The Christ of History

Christianity is based around a series of historical events. It is not just an abstract philosophy. Though it has deep implications for our understanding of the universe. It is not just a system of ethics. Though it has profound effects on the way we behave. It is not just a mystical experience. Though it forms a basis for experiencing that presence of God in our lives. It is the message of how God invaded history, became a human being, lived a human life marked with profound teaching and supernatural events, died a criminal's death to paid the penalty for our sins, and rose again the third day. The question is, Is this believable? Now no one comes to God without the Spirit of God working in their lives (John 6:44; 15:5; Acts 13:48). But it is useful to look at the evidence.

1. The first question we need to ask before we can evaluate this is whether there is such a thing as truth. If there is not, then nothing makes any sense. (see), (see), and (see).

2. We also need to ask if science somehow precludes the idea of supernatural intervention. But this is simply an assumption without foundation. (see), (see), and (see).

3. Then we need to ask whether the records upon which the Christian faith is based are reliable  or whether they have been corrupted over time. The actual evidence, apart from speculation, is in their favor. (see), (see), and (see).

4. Also, we have to deal with the idea that someone deliberately altered what Christianity is. And this does not stand up to examination. (see), (see), and (see).

5. Further, the idea that Christianity grew up slowly over time or changed from its original set of beliefs does not fit the facts or the context it appeared in. (see), (see), and (see).

6. We are then faced with dealing with the reliability of the accounts and what they maintain. (see), (see), and (see). While those who refuse to even consider such possibilities will not be convinced, I conclude there is a real basis for the Christian faith.

Ultimately, we are left face to face with the person of Christ and must ask who we believe He is (Matthew 16:15). How we answer that is the basis for deciding the truth of Christianity. How do you answer this question?

Abraham's Example - Romans 4:18-22

Can We Trust These People?

Can we trust the writers of the New Testament? Now the identities of the authors are attested by many early sources. Further, it does not seem reasonable that the real originators of Christianity should leave us no evidence and that all we would have preserved would be forgeries made long after the fact. Or that none of the numerous critics of Christianity noticed this. Also, one test for acceptance of a book by Christians was whether the author was who he claimed to be.

Now one argument against the gospel accounts is the similarity of those accounts. But in the ancient world it was considered proper to repeat a story as it was generally told. We see this in the similarities of Samuel and Kings with Chronicles in the Old Testament. The Roman historians followed the same sort of pattern. But the gospels were not simply copied, but show many differences in details. This argues that they had a definite degree of independence. There is also archeological and historical evidence from the time confirming the accounts. Further, the accounts frequently portray the later "heroes" of the church in an uncomplimentary light.

According to the New Testament and tradition, the original founders of Christianity suffered severely, to the point of being put to death. Even if you discount these, within about thirty years of the founding of the Christianity people were being put to death by Nero for being Christians. Now this does not prove that Christianity is true, but it does show that the people involved believed what they were saying. It tells against any kind of conspiracy theory. Particularly since it is unclear what the conspirators thought they would get out of it. Even if the apostles somehow escaped, how did they manage to convince other people in such a short period of time to die for this belief? Also relevant here is Chuck Colson's objection. He was involved in the Watergate scandal, and he asked the question: If a small group of people with all the power of the presidency, in no danger of their lives, could not keep the Watergate break-in secret, how could these powerless people, in constant danger of death, manage it?

Some have claimed the gospels were originally novels. But would anyone get so confused as to die for a novel? Or if written after the persecution started, would anyone write a novel, knowing it could get them and anyone who read it killed? It could be claimed that the whole thing was based on the wishful thinking of the immediate followers of Jesus, similar to appearances of Elvis. This might work for the disciples, but how would they convince others? Can you imagine belief in Elvis becoming a major faith and ultimately taking over our society? We are then left with the conclusion that the writers of the New Testament were honest men, reporting what they saw or what they heard from others who saw. And we need to decide how we will respond to this.

Putting the Cookies on the Lower Shelf

Sometimes it is easy to make things more difficult than they need to be. This can be particularly true in theology. We can take the simple statements of Scripture and make them unnecessarily complicated. The Bible was written by and for ordinary people. In fact, one of my most basic principles of interpretation is to read it like a Galilean fisherman. That is, to ask, What would it mean to the ordinary person who read it? But there are difficulties involved in Biblical teaching. We must understand that God as God is beyond human comprehension (Romans 11:33; Isaiah 55:8,9; 1 Corinthians 3:18). Also, many of the Bible's teachings have become foreign or objectionable to our present culture's way of thinking (1 Corinthians 1:18-25; Romans 12:2; 1 John 2:15-17). None of this is really helped by making it more technical than it needs to be. Now for these reasons there will be a certain number of specialized terms that are helpful in explaining Biblical teaching. But these should be explained to people so they understand them. We need to be very careful of watering down God's truth so it makes sense to us. But we do need to make it clear.

A teacher is required to communicate all of God's truth to his hearers (Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; Matthew 28:18-20). But there is a tendency to limit ourselves to what is regarded as practical. This ends up emphasizing our works rather than God's grace. Now these may be rigid, legalistic works or kind, loving works but they are still works. Works have a place in the Christian life (Titus 2:11-14; Ephesians 2:10; John 14:21). But they need to be seen within the context of God's grace and love for us (Romans 5:1,2; 8:15; 1 John 4:9,10). Who God is and what He has done fall into the area normally classified as doctrine. But this is important in order that Christianity may maintain its real identity and not degenerate into simplistic moralism. Christianity is not about a bigger, better Law, but the fact that God intervened in history to destroy sin and death (Romans 5:6-8; Colossians 2:13-15; Ephesians 2:8,9). Now when we deal with doctrine, there are a number of disputes that have arisen over more minor issues. In my opinion, many of these have been blown out of proportion and need to be put in perspective. But whatever their importance, they should be taught clearly. They should not be made the province of scholars, but taught to all believers. I do not in any way want to minimize the contribution of the great teachers and scholars of God's Word, whether past or present. But the calling of a teacher is to pass on what he knows, not to hoard it. There is not one truth for the layman and another for the scholar. The total truth of God should be taught to all.

Question Authority?

"Question authority" was the watchword of the 1960s in the United States. How is the Christian to respond to this? We cannot embrace it wholeheartedly, but should we jump to the opposite extreme of unquestioning obedience to any authority? Where is the proper balance?

The reason we cannot embrace it wholeheartedly is that if we do, sooner or later we get to the question of the authority of Scripture (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; Psalms 12:6,7). Further, if we throw out the authority of Scripture we are left with a vague, watered-down Christianity which is practically meaningless. But if we go to Scripture, we find it advocates other authorities (Hebrews 13:17; Romans 13:1-7; Ephesians 5:22-24; 6:1-3). However, it also puts limitations and restrictions on these authorities (1 Peter 5:1-4; Proverbs 14:34; Ephesians 5:25-31; 6:4). More importantly, Scripture states that there is a point where we must serve God rather than men (Acts 4:19; 5:29; Daniel 3:17,18) and that we must test all things by Scripture (Acts 17:11; Galatians 1:8,9; Isaiah 8:20). Further, Scripture provides a basis for correcting those in authority if they are out of line (2 Samuel 12:1-14; 1 Kings 21:17-26; Galatians 2:11-16).

Now to reject all authority leads to anarchy, which the most superficial observation of history shows is always destructive. It also leads to tyranny, because when you are living in anarchy you are willing to accept any dictator who will restore order. Nor does this work out much better in our personal lives. You see, it really is not possible for every person to be totally original. In fact, I suspect there are only a small number of basic approaches to life that are endlessly recycled. Therefore, if people throw out all reasonable authorities they are left to follow trendsetters (celebrities, entertainers, merchandisers, and the like) whose distinctions tend to be superficial at best. But behind these, there is normally  some philosophical or scientific theory which, to be consistent, should also be questioned. The irony is that to really rebel against an authority you need another authority to base it on. Therefore, you are merely trading one authority for another. In the 1960s, that new authority was most often Marxism, one of the most authoritarian forms of government on the planet.

The question then is not whether we will have an authority (we will), but what authority. In this I would advocate Christianity as a concept that provides authority, but also provides a basis by which the particular authorities can be questioned if they are out of line. There are other possible authorities that would also make such claims, and they need to be evaluated as to whether they are true. But the most dangerous authority is one that works behind the scenes and does not show its true colors and so cannot be questioned. Therefore, we need to question authority, not to throw out every form but to decide which is best. Otherwise we could be saddled with whatever sneaks in the back door.

Baffle Them with Big Words

There is an appropriate place for long words and technical language. There are some things which are difficult or laborious to say in ordinary language. Also, such words can add precision to the discussion of a specialized subject. But they can also be used to confuse and confound rather than to clarify. This is especially true of words that lack any clear definition (or perhaps have more than one, and the speaker can easily slip from one to another). It does not help here that there can be words that have a definite meaning but are difficult to define (for instance "democracy"). But it is also possible for people to use questionable words in a sort of conjuring game which enables them to palm the ace in an argument.

Another similar trick is to change the meanings of words from their ordinary meaning to a specialized one. Now again, there can be an appropriate place for this. There can be contexts in which giving a word a specialized meaning to serve a special purpose can clarify things. (For instance, the word "saved" has a specialized meaning in a Christian context, but it is useful if understood.) But this procedure can also be used to confuse the issue. Take the current use of the word "tolerant" in a way different from, and  even in conflict with, its tradition meaning. "Toleration" has traditionally meant trying to get along with people you disagree with. Today it has become a basis for suppressing those who have differing opinions.

Even better as a veil is the use of words, often even simple words, in a vague mystical fashion that avoids any precise meaning. Broad  words such as "life," "love," and "freedom" can often be used in this way. When a word eludes all attempts to pin it down, it often fits in this category. Sometimes these vague ideas can be personified to almost imply a real purpose involved (such as life fighting its way up from amoeba  to man) when there is none.

The conclusion here is: Be careful of being impressed or swayed by complicated words and fancy rhetoric. A good question to ask is, "What does that mean in plain English?" If it cannot be put into simple language, it could be it is because it has no real meaning. If it sounds like it makes no sense, it could be because it does not. One thing I have always found helpful here is teaching children. If you cannot explain your theology to a 3rd or 4th grader, you do not really understand your theology. Or perhaps it does not make that much sense in the first place. Also, as Christians we are commanded to observe straightforward honesty (1 Thessalonians 2:4,5; Ephesians 4:14,15; Matthew 5:33-37), so we should speak the truth of God in its simplicity (1 Corinthians 2:1-5). And we should use care not to be taken in by the outward appearances of words.

Judge Not

"Judge not lest you be judged.'' There are few Bible verses (perhaps John 3:16, Psalms 23, or Matthew 6:9-13) so well known to the public at large as Matthew 7:1. Nor is there any other verse so totally misunderstood. It is commonly taken to mean it is wrong to make any kind of determination as to what is right and what is wrong. If it means that, it not only flies in the face not only of almost everything the Bible says but of what Jesus Himself says in the rest of the sermon (Matthew 5:17-48; 6:1-24; 7:15-27). Now in the context, this verse is followed by the illustration of the man who notices the speck in his neighbor's eye and misses the beam in his own. He is informed he should first remove the beam from his own eye and then he will be able to see to remove the speck from his neighbor's eye. Now note what Jesus does not say. He does not say, "Leave the beam in your eye, leave the beam in your neighbor's eye, and form a society protesting those hateful, narrow people who are opposed to specks and beams." What this passage is against is hypocrisy. However, before we say, "I'm not a hypocrite; I'm a good person, so it is all right for me to judge," we need to note one thing. Nowhere in this passage is there an exception clause. It does not say, "Do not judge if you have a beam in your eye, but otherwise you are safe." It seems to take for granted the judge does have a beam in his eye.

There is a similar statement in Romans 2:1. This verse is in the context of an argument starting in Romans 1:18 and going to 3:20, whose conclusion can best be summed up in Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." So then, in 2:1 when Paul says that those who judge are inexcusable, he is basing it on the fact we are all sinners and therefore cannot claim we are better than those we judge. Rather, we all need to be forgiven by the grace of God (Romans 3:24-26; 4:4,5; Ephesians 2:8,9).

But we are commanded to stand for God's truth and to correct sin (2 Timothy 2:24-26; Galatians 6:1; 1 Peter 3:15). We are even required to employ church discipline in the case of those who claim to be believers (Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 2 Thessalonians 3:14,15). But we are not to render an ultimate, categorical judgment of others. The difference here is one of attitude. Are we doing this in a spirit of gentleness, with a desire to put people on the right path so they will live for God, or  looking down on people because we think we are better than them? So while we should not twist Matthew 7:1 to condone sin, we should examine our own heart before dealing with the transgressions of another.