My Thoughts on the Recent Controversy

My title is taken from Andy Efting's post on Unsearchable Riches. As most of the Fundamentalist blogosphere is aware, there has been a virtual dust-up in regards to some comments that Pastor Danny Sweatt made at a recent FBF Regional Meeting.

I have been too busy to actually listen to the message (and thus, I have not made any comments on any location about this), but I have read enough of the comments and read enough of the sections that others have quoted to get a pretty good feel of what was said.

While Bob Bixby, Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Chris Anderson, Don Johnson, John Piper, Andrew Naselli and others have all commented on either the sermon itself or on the response to the sermon, so far the thoughts of Andy Efting seem to reflect my thoughts the best.

So, while Andy adds some personal comments that I have not experienced, let me say that I think his post on this controversy is (so far) the closest to my thoughts on it as well. In particular, he addresses two of the concerns that I have on this issue:
1. The promotion of Hyles and Gray - I was hoping I was reading this wrong and he didn't actually do that.

2. The idea that Fundamentalism and Calvinism are somehow incompatible. It surely does not take a Calvinist to look at the influence in Fundamentalism of men like Michael P.V. Barrett, Ian Paisley, John McKnight, J. Greshem Machen, Dave Doran, et al to see that Calvinism is not incompatible with Fundamentalism. While there are legitimate issues with the ministries of Piper, Driscoll, etc., from a Fundamentalist perspective the issues with their ministries is not because of their Calvinism, but because of their associations, ministry philosophy, language, etc.

So, if you are dying to know what I think about this (which I am sure no one is), reading My Thoughts on the Recent Controversy by Andy will be the closest thing to my thougths that you are likely to see regarding this. (At least until/if I get a chance to listen to the message and formulate some thoughts.)


Just someone else's thoughts,

Frank

Hey, that's me on TV

Today I had an interesting experience. I was actually on TV on our local station, WBOC, in a segment called "Heart and Soul" regarding the issue of the death penalty or capital punishment.

In a recently released report by by a panel commissioned to study capital punishment in the state of Maryland, the commission voted 13-9 to recommend the abolition of capital punishment in the state of Maryland (more details here).

This morning I received a call from a reporter from WBOC who asked me some questions regarding this commissions study and arranged to interview me on camera. I have never done anything like this, so I was (understandably, to me) nervous.

A little while later, Kim Holmes and a camera man named Rob were meeting me at the church.

The interview was very short and they only used about one sentence, but the whole article was short, and while they did not include any of the Scripture passages that I quoted in answering the questions, they at least did not misrepresent me in their editing. (Something I was concerned about.)

The reporter and camera operator were both nice and professional. I understand the need to edit (after all, I served on the editorial staff of my high school newspaper so many years ago), but I wish there could have been a way to keep in some of the verses I discussed. (Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:3-4)

I was hoping to find a link to it online at the WBOC site, but I can't find it. We did try to record it, so if I can figure out how to get it up here, I will do so. (Be warned, it's not much.)

The actual article that aired had a quote from a Catholic priest that was for getting rid of the death penalty and a quote from me saying that we should not get rid of the death penalty.

I don't know how these guys like Dr. Bob Jones, III, Dr. Mohler and others go on all these shows for longer segments.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Frank

Father's Day Cards banned in Scottish Schools

Since Father's Day has already past, this story may be a little outdated, but as I only saw the article recently, I could not comment on it any earlier :).

It seems as though a number of schools in Scotland banned the children from making cards for Father's Day.

The Telegraph reports:

Thousands of primary pupils were prevented from making Father's Day cards at school for fear of embarrassing classmates who live with single mothers and lesbians.

The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools "in the interests of sensitivity" over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households.

The Telegraph article is located here.

Another article about this is found here.

While I understand the desire to be sensitive to children, this seems to be a little overboard.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Fundamental Missionaries threatened for "Hate Crimes"

The issue of so-called "hate crimes" legislation is a serious issue for Christians who take the Bible seriously. This is not because the Bible encourages "hate", but because Western society has twisted the meaning of "hate" and much of the legislation that is being pushed in regards to "hate crimes" really are more of an attempt to sensor and silence those who desire to speak out than they are to prevent or deal with actual crimes of hate.

Recently, two missionaries with Gospel Fellowship Association were "threatened with arrest for committing a 'hate crime' and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned" for passing out Gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham, England (according to this article on the website of the British newspaper Telegraph). Even though the officer in question may have been overstepping his bounds, this is not a unique incident.

In an earlier post on The FFBC Blog (The Danger of So-Called "Hate-Crimes" Legislation), readers were reminded that this type of legislation continues to be pushed in the U.S. and has already passed in the house. Since then, it has also passed in the Senate, but has yet to reach President Bush's desk. President Bush has threatened a veto if the bill reaches his desk.

A resolution passed by the Fellowship of Fundamental Bible Churches in 1999 deals with the topic of hate crimes still rings true.

Since Cain murdered Abel, all crimes of violence have been "Hate Crimes". Those murdered in a robbery or as a result of domestic violence are just as dead as the one who was targeted by a racial or religious fanatic for extermination. The very radicals who tried to abolish the death penalty and now attempt to forestall the execution of every convicted criminal are those pushing for stiffer penalties for individuals accused of "Hate Crimes".

The homosexual lobby is behind much of this legislation, which goes far beyond dealing with crimes of violence. Their real target is not those who commit acts of violence, but those who would criticize their ungodly way of life. The White House and various members of Congress have backed this legislation, perhaps because of their own immoral lifestyles. Much of this legislation is aimed at "thought control" rather than crime control.

The Scripture tells us that "Whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6). If a serious effort was made to enforce the death penalty much of the violent crime in our country would disappear. We urge our legislators to reject so-called "Hate Crimes" legislation, to recognize the real purpose of those who sponsor it, and to remember that, constitutionally, laws should apply equally to all citizens convicted or accused of a crime.

The above information I posted on The FFBC Blog. I will make an additional comment here in regards to this, since this is a personal site and not a site directly affiliated with any ministry.

To those of you conservatives who are seriously thinking about sitting out this election, may I remind you that there are a number of issues like this where a Presidential veto may be the only thing stopping the issue from moving forward. For the record, here is an article regarding McCain's position on this issue - McCain Campaign Tells Brody File: No on Hate Crimes Bill.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Chris Anderson's take on the Minnick Interview

Pastor-blogger extraordinaire Chris Anderson has posted his thoughts on the 9 Marks interview of Mark Dever interview of Mark Minnick in a post entitled, "2Marks on 9Marks." (Don't you like the clever title?)

I tend to agree with much of what Chris has written. (Don't count that against Chris!)

As usual, it is much clearer and shorter than my thoughts on the same topic.

Just his thoughts,

Frank

Mark Dever's Interview of Mark Minnick - Part 1

In a previous post, I highlighted the 9 Marks interview of Dr. Mark Minnick by Dr. Mark Dever on the subject of Fundamentalism and the Doctrine of Separation.

While I have only known of Dr. Dever's ministry for the last couple of years, I appreciate a lot that I have read and heard coming out of the ministry in D.C., although I agree with Dr. Dever that he would not be considered a Fundamentalist in the way that I understand Fundamentalism.

I had the privilege of attending Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville for a couple of years during Dr. Minnick's early years as the Sr. Pastor of the church. I also had Dr. Minnick for a few classes at Bob Jones University and consider him a very gifted preacher and godly man.

What I would like to do in this post is to kind of give a "lay of the land" in regards to the interview, with my comments interspersed. I want to do this so that those who have not had a chance to listen to the interview can at least attempt to follow along.

The interview apparently took place in February at Capitol Hill Baptist Church and was, in part, the result of an earlier get-together between Dr. Dever and some Fundamentalist Pastors in the Greenville area. The interview does not indicate who, other than Minnick, was at that meeting, although some of the names have been indicated in other places in the blogosphere.

In the beginning of the interview, Dr. Dever seeks to start by introducing the topic - Fundamentalism and separation - and introducing the interviewee - Dr. Minnick. If you are familiar with Dr. Minnick, there is not a lot in this first section to draw attention to other than a couple of quick things.

1. Dever made it clear very early in the interview (1:25) that there was a clear area of difference between Minnick (and the other Pastors at that meeting) and himself was over the issue of "how we associate with other Christians - how we decide to do that" (i.e. separation). It seemed to me that early on Dr. Dever was wanting to get at the core of the issue. I appreciated that and felt that he kept trying to do this over and over throughout the interview.

It must have been a little frustrating to him that Dr. Minnick seemed to have been more interested in making sure that Dr. Dever understand the areas of agreement - and to recognize that Fundamentalism was not some weird unorthodox monster hiding in the corner like some Evangelical leaders try to portray it. (See the recent Evangelical Manifesto or Rick Warren's comments on Fundamentalism for a couple of examples of this.)

In a large way, it was very frustrating to me as well. However, as I reflected on this a little more, I think that I may not have given Dr. Minnick enough credit in my initial thoughts regarding this. Dr. Minnick was not on his "home turf" and the reality is that while guys like Don, Greg, Andy, Chris, Ben, Bob and others in the "Fundamentalist Blogosphere" - including most of those who will read this and many who discuss these things at SI - have been discussing exactly the point of tension that Dr. Dever was asking about, Dr. Minnick undoubtedly realized that the audience of the 9Marks interview goes beyond this small group of people - and was probably therefore more careful that I would have been about making sure people get a better "big picture" of Fundamentalism. In other words, this is not Dr. Doran in the comments section of Chris or Ben's blog discussing the finer points of these issues (something that appeals to people like me who are intimately concerned with these issues), but rather a broader audience that, in general, is pretty ignorant of Fundamentalism - and whose ignorance of Fundamentalism is often fueled by the very unbalanced and uneducated critiques of Fundamentalism that I mentioned earlier. So, while I would have loved for Dr. Minnick to just have delved into the issue of Fundamentalism and separatism strongly from the beginning, I recognize that his approach in this area, while not as satisfying to guys like me, was probably the wiser approach, as it helped to correct some of the common mischaracterizations about Fundamentalism before hitting on the more minute points. (I also wonder if there is an aspect of still wanting to "go as far on the right road" as you can, so emphasizing the areas of agreement at this point may have been viewed as more helpful in that attempt.)

2. Dr. Dever also commented during this point, that while Dr. Dever sometimes refers to himself as a "fundamentalist" he is not a Fundamentalist in the way that Dr. Minnick would mean the term. Dr. Minnick's answer here was "I think we are [agreed] in our instincts and I think we are agreed in terms of Biblical principle - its probably the extension of them that would be where the difference comes."

This is one of those points where I would have loved to have heard more elaboration from Dr. Minnick. Perhaps some more had been said in the Greenville discussion that clarified this for these two men, but I wonder about the agreement in terms of Biblical principle. Perhaps someone from CHBC can fill me in here: Does Dr. Dever believe that it is ever necessary (outside of the context of a local church) to separate from professing believers? It may be - after all, perhaps that is part of what the de-funding of the D.C. Convention was about - but I am not sure I have heard him articulate this position and would find this a significant shift from the arguments that Evangelicals were making regarding this concept as little as 10 years ago. (When the mantra often seemed to be - "No. That only applies to laziness.")

3. It is also during this part of the interview that Dr. Minnick is given the opportunity to define Fundamentalism and gives the definition that I mentioned on my last post:

A Fundamentalist is a person who believes the essentials of the Christian faith and believes that they are also the essentials for fellowship and cooperation - particularly spiritual cooperation.

I appreciated this definition from Dr. Minnick. While I may have opted for a little more militancy in my definition of Fundamentalism (perhaps more along the lines of Curtis Lee Laws' - "those who hold to the great fundamentals and mean to do battle royal for the faith." ), I like the fact that this definition keeps a focus on two of the key aspects of Fundamentalism - the insistence on orthodoxy and the importance of limiting fellowship to those who are also orthodox.

4. It is also during this first section where Dr. Dever comments that Dr. Minnick is advocate of "what we might call a ‘deliberate Christian' or ‘deliberate cooperation'" (a play off of Dr. Dever's book The Deliberate Church.

5. Dr. Dever also mentions that he had read Dr. McCune's book - Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism - and found himself agreeing with much of his critique of Evangelicalism. He also stated he found himself only in "mixed agreement" with what Dr. McCune positively advocated. I would love to have seen some follow-up at that point - what areas of what Dr. McCune advocated was he in agreement with and what areas was he in disagreement with and what areas was he unsure. (Again, perhaps this will be covered in a follow-up interview with Dr. McCune :) ).

6. Dr. Dever then asked for a "quick tour" of Fundamentalism as a whole, since listeners will know "different parts of the elephant." While Dr. Minnick was correct in identifying the fact that Fundamentalism is not monolithic, I felt that this is one of the areas where he could have been much more clear in indicating that much of what he called "sectarian Fundamentalism" is repudiated by mainstream Fundamentalism and has ceased to be "Fundamentalism" due to its leaving of orthodoxy on issues such as its pragmatic soteriology and radical views on inspiration.

7. In this section, Dr. Minnick also responds (in response to a question regarding Hyles, etc.):

The fact is that in terms of the practicalities of cooperation and association they just don't intersect much. In some cases it isn't really a studied issue where they came to a definite determination at this point in time we no longer will interact with each other.

While there is probably truth to that for some Fundamentalists. The problem with this is that there SHOULD BE a definite determination that we will no longer interact with this type of "so-called" fundamentalist.

8. In the end of this section, Dr. Minnick points out that the question is laid out in the title of a book by Iain Murray based on a sermon that was preached at Grace Community Church - "Unresolved Controversy - Unity with Non-Evangelicals."

Dr. Minnick comments that

That was the issue that divided the Evangelical world 60 years ago. The Fundamentalism that I am familiar with took the position that that controversy is resolved in the Bible and "No. You ought not for spiritual purpose fellowship with and cooperate with non-evangelicals."

Since I see that this is getting long, I will stop here for tonight. (Besides it is past my bed time.)

Anyway, these are just some thoughts,

Frank

Really??

This is a little bit old, but I think it is still relevant. I started writing it in March, but it got saved in draft mode and never finished.

In March, 9 Marks published an e-journal in which the question was asked, "What can we learn from Fundamentalists?"

There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding the articles in that journal and I have basically just watched from afar. (A dear and faithful lady in our church had a very serious stroke around the time the articles came out and we had a number of other things going on at the time of the publishing of the journal.)

At the time, however, I noticed a comment by Ben Wright (aka Paleoevangelical) that I wanted to address, but never completed my post.

Ben wrote an article over at Paleoevanglical regarding Dr. Dave Doran's article in the 9 Marks e-journal.

In the comments on this thread, Ben comments to Bruce:

So Doran seems to be arguing that we can disagree on issues that are not directly tied to the gospel (music, head coverings, the Rapture, etc.) and still have some meaningful level of fellowship together for the gospel. I think that's different from what you (and I) might be used to.

I probably live in an isolated world, but one of the things that I have seen repeatedly running around the internet in the last few years is a memory of some regarding Fundamentalism that just seems strangely distant from the memories of Fundamentalism that I have. I recognize that there are some different streams of Fundamentalism, but I seem to find these divergent memories even from those who are mainly from the same general stream.

For instance, I don't know much regarding paleo ben's background, by my assumption has been that he spent some time at (or even perhaps graduated from) my alma mater or at least from one of its "sister schools" (NBBC, MBBC, etc.). I know that he also was involved in a youth ministry/publishing ministry that I found to be profitable when I was a youth pastor - and whose Leadership Training Course I used and adapted for training our youth leaders. While I do not agree with everything that organization did (and remember my wife and I getting up and leaving at one event that the leader was "performing" at a camp that I like a lot), I think it has been one of the better youth ministry sources available.

However, when I think of those things, it makes it hard to imagine how the statement that I put in block quotes could be accurate. (In fact, it reminds me in some ways of the faulty memories of the Israelites who started to long for the "fleshpots" back in Egypt when things went a little difficult in the wilderness - they "misremembered" the conditions that existed in Egypt before the exodus.)

Mainstream Fundamantalism has always allowed for disagreement on issues not directly tied to the Gospel. For instance, Ben uses the example of head coverings. Come on, Ben. Surely, you are not ignorant of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church where Dr. Mark Minnick serves as Pastor (and where Jesse Boyd, Rod Bell, and Les Olilla served before him) or the Free Presbyterian Church or even BJU up until a decade or so ago. To try to indicate that up until recently Fundamentalism would have viewed head coverings as something to be separated over is implausible and irresponsible.

Are there wacko fringe groups that refer to themselves as Fundamentalist that might make such a thing a matter of separation? Sure. But this discussion was not that it was different from the fringe, but that it was different from the Fundamentalism that Ben and Bruce (Countryman?) were used to.

Therefore, I ask - Really?

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Christians and Popular Culture - Who Said This?

Two quotes regarding "Christian" music and "Christian" culture. Who said them?

When you make loving Christ sound just like loving your boyfriend, you can do damage to both your faith and your ballad. That's true when you create a sanitized version of bands like Nirvana or artists like Jay-Z, too: You shoehorn a message that's essentially about obeying authority into a genre that's rebellious and nihilistic, and the result can be ugly, fake, or just limp.

It's always been a stretch to defend Christian pop culture as the path to eternal salvation. Now, they may have to face up to the fact that it's more like an eternal oxymoron.

Just for you to guess,

Frank

There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey - Part 1

Two recent news stories regarding New Jersey should serve as a warning about what things are like when the corrupt Democratic machine gets complete control of something - especially in regards to issues that are important to believers.

Corruption in New Jersey politics is nothing new - see former Senator Bob Torricelli (D) or former Governor James McGreevey (D) as two recent prominent New Jersey Democrats that resigned amid accusations of corruption. Having lived in New Jersey for 10 years, not much would surprise me with regards to New Jersey politics.

Recently, however, there were two issues that showed up in New Jersey that ought to cause the rest of us to take notice. Since they are different issues, I will address each one with a separate post.

The first issue is regarding homosexual activism and the believer's rights to stand up for the truth from the Bible.

In the continued efforts of the homosexual activitists to silence and intimidate any voices that do not agree with their desire to have their sin viewed as acceptable and moral, a recent attack was made upon the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Associaton for their refusal to allow civil unions in an oceanside Pavillion/Chapel that the Methodist Camp Association owns.

You can read the article in the New Jersey Ledger here.

If you notice in the article, there are a series of cases pending on the groups refusal - on religious grounds - to allow the civil unions on the site. The cost of this stand (in the terms of uthe nexpected tax bill) could reach $378,000. The cost for the other cases pending (including a civil rights descrimination case) could end up being even greater - depending on decisions in the cases.

If you do not think that believers need to stand up and take a position against this promotion of this radical agenda now, imagine the implications down the road for Christian schools, churches, and camp grounds. All that the homosexual activitists need to do is ask for permission to be married on your grounds and if you refuse to allow it, you could be in for some serious trouble.

I am not sure what those of us outside of New Jersey can or should do in this matter, but one thing is certain. We ought to be preparing our ministries for the day when this same attack is made in our individual locations. I am hesitant to name some ministries that I can think of that may soon be facing the same type of attacks (I don't want my including their names in this post to be something that the left uses to find new targets.)

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Maggie Gallagher has a more detailed discussion on this over at Yahoo! News.

Wife convicted of killing preacher out of jail after five months in jail!

I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV (that is a reference to an old commercial for all of you young'uns out there). However, the case of Mary Winkler seems like something is gone awry in the Tennessee justice system.

This past week, on August 14, Mary Winkler walked out of jail after having spent a total of seven months in custody (five in jail, two in a mental hospital)* for having shot her husband in the back with a 12-guage shotgun.

I am sure by now that most of you have heard something about the story. Her husband was the Pastor of a Church of Christ in Tennessee. According to most reports, he was well-liked and respected in the community. However, on March 22, 2006, his wife shot him in the back and took off with their three children to Alabama. Reports say that when Mary Winkler left, her husband was not yet dead from the shooting, but rather than calling 911 or trying to help him after what she said later was an "accident", she took the children and fled.

When she went to trial, she said that she had been the victim of abuse. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know if this is true or not. There was no collaborating evidence presented about the alleged abuse. The couple's nine-year old daughter testified that she never saw her father mistreat her mother (even though testifying as such could have caused this little girl who has already lost a father to also lose a mother to a long sentence) and Mary Winkler herself said under cross-examination that her husband did nothing for which he deserved to die. Police said that Mary Winkler had been involved in a financial scam and that this had led to some arguments on the nights she killer her husband. The jury, however, returned a "Voluntary Manslaughter" conviction rather than a 1st-degree murder conviction.

Now she is out of prison and out of the mental hospital and free. Something does not smell right in the state of Tennessee.

Some news reports regarding this story:

Mary Winkler Told Cops She Shot Minister Husband After Fight

Preacher's Wife Guilty of Manslaughter

Did Preacher's Wife Get Away with Murder?


Just my thoughts,

Frank


* The seven months include credit for five months she was held before her conviction. After her conviction, she only served 67 days, 60 of which was in a mental hospital.

Fraudulent News by Oliver North

I know this article is a few weeks old. I read it awhile ago and meant to highlight it, but did not get around to it at the time.

Mr. North has written an excellent piece on the current state of American journalism and argues that "fraudulent news is not only bad for morals, the environment and morale, it can also be disheartening and sometimes downright deadly."

In the article he hits on a number of "hot-button" issues - from global warming to terrorism to Muslim extremism to the "lost tomb of Jesus." It is a short article, but worth the read - even if I am a little late in putting it up here.

So, take a couple of minutes and read "Fraudalent News" by Oliver North.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Maryland Passes Stupid Bill

I don't generally make a lot of posts regarding politics, but this one needs some comments.

Earlier today, the Maryland House of Delegates approved a bill that makes Maryland even more irrelevant in the area of Presidential politics. Our local paper, The Daily Times, writes about the bill in this article - Maryland poised to be first to approve Electoral College change.

Maryland is setting itself up so that the voice of the citizens of Maryland are irrelevant when it comes to the election of the President of the United States. The bill awards Maryland's electoral votes (currently 10) to the winner of the national popular vote. This is just plain STUPID!

Think of some of the effects of this bill.

1. It ignores the choices of Maryland voters. Maryland voters could vote overwhelmingly - even unanimously - for a particular candidate, yet the state's electoral votes would go for that person's opponent if the opponent won the national popular vote.

2. It makes Maryland even more of an afterthought in campaigns. Maryland has 10 electoral votes. This places Maryland in a tie for 18th most electoral votes. Not exactly anything to brag about, but nothing to sneeze at either. This bill tells Presidential candidates that they can skip Maryland except for fundraisers - after all, why worry about the votes in Maryland when you can mine for extra votes in a more populous state? You get twice the bang for your buck - you campaign in an effort to win that states electoral votes and you get Maryland's thrown in with them.

3. It specifically goes against the concepts that the framers of the constitution tried to use when they set up the electoral college in the first place. This was set up as a protection for the "smaller states," but now a smaller state is advocating getting rid of it. Go figure!

Now, Maryland's law still needs to be signed by the Governor - he is expected to sign it - and a number of other states need to pass similar laws before Maryland's law would take effect. Here's hoping that there are not that many other stupid states.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

The Lost Tomb of Jesus - Does a physical resurrection really matter? A response to Steve H.

Part of me hesitates to even discuss this topic further since the media firestorm preceeding the documentary has quieted due to the extremely speculative nature of the production.

One commentator wrote:

Do you remember when Geraldo Rivera did a live broadcast in the 80s at the site of Al Capone's vault and when the wrecking balls broke through, there was nothing inside the vault? Well, 'The Lost Tomb Of Jesus' was sort of like that, only less credible.

In my recent post on The Lost Tomb of Jesus in which I discuss some of the factual and logical difficulties with this over-hyped "documentary" by James Cameron, I received a comment from a visitor named Steve that I think is worth addressing in a regular post rather than just in the comments section.

Since it is sometimes difficult with the new blogger to be able to read the comments of others, I will reprint his comments in this post as I address the issue that he has raised. So here are his comments and then some of my comments to his comments.

One of my favorite verses of scripture is the "we see as through glass darkly". If we consider that verse to contain wisdom, then cant we consider the factual narrative of Jesus in the bible to be the best we could put into language given that dark glass barrier prevents a more thorough understanding?

Im not suggesting that the story of Jesus doesnt represent the divine message from God. Im actually suggesting that maybe the divine reality is too far over our heads to attempt to understand with mere human language and ability to conceptualise.

Theres a saying that the best things cant be told. And the second best are too often misunderstood. So its the third best things that we talk about.

If we somehow found empirical evidence that Jesus in fact did not rise from the grave, i dont believe it would make the story any less important as far as revealing transcended divinity to those of us still on this side of the glass.

SteveH

I appreciate Steve stopping by and asking his question. I think it is a good question, yet I also think that there is an underlying premise in this question that needs to be addressed.

Steve starts his post by referring to a verse that speaks of seeing through a glass darkly. The verse which he is referencing is 1 Corinthians 13:12, which reads, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

I understand and agree with the first part of Steve’s point - namely, that there are a number of things about which are understanding is limited, especially a number of things in the spiritual realm. I also rejoice in the truth in the last part of that verse, that there will come a time when I shall "know even as also I am known."

So, while I agree with this truth, I will have to disagree with the conclusion that Steve seems to draw from this point:

If we somehow found empirical evidence that Jesus in fact did not rise from the grave, i dont believe it would make the story any less important as far as revealing transcended divinity to those of us still on this side of the glass

For while it is true that there are many things that we cannot understand, there is a difference between not being able to understand the details of something and being misled about the thing itself. While there may be some things about the details of the resurrection of which we have limited understanding and can only see darkly, the fact of the resurrection is not one of those things. The Apostle Paul tells us that this truth is a critical truth.

Paul tells us plainly in 1 Corinthians 15, that "if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (v. 14). He goes on to say that this would make the Apostles and other who claim to have witnessed the resurrection would then be false witness and that "if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain: ye are yet in your sins."

In Luke 24, after Jesus rose from the grave, He told His disciples to touch Him so that they would understand that He had risen bodily. Lu 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

At the start of the Fundamentalist - Modernist Controversy near the beginning of the 20th Century, many times the liberal theologians (called "modernists" in those days) would state that they were attempting to "rescue" Jesus from the Scripture. In their attempts to do so, they would deny the clear truth of God’s Word and come up with alternate explanations. In reality they were not "rescuing" Christ, they were denying Christ. It is through the Scripture that we know Christ - not apart from the Scripture. Therefore, the reliability of the Bible is essential to our faith - and this is especially evident in a case such as the resurrection. If Christ be not raised from the dead, then we are left with a dead Savior, a dishonest book inconsistent with a God of truth, and no hope for a future resurrection. To me, this is important.

Now, thankfully, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well-attested to events in ancient history. Books upon books have been written on this topic over the years. The disciples went from scared and scattered to bold and courageous. There were multitudes of eyewitness - including over 400 at one time. Paul’s life was transformed when he saw the resurrected Jesus. The enemies of Christ had their mouths stopped by truth of the resurrection.

I do not have the time to get into all of the details, but suffice it to say, it should take much more than a flashy Hollywood documentary to shake the faith of any Christian who understands what the Bible teaches about this central doctrine.

Some further resources on the Resurrection are listed below.

Just my thoughts,

Frank


A couple of articles that can be accessed via the internet:

Is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ true?

Why should I believe in Christ’s resurrection?

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

Many of you have seen media coverage regarding a new documentary being broadcast on the Discovery Chanel called The Lost Tomb of Jesus and directed by James Cameron (of Titanic and Terminator fame). This "discovery" (which was actually made over 20 years ago and is primarily based on a book entitled, The Jesus Family Tomb) is one more in a line of attacks by those who seek to attempt to undermine the credibility of God’s Word, but in the process reveal their own ignorance. The Bible tells us that Jesus arose from the grave on the third day, that he was seen of many witnesses (including over 500 at one time) and that he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

The information that is being put out by Mr. Cameron and others reveal their own ignorance and bias. This is the tomb of a wealthy family - Jesus had not where to lay his head. The supposed "DNA Evidence" is simply that the two bodies they claim are from Jesus and Mary Magdalene are not related and that therefore they must have been married. There is not DNA Evidence that could substantiate in any way that this body is the body of Christ - they would need to have some undisputed DNA from Jesus that they could use to compare with the DNA in the ossuary.

The tomb is from a well-off family, yet the Bible tells us that the Jesus had not a place to lay his head. The supposed family tomb is located in Jerusalem when Jesus’ family was from Nazareth or Bethlehem (depending upon whether you are going where his ancestry was from or where he grew up). The "documentary" fails to understand enough about the subject that they claim to be documenting - namely, the truth about Jesus Christ as presented in the most reliable of documents - those New Testament documents that were written by eye-witnesses of the events about which they wrote.

In addition to all of the problems with the "documentary," think about this for a moment: If the body of Jesus was indeed in a marked tomb like this, it would be very hard to explain the growth of Christianity. The enemies of the Gospel during the era of the spread of the church would have surely produced the body. The believers whose lives were changed because they saw the resurrected Christ would not have experienced that change. The leaders of the early church would not have submitted to all of the torture and cruel forms of death that they experienced for what they knew to be a lie.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

P.S. For some further information about this, see the following resources (as always, inclusion of a link does not mean that I agree with everything that is said in the link or with the group/person who is being linked to or anything else on their blog :) ):

Archeological Identity Theft: The Lost Tomb of Jesus Fails to Make the Grade

The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Response to the Discovery-Channel Documentary Directed by James Camaron

Hollywood Hype: The Oscars and Jesus' Family Tomb, What Do They Share?

The Jesus Tomb? 'Titanic' Talpiot Tomb Sunk From The Start