Bible’s view of repentance.  It blasphemously mangles one and completely ignores the other. 

Second Samuel 12, Nathan’s confrontation with David over his sin with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah the Hittite,  records no immediate response from David, although when his son is afflicted (as Nathan foretold) he fasts and spends days prostrating himself before God.  David’s heart response to the exposure of his sin is recorded in Psalm 51 and it expresses profound brokenness, admissions of guilt before a holy God, pleas for mercy, and promises to bear witness to the word of God to others (The Bible puts the words of Psalm 51 in the mouth of Daniel in a manner that teaches that obedience in difficult circumstance robs the believer of the joy of their salvation).  Taken together Psalm 51 and 2 Samuel 12 paint a picture of David as a man broken over his sin and his standing before a holy God.

But how does The Bible claim that David reacted?  After being confronted by Nathan and hearing that God declared that his son will die as a judgment on the sin of David and Bathsheba the David of The Bible (not the Bible) defiantly says “We’ll see.”  That is not artistic license, that is showing David displaying the exact opposite behavior and attitude that is recorded in Scripture.  The Bible’s teaching on David is the exact opposite of the Bible’s teaching about David.  This is a lie straight from the pit of hell, and exactly how the serpent twisted the Word of God in the garden.

And just as bad is The Bible’s ignoring of Daniel 4.  Nebuchadnezzar is a major character in The Bible episode 3.  And according to the The Bible he goes insane in response to Shadrack, Meshack and Abedndigo being delivered from being burned at the stake (not a fiery furnace) and seemingly dies bound in chains in a dungeon (that’s how he is last seen in the episode).  However the Bible records that Nebuchadnezzar is struck with madness as judgment for the sin of pride years later.  This is a serious enough error, but it is the omission of Nebuchadnezzar’s repentance that is truly stomach turning.  Daniel 4:34-37 (a passage I quoted in my baptismal testimony because my pre-salvation life was characterized by the sin of pride) records Nebuchadnezzar’s confession of repentance.  Nebuchadnezzar didn’t die in a dungeon as an insane unrepentant sinner, he died as a redeemed believer who became one of the authors of inspired scripture (Daniel 4:34-37 records in its entirety a letter written by the repentant king).  But since in The Bible there is no sin there is certainly no need for repentance.  Again The Bible teaches the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches!

As sickening as its message on repentance and sin is, The Bible’s view of Jesus is out and out undisguised blasphemy.  They functionally deny His role as savior and His deity. 

There are no more important passages in all of Scripture for understanding who Jesus is than the accounts of his baptism.  When John (the baptist) sees him approaching he exclaims “behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” and when Jesus comes up out of the water the Spirit descends on Him like a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven “this is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased.”  But guess what is missing from The Bible’s account.  John’s confession, the Spirit descending, and the Father Speaking.  No trinity, no sacrificial lamb, and no deity, just blasphemy.  The Jesus of The Bible is no more the Jesus of the Bible than the Jesus of the Book of Mormon, the Koran or the Oprah Winfrey Network.   And incidentally (and it is incidental at this point) in a profound twisting of Luke 5 the Jesus of The Bible came not to save sinners from the wrath of God but to “change the world.”

The Bible presents lies as truth by twisting scripture until it teaches the exact opposite message than the living and active Word of God.  This has been the devil’s favorite tool to drag people into hell since the beginning.  It is what he did in the Garden, it’s what he did when he tempted Jesus, and it is what he is doing now on the History Channel.

[And if your interested check out my new blog of Marriage, Love, Multiple Sclerosis and Suffering here]

Review: The Bible Episode 1

            I will readily admit that having heard that The History Channel was going to air a miniseries entitled The Bible (italics throughout refer to the TV show, not the Scripture) produced by Mark Burnett (of Survivor fame) my expectations were very low.  But I was wrong, the first episode was far worse than I could have possibly imagined.  It wasn’t just low quality television and inaccurate, it has laid the foundation for a denial of the Gospel and impugned the character of God. 

            The episode began with a montage that covered the first eleven chapters of Genesis.  And that alone is a huge problem.  While I understand that any film adaptation of the entire Bible (and whether that is a good idea to even attempt is highly debatable and an entirely different subject) is going to have to pick and choose what  to include and what to omit, the decision to ignore the fall is catastrophic.

            Genesis 3 is one of the key chapters in all of scripture, and it is foundational for the rest of God’s revelation.  If there is no fall the rest of Scripture just seems pointless.  Although there was of course a brief clip of a very sultry Eve biting into a juicy plum, the narrator simply said that man now knew both good and evil, with no reference to disobedience to God.  In fact there was (to my recollection) no mention at all that the fruit was forbidden, or that eating it was an act of disobedience.  And thus the foundation was laid for a denial of the Gospel.  If there is no sin, then there is no need for a savior and certainly no need for repentance. 

            And the denial of sin continues and worsens in the opening montage when in a leaky ark Noah (presumably) explains to his family (presumably) that the “this (the flood) has happened because of mistakes and wrong decisions.”  Not only is this ignoring sin, it is an outright denial of scripture.  The flood did not come because people made mistakes, it came because man was sinful and had become so evil, that God saw that “every intention of the thoughts of his (man’s) heart was only evil continually.”Judgment comes as a result of sin, not as result of mistakes and poor decisions.  

And that is a central theme in the Bible, a holy and just God cannot overlook sin but must punish it.  If that is missing, there is no basis for a Holy and just God who is rich in mercy and love, sending his Son to die as an atoning sacrifice so that whoever would repent and believe in Christ, and trust solely in His sacrifice for salvation would not perish but have eternal life.  If the concept of God’s just wrath against sin is scrubbed from The Bible then I truly fear that it will serve to inoculate sinners in desperate need of a savior against the actual Gospel.  

If it is possible to get worse after the opening montage it does.  The retelling of the story of Abram/Abraham in addition to being shot through with errors, seems to be a protracted assault on the character of both God and Abraham.  The relationship between them is portrayed essentially in terms of a capricious God who repeatedly puts a begrudgingly obedient and joyless Abraham to the test.  In the scene of Abraham’s sacrifice of Issac Abraham looks up to the sky and angrily shouts “have I not done enough to prove my faith?”  That is awfully far afield from Abraham believed and it was counted to him as righteousness.  

[And I can’t resist mentioning that Sodom was judged kung fu style by a Jet-Li             look-a-like angel. Of course judged for what is left vague.]

After this awful scene the series again goes into montage mode, and skips ahead to the story of the exodus, and Moses also gets a significant character makeover.  The Bible essentially portrays Moses as a Hebrew William Wallace (the Brave Heart version that is), and it starts with a ridiculous back story.  After the conclusion of a montage of the Egyptians killing the Israelite male children and the discovery of the baby Moses in the rushes by Pharaoh’s daughter, we are introduced to a teenage Moses fighting a palace duel with the son of Pharaoh.  He subsequently learns he is an Israelite, sees their condition and kills an Egyptian overseer.  But rather than following the biblical account The Bible has an Israelite slave offering to hide the body and telling Moses to flee, which he does. 

The story then skips ahead to the Burning Bush, and rather than following the biblical account (are you sensing a theme yet?) Moses militantly proclaims that he (not He) will free his (not His) people.  And he carries this prideful freedom fighter attitude into Egypt.  

He gives rousing speeches to convince the Israelites to follow him rather than relying on the authenticating signs that the Lord had given him to convince the people that he was sent by God. Moses sneak attacks Pharaoh by turning the Nile into blood while concealed in the reeds on the opposite bank while Pharaoh (sporting a facial scar from his duel with the teenage Moses) is floating on his back in the river, and the confrontation with the magicians of Egypt before Pharaoh is also completely missing and the subsequent plague montage bafflingly includes maggots. And all the while he is still giving rousing revolutionary speeches and recruiting Joshua, who is “the future” of Israel.  Eventually the final plague comes, in the form of a killing fog (I assume in a nod to the classic film The Ten Commandments).

To its credit The Bible does actually have the Israelites crossing a parted Red Sea, and the Egyptians being crushed under the waves, but to its shame it montages Israel at Sinai, and completely ignores the wilderness wanderings.  Again a key chapter of the Bible dealing with Sin and the need for a savior (Exodus 20) is completely ignored other than the tablets of the Law being shown emerging from a boulder during montage (again ignoring the biblical account, are you sensing the theme yet).  And of course there is no mention of what the tablets actually say.

And at the end of this montage we are given a few closing scenes: one of an armor clad Joshua praying, then of him staring menacingly at Jericho, and then one of Rahab being mistreated by the towns people of Jericho and of the spies getting into a sword fight inside of Jericho (that is the cliff hanger ending). 

My general impression of the first episode was one of a sustained attack on the character of God and on the “heroes” of the bible.  (To be clear the only hero of Scripture and the main actor in every story is God.)  God’s holiness is ignored, as is sin and His wrath against sin.  He is seen as occasionally wrathful, but the cause for his wrath is never discussed.  The flood is the result of mistakes and Sodom is dangerous, not wicked, so God’s wrath could be easily seen as being out of proportion or arbitrary.  The faith of Abraham is consistently portrayed as weak and grudgingly given, and Moses comes off as a prideful action hero rather the meekest man onthe face of the earth.

All of this gives a profound misunderstanding of who God is, and what kind of men he uses.  Faithful, trusting and broken men who realize they are not worthy of being used by God are the ones that He tends to use (as recorded in Scripture) and The Bible seems to be sending the message that He uses men of action who trust in themselves and who have faltering or reluctant faith.

My chief concern is this, if The Bible gets sin wrong, God’s character wrong, the narrative of Scripture wrong, the nature of man wrong and the fundamental character of key biblical figures wrong, what is there left for it to get right?  And it is getting this wrong before unbelievers and interspersed with commercials for the Roman Catholic Church (who claimed to have “compiled” the bible by the way) and Word of Faith churches (at least in the Metro DC market).  If an unbeliever, who was curious about the Bible sees this show, then goes to a church advertised during the show, they may never hear the Gospel, and they may actually be inoculated against it because they may believe they have actually learned what is in the Bible from The Bible.

The good news is this though; there may be increased opportunity to share the Gospel as unbelievers may have questions about the things they have seen on TV.  And you needn’t have seen the show to answer the questions because they need to hear the message of the Bible, not the message of The Bible.

Women in the Pulpit?

            The are few buttons hotter to the touch in the church today than the question of women pastors and elders.  Passions run high on both sides of the debate and disagreeing viewpoints are often met with indignation and acrimony.  This should not be the case among bible believing Christians who affirm the authority of Scripture, because while it can be a vexing question, it is not a difficult one.  An honest, systematic reading of Scripture yields a clear answer to the question “Can women be pastors and elders?”  And the answer is no.  I know that may seem like a shockingly blunt statement, but it is true, let me explain why.

            Putting aside the unbiblical arguments that seek to strip certain books of the bible of their inspiration, inerrancy and authority, the wild notions of "trajectory hermeneutics" and straw men like whether it should be Junia or Junias in Romans 16:7 (Paul really wasn’t saying that Andronicus and Junia were Apostles, and everybody, if they are honest, understands that), the case for allowing women pastors/elders boils down to two arguments, women were mightily used by God in the Old Testament and Galatians 3:28 says there is neither male or female in Christ.   But when these arguments are honestly examined, with the mindset that Scripture can’t mean what it never meant, not only do these arguments fail to prove women are biblically qualified for eldership, the passages they hang on are shown to have nothing at all to do with the debate.

            While it is indisputable that there have always been women mightily used by God, and that there were several in the Old Testament, as an argument for women in the pulpit Miriam, Deborah and Huldah (the troika of Old Testament egalitarianism) fall flat.  First, two of the three are best known for singing victory songs, a decidedly feminine occupation in the Ancient Near East, and the third, Huldah, is mentioned in two, let me repeat that, two verses.  This is hardly a case for smashing gender roles, and you must remember that the Levitical priesthood was the exclusive province of men, even in this era of “women’s leadership” there were particular religious roles reserved for men.  Also it is wrong to make Israel, under the Mosaic Covenant, normative for the church under the New Covenant.  To push another hot button, we are living in a different dispensation.  It should also be noted that none of the texts mentioning any of these women is teaching anything about gender roles, other than the indictment of the lack of male leadership in Israel found in Judges 4:8-9 in the story of Barak and Deborah.  Lastly it is a profound hermeneutical error to make Old Testament narrative into didactic texts that teach doctrine.  Narrative illustrates and reveals the working of God in redemptive history, but it doesn’t teach propositional truth.  Making the leap from women being used by God in the Old Testament to women should be pastors makes about as much sense as reading 2 Kings 2:23-4 and deciding that she bears should be used to discipline disrespectful teenagers.

            The second argument put forward for women in the pulpit is that Galatians 3:28 (There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.) obliterates any distinctions between men and women.  And it does, but only with regard to salvation not with regard to gender roles.  The context of Galatians 3 is key to understanding the text.  Galatians3:15 through the end of the chapter is speaking of the inclusion of all believers in the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, and verse 28 is extolling the marvelous truth that nobody who has placed his or her faith in Jesus Christ will be left out.  This verse teaches the full inclusions of believers, and has absolutely nothing to say about gender roles.  Remember, Scripture can’t mean what it never meant. And while this text teaches total equality of person and worth before God, it is absolutely silent on gender roles.  What’s more Paul writing to the church at Rome (post Galatians) continues to see a distinction between Jew and gentile (see chapters 10, 11) so the notion that this verse teaches a complete abolition of all distinctive roles for the opposing pairs named clearly is not what Paul had in mind. 

            So where can we turn for guidance in this matter?  To the section of scripture that was written to set the pattern for leadership and pastoral ministry in the post-Apostolic Church, the Pastoral Epistles, where Paul directly addresses genders roles in the church and the qualifications for eldership.

            1 Timothy 2:12, is absolutely clear.  Paul writes “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, rather she is to remain quiet.”  The immediate context of the passage is a larger discussion of gender roles in the church, and immediately following are the qualification for an overseer (elder).  In the midst of a discussion of what men and women should do in the church, Paul clearly, plainly and definitively writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men, the very things that elders and pastors do.  And more than that he says why in verses 13 -14, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve;  and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”   Paul grounds the prohibition against women teaching in the creation narrative, making it universal and timeless.  This use of the creation story would make no sense if Paul were addressing, as some claim, a specific unknown problem with unruly women in Ephesus.  This is a clear command for all churches in all times. 

 

            Paul moves from the ban on women teaching and leading immediately into the qualifications for overseers.  After saying that aspiring to the office of overseer is a noble thing, and that an overseer must be above reproach, Paul begins listing the qualifications for the office, and he begins with “the husband of one wife” in 3:2. Literally he says that an overseer must be a one woman man, not a faithful spouse, not one who takes his or her wedding vows seriously, but a one woman man, and the language and the grammar he uses stress gender.  Although there is some debate over what it means to be a one woman man, all honest commentators, and every single commentator writing in the first 1900 years of church history agree that it starts with being a man.  Given that Paul had just written that a women is not to teach or exercise authority, it is inconceivable that he would have used the phrase “a one woman man” to describe the first qualification for the office that exercises authority in the church, unless he had an actual Y chromosome having man in mind.  

          Furthermore Paul includes as a qualification “able to teach” and certainly given the ban on women teaching just a few sentences ago, he would not have mentioned this as a qualification that women could meet, without clarifying his thoughts.  And the parallel passage in Titus, where the office is called elder, also makes being a one woman man (1:6) and being able to give instruction (1:9) qualifications for the office of leadership in the church.  It is absolutely clear from the Epistles Paul wrote to set the pattern for the transition from the post Apostolic church to the elder led church, that church leaders were to be men, and that women were forbidden from exercising authority over men and teaching in the corporate gathering, it couldn’t be more clear.

            Why then the controversy?  Because it just doesn’t seem fair to us, it doesn’t seem fair to me either.  But then again it wasn’t fair for God to send Jesus to be punished for our sins so that Sinners could be reconciled to Him.  It cannot be a question of what seems fair to us, rather it must be a question of are we going to be obedient to God’s Word.  If the answer is yes, then woman cannot be elders or pastors.  If the answer is no you are not in agreement with the will of God, but with the sentiment of Mark Twain who famously quipped “It is not the things I don’t understand in the bible that bother me, it is the ones I do.”

Dinesh D'Souza, Divorce and the Collapse of Christian Higher Education

     Dinesh D’Souza has been in the news a lot lately.  He has been writing best sellers, directed and produced the second highest grossing political documentary of all time, and even bested Bill Mahr on his HBO show rather frequently in the past few years.  He even paid for the Nigerian brother of president Obama to get some much needed medical attention for his son.  Things have generally been looking up for Dinesh.

     There has been more going on in Dinesh's life though.  In recent years he has joined the parade of previously secular conservative pundits who have sought to rebrand themselves as not merely conservative, but Evangelical Christian social conservatives. But the odd thing is that D'Souza never really embraced or at least appeared to embrace evangelical Christianity.  In one of the most baffling interviews ever given on the topic of personal religious beliefs, D'Souza refused to renounce Roman Catholocism, yet claimed to embrace reformed theology and claimed to comfortable with and part of the Evangelical world.  To appropriate a saying of Ron Jaworski, "if a team says they have two quarterbacks capable of starting  that means they don't have one." I have to wonder if a man who claims to have two diametrically opposing theological outlooks has any at all.  I don't know, nor do I claim to know the condition of his heart, but I do know that someone who is unwilling to make a clear profession of faith in Christ alone for salvation (thereby separating from the church of Rome's doctrine of salvation through works and merit) should not be employed by, let lone tapped to lead,   a Christian college or university.

     Yet D'Souza was named president of The King's College in 2010, an ostensibly Evangelical college located in New York City and closely associated with Cru (the ministry formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ), which according to its mission statement is committed to the truths of Christianity and a biblical world view. (I would see if this is reflected in their doctrinal statement, but if it exists it is no where to be found on their website.)  How can an organization dedicated to the truths of Christianity be led by a man who won't say what they are?

     As sad as his hiring was, the circumstances of his firing are even worse.  Not only is D'Souza unwilling to articulate a biblical world view he doesn't live one either.  This is not a wild accusation, the circumstances that surround The King's College accepting his resignation yesterday are simply scandalous.

     D'Souza, was the key note speaker at an apologetics conference hosted by First Baptist North church of Spartanburg South Carolina.  Other speakers included noted christian biographer Eric Metaxas and eminent apologist Josh McDowell, but D'souza managed to set himself apart.  He was the only married speaker to show up with his fiance!  Despite being married (for 20 years) D'Souza attended the conference with a young woman (reportedly also married) and introduced her to conference attendees as his fiance.  This would be scandal enough, and blindingly bright evidence that a Christian College should never be led by an unbeliever, because invariably the name of Christ will be defamed (the atheist/leftist blogosphere is awash in glee over this scandal), but it was D'Souza's response that was the real black eye to The King's College.  He showed himself to be completely ignorant of biblical Christianity and the content of the bible.

     In response to the World magazine article that exposed his sin, he published this baffling response on the Fox News website.  While he denies some of the details of the World account (notably that he shared a hotel room with his mistress) he doesn't seen to understand why people were shocked at his behavior.  He writes:

"I sought out advice about whether it is legal to be engaged prior to being divorced and I was informed that it is. Denise and I were trying to do the right thing. I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings.  Obviously I would not have introduced Denise as my fiancé at a Christian apologetics conference if I had thought or known I was doing something wrong. But as a result of all this, and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Denise and I have decided to suspend our engagement."

     He clearly didn't seek the counsel of Scripture or faithful men otherwise he would have run into these truths:  God hates divorce; whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; What God has joined together no man may separate.  It is utterly impossible that someone with even a cursory connection to the Christian community, let alone some one who has read the Bible  (or even just the Gospels) just once would be unaware that actual Christians would be outraged that a married man, who they paid to hear speak, who has claimed Christ (sort of) would bring his (likely married) mistress with him to an apologetics conference and introduced her as his fiance.  

     The only thing more shocking to me than his behavior and indignation at the response to it, is that a "Christian" college would name a man as president who is so ignorant of the content of the Bible.  How could this ignorance not become glaringly apparent during the interview process?

    Sadly this is shocking, but not surprising.  Real Christian higher education is rapidly disappearing.  Sure there are some faithful institutions, but they are the extreme exception and few and far in between.  Historic stalwarts of christian education now embrace ecumenism, sexual immorality, evolution, higher criticism, and seemingly every other attack on the authority of Scripture, in an effort to be "relevant" or to be embraced by the culture, or to acquire the veneer of academic respectability they so desperately desire.  What they fail to understand is that there is no way to be faithful to Christ and to appeal to the world.  As Christ said, "If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you."

     Sadly The King's College is not unique, they just went all the way.  They hired a man who made no credible profession of faith, and who apparently has no knowledge of the content of the Bible to be their leader, just because he was popular with the world.  And predictably they did not become more relevant, or important or respectable, they became a laughing stock, and dragged the name of the King they claim to serve through the mud in the process.  Pray that other institutions learn from this failure, and return to the truth and authority of Scripture while there is still time.