I must confess that I have a similar reaction to the latest “sequel” in the long-running debate over whether Mormons are or can be Christians, prompted this time around by the conservative TV talk-show host Glenn Beck. Do we really need to discuss this question again? Apparently we do, given the lack of clarity that continues to characterize much of what is said on the subject.

The Christian blogosphere recently lit up following the comments of World Magazine online columnist Andrée Seu in which she spoke of Beck not just as a Christian, but as “a new creation in Christ” who is “red hot” toward God. “I can say without hesitation that I have not heard the essentials of the gospel more clearly and boldly in any church than on his program.” Seu acknowledged that Beck is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and admitted that Mormon doctrine is problematic, but described Beck as a latter-day Apollos who needs a Priscilla and Aquila to help him with his theology.

Never Mind!

Evangelical bloggers were quick to contradict Seu. Justin Taylor, one of the most insightful Christians blogging today, commented on “Andrée Seu’s Tragic Mistake on the Gospel of Glenn Beck.” Taylor warned: “It is easy to be moved by talk of having faith in Jesus, without asking who the person understands Jesus to be…. Despite what mainline evangelicalism has taught for years, the gospel is not ‘I trusted in Jesus and he changed my life.’” Russell Moore, an astute Southern Baptist theologian, argued that evangelical enthusiasm for Beck’s religious rhetoric is a sign that American evangelicals have largely traded the gospel for American civil religion:

“It’s taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer to Glenn Beck. In order to be this gullible, American Christians have had to endure years of vacuous talk about undefined ‘revival’ and ‘turning America back to God’ that was less about anything uniquely Christian than about, at best, a generically theistic civil religion and, at worst, some partisan political movement.”

World Magazine acknowledged Taylor’s blog and offered a retraction, stating, “Our website editing system failed in regard to Andrée’s post about Glenn Beck.” In a separate article, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Marvin Olasky, echoed Moore’s assessment: “Beck is syncretizing Mormon and Christian understanding in the service of a civil religion, but that’s a radically unequal yoking for reasons WORLD has pointed out before.”

One thing that seems to have been overlooked up to now is that Taylor and Moore offer two fundamentally different—and possibly incompatible—diagnoses of the problem. Both argue that evangelical enthusiasm for Beck reveals a lack of discernment and a shallow understanding of the gospel among American evangelicals. Taylor worries that Beck’s evangelical supporters are under the mistaken impression that anyone who claims that Jesus changed his life has accepted the gospel. Moore contends that those same evangelicals have mistaken American civil religion for the gospel. So which is it? Does Beck represent a personal-transformation gospel focused on Jesus as life-changer or a civil-religion gospel focused on a generic theism as the foundation for a stable society? I suppose it is possible to mix the two messages, and perhaps there are elements of both in Beck, but they don’t mesh naturally.

Mormon doctrine in two minutes

The main objection to viewing Beck as an advocate for the gospel is that the theology of the LDS Church, of which Beck is a member, is radically incompatible with the biblical gospel. The divide between biblical teaching and Mormon doctrine is so wide that from an evangelical perspective Mormonism falls outside the circle of acceptable, authentic expressions of the Christian faith. The crucial problems with LDS doctrine that impinge directly on one’s view of Jesus Christ and the gospel include the following unbiblical claims:

• All human beings preexisted in heaven, where they were the offspring of heavenly parents (God the Father and a “heavenly mother”), before their natural conception here on earth.
• Our Heavenly Father was a man who became a God—proving that we, too, can become gods.
• Jesus Christ is the “firstborn” of God’s billions of spirit children and the first of those children to become a God.
• As such, Christ is one of three Gods in the “Godhead,” as is the Holy Spirit, another of God’s spirit sons.
• Christ is the “Only Begotten,” which means that he is the only human being whom God the Father literally begat in the flesh. God is Jesus’ literal father in the flesh (allowing Jesus to “inherit” some divine powers other humans do not have) and Mary is his literal mother.
• Christ’s atonement guarantees immortal life in some heavenly kingdom to virtually all human beings, including those who willfully reject Christ.
• Christ (and God the Father) appeared to Joseph Smith to tell him to join none of the churches because all of them were wrong and their creeds were an abomination.
• Through Joseph Smith, God restored lost scriptures (e.g., the Book of Mormon) and inspired new ones (Doctrine & Covenants), from which Mormons learn the doctrines that set them apart from the rest of Christianity.
• Christ organized the only true Church in these latter days with a hierarchical system of “priesthood authority” required to teach or baptize others.
• Full forgiveness of sins and entrance into the highest heavenly kingdom, where God and Christ live, come to those who become members of the LDS Church, follow its teachings, and participate in its temple rituals, notably baptisms and other rites performed on behalf of the dead.
• The ultimate goal of the gospel and of LDS religion is to become gods, with the same powers and potential as the Heavenly Father.

You can find full documentation and discussion of these doctrinal problems in the LDS faith on the website of the Institute for Religious Research (IRR), where I am the director of research. In particular, we provide a thorough analysis of the doctrine taught in the LDS Church’s basic manual on doctrine, called Gospel Principles. Frankly, the evidence is overwhelming that the LDS understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ is radically different from that of the Bible.

“Mormons are not Christians”: Do they hear what we hear?

As I have already observed, these differences deal with such basic elements of Christianity that from an evangelical perspective we must conclude that Mormonism falls outside the boundaries of doctrinally authentic, theologically viable Christian faith. The usual shorthand way of making this point is to say that Mormons are not Christians. Unfortunately, what such a statement achieves in simplicity and rhetorical punch it loses in clarity and comprehension. What people hear when they are told that Mormons are not Christians may be any of the following:

1.      “Mormons are not nice people.”
2.       “Mormons are really part of another religion altogether, such as Hinduism.”
3.      “Mormons are another entirely different religion by themselves.”
4.       “Mormons are not saved from eternal condemnation.”

All four of these meanings are problematic.

(1) Many Mormons are very nice people indeed, so this statement is also objectively false, even assuming that it is ever appropriate to use the term Christian to mean a nice person.

(2) It is objectively false to classify Mormonism as part of another world religion, such as Hinduism. Regrettably, some Christians have actually tried to make the case that Mormonism is Hindu. Dave Hunt and Ed Decker, in their notorious book The God Makers (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1984), argued as much:

“Although it uses Christian language to disguise its paganism, Mormonism is less Christian than it is Hindu. The basic dilemma faced by every Mormon is a direct result of its Hindu roots” (60).

The claim that Mormonism has “Hindu roots” is historically false. Mormonism historically arose as a Christian heresy—a religious offshoot of Christianity that still retains a focus on Christ as its central religious figure, albeit reinterpreted in a thoroughly unbiblical way. The LDS religion has no historical or religious connection to Hinduism and rejects basic Hindu concepts (e.g., Mormonism rejects the worship of idols, pantheism, reincarnation, and karma). There are similarities between Hinduism and Mormonism (as there are between any two religions), such as a belief in a plurality of gods, but such comparisons are superficial because the similar-sounding affirmations have completely different meanings in the contexts of the two religious traditions.

(3) Others have argued that Mormonism is sui generis, that is, in a class by itself, sufficiently distinct from Christianity to be classified as a new world religion. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, suggests that instead of viewing Mormonism as a “Christian faith” we should classify it charitably as “the fourth Abrahamic faith.” That is, Land proposes that we view Mormonism as a religion stemming from the Abrahamic tradition alongside Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This way of classifying Mormonism simply will not hold up. There is no more reason to classify Mormonism as a new Abrahamic faith than there is to so classify the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian heresy as large or larger and as diffused throughout the world as Mormonism. Indeed, there are numerous sects of Christianity that distance themselves theologically and religiously from orthodox Christianity while insisting that theirs is the true Christian church; Mormonism is simply one among many such sects. Historical, religious, and theological comparisons demonstrate that the Mormon tradition (including both the LDS Church and its hundred-plus splinter sects) belong in the broader category of “restorationist” Christian movements that view themselves as the instrument of true Christianity today. These include Adventism and its offshoots, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphianism and other forms of so-called Biblical Unitarianism, Oneness Pentecostalism, the Sacred Name groups, The Way International and its offshoots, and the LDS Church and its offshoots, among others.

(4) It may well be argued that LDS doctrine and religion are so far removed from the biblical gospel that most Mormons will not believe the true gospel as long as they remain committed to LDS doctrine. However, this leaves plenty of room for a small fraction of LDS Church members to believe the biblical gospel in defiance or ignorance of their religion’s teachings. In any religion, there are always people who still consider themselves members but who are rethinking their beliefs or who are transitioning out of the religion. Many evangelicals who have come out of the LDS Church found saving faith in Christ before they removed themselves from the LDS membership rolls. Indeed, some retain their LDS membership, hoping eventually to bring their families and friends out with them. One could argue that such individuals are Mormons in name only, but again, there are people along a spectrum of situations from true-blue Mormons through pick-and-choose Mormons to Mormons in name only. The point is that unqualified generalizations about all Mormons are difficult to justify. And of course, we are not competent to judge the souls of other people, although we can make educated guesses as to their faith based on what we can observe.

A more nuanced statement of point (4) would be to say that we should presume that Mormons who accept and follow the LDS understanding of the gospel will be lost unless they repent and accept the biblical gospel (Eph. 2:1-10; Titus 3:4-7). Putting the matter this way recognizes the spiritually destructive effects of the false teachings of the LDS Church, while allowing for the fact that sometimes it is difficult to tell whether or to what extent a particular Mormon actually accepts (or understands) LDS doctrine. If this is the position that evangelicals should take—and I think it is—it becomes problematic to make the generalized, unqualified statement that Mormons are not Christians. That is, it is unlikely that anyone hearing “Mormons are not Christians” will understand this to carry the nuanced meaning “Mormons who follow the LDS understanding of the gospel are presumed lost.” If we want people to hear what we really mean, we must try to articulate our view more accurately, even if it loses some punch.

One might suppose that the problem can be avoided by saying that Mormonism is not Christian—that is, by punting on the question of whether Mormons are Christians and instead asserting only that the religion of Mormonism is itself not Christian. This may be something of an improvement, but the same sorts of problems remain. If Mormonism is not Christian, what is it? It is not part of another religion, nor is it a completely different religion.

Of course, from an evangelical theological perspective it can be even more misleading to say, without qualification, that Mormons are Christians, or that Mormonism is Christian. Such statements would seem erroneously to concede that the LDS Church is a legitimate denomination of Christianity, standing alongside those denominations and independent church bodies that affirm the essentials of the biblical gospel. I’m all for stating matters as generously as we can, but not at the expense of the truth of the gospel.

Considerations such as those just discussed are the reason why, for several years now, I have argued that we should view the question “Are Mormons Christians?” as unproductive at best and misleading at worst. The question assumes that we should give it an unqualified “Yes” or “No” answer, neither of which is fully satisfactory. About three years ago on this very blog I addressed this question at some length, arguing that the answer depends on how one defines the term Christian. (That blog post was lost due to technical issues, so I re-posted it about two years ago with some revisions at IRR’s blog, The Religious Researcher.) If by “Christians” one means all members of all of the religious groups that belong to the world-religions classification of Christianity, then of course in that generic sense Mormons are Christians, along with everyone else who claims to be. If one uses the term to denote persons who have been saved from eternal condemnation through their faith in Jesus Christ, then the best answer we can give is that most Mormons evidently are not Christians in that sense although some may be. Evangelicals would also have to hedge their answer if they were asked “Are Southern Baptists Christians?” or even “Are evangelicals Christians?” since not all Southern Baptists or evangelicals have genuinely come to saving faith in Christ. After all, basic to evangelical doctrine is the conviction that merely accepting evangelical doctrine, or associating oneself with an evangelical denomination, will not save anyone, since it is through personal faith or trust in Christ, not merely doctrinal correctness or the right religious affiliation, that God saves us.

To avoid overreaching, I have proposed that we make qualified statements that are defensible as objective statements of fact concerning the LDS faith. For example, we can state that Mormons are not orthodox Christians, or that LDS theology is heretical. Mormons will, of course, dispute our understanding of what is orthodox and what is heretical, but we can define these terms to convey an objective meaning. For example, we can stipulate that orthodox means in agreement with the major Christian doctrines articulated in the creeds from the first through the fifth centuries, while heretical means deviating from those doctrinal standards. We should, in short, make clear that while we acknowledge that Mormons sincerely regard themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ, we are convinced that the LDS religious tradition is at odds with the essentials of the Christian faith as taught in the Bible.

Back to Beck

The need for a more flexible and nuanced approach to the subject of whether Mormons are Christians is well illustrated with the example of Glenn Beck. Let me state categorically that I have absolutely no inkling or opinion as to the state of Beck’s soul or the genuineness of his faith in Christ. I have never met him, do not follow his program, and do not have enough information on which to base a conclusion. The fact that Beck is LDS is, of course, of great concern and creates a general presumption that he is in need of the biblical gospel of salvation. On the other hand, there does seem to be some evidence that Beck’s personal understanding of the gospel is at least far closer to the evangelical message than one would expect of a typical Mormon. Consider, for example, the assessment of Beck’s soteriology (doctrine of salvation) offered just a few weeks ago by Bill McKeever. McKeever is the director of Mormonism Research Ministry, an evangelical parachurch organization based in the Salt Lake City area, right in the heart of the Mormon culture. McKeever and his associates at MRM are far from “soft” on Mormonism. They regard it as a heretical distortion of Christianity, and they actively seek to help Christians share the true gospel with Mormons. McKeever recently wrote an article for his website on “The Not-So Mormon Soteriology of Glenn Beck” in which he quoted the following remarks made by Beck on his television program on July 13, 2010:

“You cannot earn your way into heaven. You can’t! There is no deed, no random act of kindness, no amount of money to spread around to others that earns you a trip to heaven. It can’t happen. It’s earned by God’s grace alone, by believing that Jesus died on the cross for you. This is what Christians believe…. I also am wise enough to know that people will say, yeah, but Glenn Beck is a Mormon, he’s not even a real Christian. You can believe what you want. I will tell you that I am a man who needed the atonement more than most people do. I appreciate the atonement. I accept Jesus as my Savior. I know that I am alive today because I did give all of it to Him because I couldn’t carry it anymore.”

McKeever, who wonders aloud if Beck’s “close relationships with several evangelical Christians are not having a positive effect,” concludes that “it seems apparent that Beck does not agree with traditional Mormon soteriology…. Whether or not he knows he is out of harmony with his church, I cannot say, but if I understand the above correctly, he most certainly is.” McKeever admits that Beck might mean something different from what his words mean to evangelicals, but he finds no reason to suspect that Beck is anything but sincere and straightforward.

The point, again, is not to argue that Beck is or is not a Christian in the sense of someone genuinely redeemed from sin through authentic faith in Jesus Christ. He may be, we may and should hope that he is or will be, and those of us who have opportunity to engage him or other Mormons like him should caringly present the biblical gospel without compromise. The point, rather, is that in the real world people’s beliefs and affiliations are not always consistent or cut-and-dried. Most people’s thinking reflects a mix of religious, philosophical, and cultural beliefs, values, and assumptions. Making blanket statements about whether the members of a particular group are or are not Christians mistakenly assumes a uniformity of belief within the group that in most cases is simply not there. Avoiding such statements will enhance our credibility with those whom we are seeking to reach with biblical truth. It will help to foster mutual respect and constructive dialogue with those who need to know what true Christianity really means.

Similar Posts:

• Millet Lite: Mormon Scholar’s Christology Sounds Great, But It’s Less Filling
• Of Glenn Beck and Beards
• Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part One: The Mormon Doctrine of Exaltation
• Those Pesky “Closet Doctrines”
• Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Two: The New Testament and Joseph Smith’s Doctrine of Exaltation

What I find fascinating in this book is that it is—that it exists. Conservative theologians don’t usually dive into politics with the fervor of their left-wing opponents (think seminary-trained, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Jim Wallis). To be sure, there are plenty of conservative Christians who speak and write about political life from the right—Chuck Colson, Marvin Olasky, Ann Coulter, Britt Hume, Cal Thomas, Kerby Anderson, to name a few. But these folks are not theologically trained; Mike Huckabee is (one year at Southwestern Baptist Seminary), but he’s the exception to the rule. But to have a full-fledged conservative theologian offer a serious volume on American politics is exceptional.

Grudem has been for a long time an outspoken defender of conservative thought—both theologically and politically. He has impeccable credentials—Harvard BA, Westminster MDiv, Cambridge PhD. Many readers of this blogsite will recognize his name from his well-known and justly-revered Systematic Theology. Whatever else one wants to say about Grudem’s take on politics, he or she must wrestle with the fact that Grudem is a serious theologian who desires to ground his views in scripture at every turn. In other words, this is a book not to be taken lightly, not to be dismissed, not to be rejected as though it comes from a Fox News pundit.

Grudem takes on the theological right-political left capably (for example, Jim Wallis is discussed or cited on 24 pages). Characteristic of his writing style, he is clear, forthright, and biblical. Grudem has been a lightning rod on numerous issues—the role of women in the church, the continuation of the gifts, and now conservative politics. I am interested in seeing the responses to this book. It no doubt will engender much heated debate. In the end, I hope that evangelical Christians will measure it against the Bible as our ultimate authority.

From what I’ve read so far, I can tell you that this will be a fascinating read. It’s a book I would recommend to any Christian concerned about the state of American politics today, regardless of where he or she stands on the political continuum.Similar Posts:

• Andy Schlafly’s Conservative Bible Project
• Top Ten Systematic Theologies
• Politics and Evangelicals: An Email From My Mom
• Politics and Evangelicals: An Email From My Mom
• God's View of President Barack Obama

When is civil disobedience something that we, as Christians, both approve of and participate in? Ever?

In the end George and Colson tells us that we must be ready to draw a “line in the sand” as Christians. Obviously the “line” is the line of civil disobedience. This can come in many forms. Indeed, it has come in many forms. Civil disobedience, many would say, is an implied constitutional right and obligation of the citizens of America when the government does cross a line (as the constitution was more about limiting the government than it was limiting the people). Failure to respond to this call of action could ironically be rebellion against our constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded. Civil unrest starts with a utilization of the means provided within the law. When unproductive, it turns into civil disobedience (as was the case in the 1960s when civil rights was at issue). Next rebellion. Then all out revolution.

My questions for you are many:

Is Chuck Colson really making a “call to arms” in America?

How do we know when the line is crossed?

Is there any issue right now that justifies such a call to arms as Colson seems to be suggesting? Sanctity of life? Dignity of marriage? Religious freedom? These are the three that George suggested.

Would you respond to a “call to arms” for any of these?
Similar Posts:

• When is Civil Disobedience the Right Thing to Do?
• Politics According to the Bible (Dan Wallace)
• New York Post’s Racist(?) Cartoon
• A Theology of Fear and Government Mistrust
• God's View of President Barack Obama

Apart from using the best currently available Greek text which tags the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery (Mark 16.9–20 and John 7.53–8.11) as inauthentic, there is very little to commend in this translation. But even in following the critical Nestle-Aland text, the editors often argue that the changes to the text were made with liberal motives.

What is most remarkable about this new translation is not that it lacks almost total credibility (which is true), but that political ideology is so strong that it overrides everything else. New Testament professor Douglas Moo, Wheaton Graduate School, and chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation which oversees the NIV and TNIV, did not mince words about the Conservative Bible Project. “Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it,” Moo told the Tennesean.com. Schlafly responded by saying that the TNIV was motivated by a liberal agenda, especially with regard to gender inclusiveness. This, frankly, is an uninformed argument. Moo wrote the first full-blown exegesis of 1 Tim 2.11–15, published originally in Trinity Journal, taking a conservative position on the role of women in the church. Moo also was for some time a member of the conservative Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. And Zondervan, the publisher of the NIV/TNIV, is one of the more conservative Christian publishers out there.

From all that I can tell, Schlafly is mixing theological ‘liberal’ with political ‘liberal’ in his understanding. His ten rules for a conservative Bible translation show this clearly. But this reveals that he has no clue what a theological liberal is if he’s going to place anyone on the TNIV translation team under the rubric ‘liberal.’

My friend and former intern, Brittany Burnette, pointed out how they translated Mark 2.22: “And no man puts fresh grape juice into old bottles. The fresh juice will burst the bottles, spilling the juice and damaging the bottles. Fresh juice must be put into new bottles.” But without fermentation how could grape juice burst the bottles? The Conservative Bible Project notes that “the Greek word oinos…actually meant ‘fruit of the vine’ and was not fermented.” Although there are some conservative Christians who take this view, it is rather indefensible. See my essay “The Bible and Alcohol” for a discussion.

The agenda of this translation boggles the mind, and gives conservatives (both political and theological) a bad name.Similar Posts:

• A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 2 of 4
• Politics According to the Bible (Dan Wallace)
• Politics and Evangelicals: An Email From My Mom
• Politics and Evangelicals: An Email From My Mom
• A Review of the New International Version 2011: Part 4 of 4

So often in Scripture, we are told not to fear.  Jesus tells His disciples on many occasions not to fear since He is there.  After His earthly departure, He would send a comforter to allay fears.  Paul tells Timothy, that God has not given us a spirit of fear, but love, power and a sound mind.  John writes in his epistle, that there is no fear in love, for perfect love (meaning Christ) casts out fear because fear involves torment.  Yet, the believer can allow fear to seep in and distract from the peace that Christ brings and even justify fear in the face of alarming circumstances that stand counter-opposed to the Christian values we are striving to uphold.

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, there seems to be a vapor of fear circulating among evangelical circles these days.  I believe that several factors are motivating this fear but the chief instigator seems to be the current political administration.  Let’s face it, there are policies and practices being proposed that undercut and undermine a politically conservative platform, the same platform that most evangelicals share due to closest alignment of values based on a Biblical worldview.

Whether it be universal health care, internet policies, taxation of business or a presidential speech made to school children, the actions of the current administration are alarming many.  Not to mention, the administration’s pro-abortion stance.  So much so, I believe that there is a perception of detriment that I wonder is not being amplified because of fear.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there is no cause for concern, especially if you are a politically conservative evangelical.  But I do get the sense that we are allowing that fear to draw unmitigated and slightly irrational conclusions about things that on face value, do not warrant the kind of response that some actions have drawn, such as delivering a motivational speech to school age children.  Al Mohler has written a very insightful piece concerning this (here).

I agree with Dr. Mohler concerning what the Christian response should be according to Scripture.  For I find the average evangelical response interesting in contrast to Biblical prescription and practices in the early church.  Paul encourages a response to government that I think is most intriguing considering the atheist, plurastic and hedonistic Roman government ruled during that time.  If we think our’s is immoral, it is saintly in comparison.  He writes in Romans 13:1-3,to submit to governing authorities for by doing so you are subjecting to God.  Moreover, he indicates that the authorities are not a cause for fear.  Even then, with what Christians faced the rule was to pray for government and submit to it.  Why?  Because God is the ultimate authority and it is God who is ultimately in control.

I further get the sense that  fear is causing us to want a government response to our concerns because American Christians Evangelicals have developed an expectation that government should align with a Biblical worldview and we should have no participation with one that doesn’t.  I suspect this is why there has been so much evangelical entwinement with the political process in order to control outcomes.  Perhaps it was the foundation of religious freedom that the country was founded on or maybe the fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century that sought to impose a Christian standard on society.  I think fear played a significant factor in these efforts since a “godless” society would inevitably be much more difficult to live in than one displaying the same moralistic values that should so distinguish the proper Christian.

I do find the contrast of political affiliation during the early church in contrast to today interesting.  There were no protests from Christians for the government to align with their values.  Even Paul, a Roman citizen, did not seek to gain political clout for the sake of Christianity.  In fact, it were the Jewish rulers who sought political good will in order to enhance their agenda.

Fear of any type of government misalignment with Christian values should not be a cause for concern for the believer.  It is not that we are not concerned about the current political direction of this country but a non-conformity to this world (Romans 12:2) means we don’t put our trust in the system.  A believer’s trust is in God because He is the one ultimately in control.  A believer  can submit to government because our trust is not in government but in God.  We don’t have to overreact to every move the current administration makes.  We can allow our children to be encouraged to take responsibility for their education by a government official opposed to a Biblical worldview because hopefully at home, we are instructing our children what one is.  I also think we can dispense from comparing our commander in chief to Hitler or Stalin because that does much to instigate fear that stands in opposition to position we should be taking according to Scripture.

If we belong to Christ, we are His and that should comfort us in spite of present and perceptions of pending circumstances.Similar Posts:

• Will the real evangelical please stand up?
• New York Post’s Racist(?) Cartoon
• Green Evangelicals
• Politics According to the Bible (Dan Wallace)
• When is Civil Disobedience the Right Thing to Do?

The anonymous narrator introduces his provocative four-minute video by asking if Jesus identified the name of the Antichrist, then says, “I will report the facts; you can decide” (reminiscent of Greta Van Susteren’s tagline on her show on Fox News). The narrator then notes that in Luke 10.18, Jesus says, “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan falling from the heavens.”

He then begins to link several hypotheses together. First, he claims that Luke 10.18 was written originally in Greek, but that Jesus spoke these words in Aramaic, “which is the most ancient form of Hebrew.” Second, he observes that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and claims that the Aramaic that Jesus spoke would have been quite similar to the Hebrew that is spoken today and, presumably, similar to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Third, he then says that Jesus spoke these words in Hebrew, and retranslates the text as follows: “I saw Satan falling as lightning from the heights, or from the heavens.” Fourth, he discusses the Hebrew words for ‘lightning’ and ‘heights.’ He notes that the word for ‘lightning’ is baraq. Fifth, he claims that Isaiah is the source of the Christian understanding of Satan or ‘Lucifer’ (Isa 14.12 in the KJV). Sixth, Isa 14.14 has Satan say, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.” Seventh, the Hebrew word in Isa 14.14 for ‘heights’ is bamaw, and this is surely what ‘heavens’ means in Luke 10.18. Eighth, the Hebrew letter waw is sometimes transliterated as a u or o. Ninth, the waw is used in Hebrew as a conjunction. Tenth, in Hebrew poetry baraq obamah literally is translated “lightning and the heights” or “lightning from the heights.” Eleventh, if Jesus’ words in Luke 10.18 were spoken in Hebrew by a Jewish Rabbi today he would say, “And I saw Satan as baraq ubamah.” He concludes his narration by asking, “Did Jesus reveal the name of the Antichrist? I report; you decide.” There is a disclaimer at the end of the video that simply says the correlation is striking, but not that the narrator is claiming that the President is the Antichrist.

This video was followed up by another by the same narrator. You can see it here.

It essentially argues the same point, but changes a couple of points (without warrant).

What can we say about these videos and the linguistic argument used? Of the eleven points noted above, the fourth and eighth are the only ones that are indisputable: the Hebrew word for lightning is baraq; and the waw is sometimes transliterated as a u or o. The seventh point comes close to being correct: the Hebrew word for height is bamah, but the plural is used in Isa 14.14, bamot (pronounced baw-moat). As for the rest of the points, some are debatable, while others are factually wrong. Taking them in order: (1) It is debatable whether Jesus spoke most of the time in Aramaic; he may have done much of his teaching in Greek. It is also not true that Aramaic is the oldest form of Hebrew. (2) and (3) A sleight of hand has occurred here: First, it is claimed that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but then it is claimed that he spoke in Hebrew. Which is it? Although the characters for both languages are the same, the vocabulary has some key differences, especially in vowel points but also often in the very consonants used. (5) and (6) Is Isaiah really the source for the Christian view of Satan? It may contribute to our understanding, but even that is disputed. The one passage that may speak about Satan is indeed Isa 14. But part of the reason for this being so interpreted is due to the influence of the KJV. At v. 12 the King James says, “O Lucifer, son of the morning!” The word lucifer, however, is simply a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate at this point. It is not another name for Satan. The Hebrew word, helel means ‘morning star’ or ‘shining one.’ Most modern translations (the NKJV is the only exception I found of the translations I checked) do not translate helel as Lucifer; rather they have ‘shining one,’ ‘day star,’ ‘morning star,’ etc. (cf., e.g., NET, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, REB, NIV, TNIV, NAB, NJB, HCSB). Of course, there are still excellent scholars who believe that Isa 14 is ultimately a reference to Satan, though in the historical context it was directed at the Babylonian king. (9) This is true, but irrelevant. To have the idea of ‘lightning from the heights’ would normally require a preposition, not a conjunction (see next point). (10) It seems to be an illegitimate leap to say ‘lightning and the heights’ means the same thing as ‘lightning from the heights.’ Indeed, there is a perfectly good Hebrew word that means ‘from’: min. But that would produce baraq min-bamot. It’s getting more difficult to see the validity of the narrator’s linguistic points. (11) When all is said and done, the evidence is simply bogus. Jesus didn’t speak in Hebrew, and the Hebrew that is given here does not mean ‘lightning from the heights.’ Baraq ubamah means ‘lightning and height.’ But that can hardly be the underlying Aramaic (which is not Hebrew) for the Greek text of Luke 10.18. Thus, a linguistic leap from Greek to Aramaic to Hebrew, with the grammar and vocabulary changing along the way, is required to make Luke 10.18 mean what the narrator wants it to mean. This is hardly a case of “I report; you decide.” It is rather a case of “I’ll tell you only part of the evidence, and will use some fancy exegetical gymnastics to make everything fit; and based on the skewered evidence, you decide.”

Now, to be sure, the President did say at one public meeting that the rumors that he was born in a manger are not true (!). I didn’t care for that comment (though it was in reaction to what many pundits, conservative politicians, and comedians had sarcastically said), nor do I care for many, if not most, of his policies. Perhaps he’s a little full of himself. And certainly there has been hype about him that goes beyond reason, some that is even blasphemous (e.g., Evan Thomas, of Newsweek, who said that Obama was ‘sort of God’ on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, to which Matthews replied, ‘yeah.’ It’s that kind of rhetoric that is more persuasive than the video, since it reflects the opinions of so many Americans and even the global community). But is he the Antichrist? In the least, the linguistic torturing required to make the biblical evidence say this is beyond the pale of reason and, perhaps, sanity.Similar Posts:

• A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 2 of 4
• Two DVD videos on the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts
• Walid Shoebat Youtube Video on the Mark of the Beast
• Is the Bible That Big of a Mystery?
• Christmas Sale at nttextualcriticism.com

It hasn’t passed Congress yet. The reason is not Republican resistance (since the Republicans are such a small minority in the Congress now, they really don’t have the numbers by themselves to stop any legislation), but Blue Dog Democrats who are deeply concerned about how the government will pay for all the legislation being passed.

Some of the issues that have come up regarding this current bill, however, are ethical more than economic. Ironically, it has taken outsiders to point out these issues to Congress because most representatives have not read the bill! Even President Obama admitted last week that he had not read the bill, even though he has been promoting it heavily.

It is also ironic that one of the major reasons for rising health care costs is the built-in cost of litigation, something that generally is viewed favorably by liberals, less favorably by conservatives. (One physician told me several years ago that, even though he had never been sued for malpractice, he had to pay $100,000 in lawsuit protection insurance annually.) So, in one respect, the reason the health care costs are rising so quickly is because of liberal judges. The health care problems thus are somewhat created by liberalism, and now a liberal health care plan is supposed to solve these problems? Isn’t that like having the fox watch the chicken coop?

Back to the ethical concerns. On pp. 425–26, the bill mentions mandatory counseling for the elderly. It says, among other things, that the counseling (from a health ‘practitioner’) will include “a continuum of end-of-life services… including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services…” This means that the counselor is required to tell the patient about the positive benefits of euthanasia. The details are not laid out in the bill, which should always make us nervous. Several analysts are reading this statement to mean that the elderly will be counseled on how to end their life sooner.

Some have likened this to Hitler’s Aktion T4 memo, which he wrote on the day that WWII broke out (September 1, 1939). In it, Hitler reportedly told physicians to kill those who were judged to be incurably sick. But is the current healthcare bill really that bad? After all, it doesn’t give physicians the right to kill the elderly, only to counsel them. Interestingly, the wording in Hitler’s Aktion T4 did not seem to give physicians that right either. It said, “Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death.” This sounds as though the patient had the right to ask for euthanasia from the doctor, but not that the doctor had a mandate to take the life of the patient. Again interestingly, how this was played out was otherwise: almost 300,000 patients were killed under the authority of this memo, regardless of the patients’ wishes. Obviously, any comparisons made between the current situation, whatever it may be, and Hitler’s policies, needs to be nuanced carefully. I am not suggesting that the health care bill involves policies that are every bit as bad as Hitler’s euthanasia order. I am just making observations about the wording in both.

There’s another ethical problem in this bill for Christians: according to Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), the bill uses tax-payer money to pay for abortions. Not only this, but it promotes abortions by requiring all insurance providers to contract with ‘essential community providers,’ such as Planned Parenthood (which aborted over 300,000 babies in 2007) claims to be.

These are disturbing trends. If this health care bill—or the one that will eventually end up on the President’s desk—include the euthanasia directives and funding for abortions, how should Christians respond? Is it time for civil disobedience? And, if so, what would that look like? Would it merely be a reaffirmation of the Tenth Amendment which gives States rights over the Federal Government (to date, several states have recently signed legislation that simply reasserts the Tenth Amendment because they see the Federal Government as usurping their Constitutionally-protected rights)? Would it merely be voting out of office any who voted for the health care bill (which would, technically, not really be civil disobedience)? Or would it be stronger action still? Would it include refusal to pay taxes if a portion of those taxes went to euthanasia counseling and abortions? Would it involve more than that? And if so, how do we reconcile this with the Lord’s teaching to ‘render to Caesar what is Caesar’s’? After all, the Roman taxes paid for the Roman army—the same army that was often very hostile (to put it mildly!) to Jews and Christians.

To be sure, some Christians think that overall the government is moving in the right direction. They argue that President Obama is enacting legislation that rights the wrongs of decades of social injustice. And they are tolerant of Roe, even arguing that although they would never abort a child, they have no problems supporting a government that does. Is this a legitimate viewpoint? At what point should such Christians say that the bad in the government policies outweigh the good?

The issues being raised here are complex. I suspect that very strong opinions on either side will come out in the comments section. Let the debate begin!Similar Posts:

• A Theology of Fear and Government Mistrust
• Is Chuck Colson Really Making a “Call to Arms” in America?
• Bar Stool Economics
• New York Post’s Racist(?) Cartoon
• Constructing a Credo: Will Dominoes Do the Trick?

Part 2

What do you all think about the interview?Similar Posts:

• The Radical Redefining of Faith
• Why are People Leaving the Church?
• How do we get America back? Or should we?
• Postmoderism and the Imago Dei
• Engaging Postmodernism: 4 Views

In the Feb 18 issue of the New York Post, there is a cartoon depicting two policemen standing over a rabid chimp that one of them had just riddled with bullets. As it lay dying in its own pool of blood, the other officer quipped, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”

The cartoon plays off of the shooting of a chimpanzee in Stamford, Connecticut on Monday, after it had mauled a woman and nearly ripped her face off.

Of course, political cartoons always imbibe in satire and they often use current events as a metaphor to make their point. This one seemed to be no exception.

The first thing I thought of when I saw the cartoon was that this was intended to be a racial slur against the president. Even worse, the fact that the chimp had been killed seemed to suggest assassination. And frankly, I was sickened and horrified at the possibility that these were intended implications. As I read some of the early reactions to the cartoon, I noticed that some saw the same thing I saw while others did not. Some said that the monkey was just a monkey and that there was no symbolism intended, and certainly not a visual slander on the president. But as the news circulated, it seemed that people began to take up polar positions: either the cartoon was intentionally racist and mean-spirited (to say the least) or that “a monkey is just a monkey” and no symbolism should be read into the cartoon. The editor at the NY Post said that the dead ape did not represent the president but simply represented the stimulus package and its defenders in general.

Now, let’s assume that there was no malice intended by the cartoonist or by the editors, that the cartoon’s only point was that the stimulus package was such a poorly thought-out idea that even a monkey could have written it. The question I have is, If that’s true, didn’t the cartoonist or editors realize that a lot of people would read this cartoon differently? That a lot of people would see it as a racial slur?

The natural interpretation of the cartoon seems to be to see the primate as representing President Obama—in light of the long history of such malicious symbolism in American history. My question is, If that’s not what the Post meant, did they equally have no idea that others would read it that way? Frankly, that stretches credulity to the breaking point. The NY Post has the sixth largest circulation of any newspaper in the country. Its readers are not naïve backwater hicks who have no sense of what’s going on in the culture. And the editors have won oodles of awards—awards that aren’t given to pundits with a fourth grade education. It seems that the choices are that the cartoon was racist, the editors were completely out of touch with the racial sensitivities of our society, or that the editors were incompetent. When the Post tells us that no intention to call the president a monkey was intended, we are left with the choice that the editors are out of touch or incompetent.

I may not care for Obama’s stimulus plan, but this doesn’t mean that any newspaper—especially one as prominent as the NY Post—has the right to go retro on us back to the Jim Crow days. Whether intended or not, that is precisely the effect that many say the cartoon produced. I am grieved over anything that even remotely hints of racism, to say nothing of the innuendo about violence enacted on a dumb beast.

And I am outraged at this kind of response by the NY Post because I fear that it may breed a lot of latent prejudice, racism, even hate crimes. If this is the level of discourse we can expect from conservatives over the next four years, then we’ll be doomed to a one-party system by 2013. Whether that one party would be Republican or Democrat, it really does away with the checks and balances that were built into the American system of government.

My views have changed in the last week. I was at first worried about the direction that this country was going with President Obama’s swiftly-enacted, uni-partisan policies. I was worried that the Democrats would steamroll over all that has made America great in an effort to move us significantly closer to socialism. With the new stimulus package, some have suggested that we’re only a hair’s breadth away from being the United States of France. And when the government runs businesses, there is no such thing as free market competition; it’s a monopoly, pure and simple, which historically has been shown to be good for the monopolistic business—and no one else. Only this time that business is the government. The great thing about a free market society—with sufficient government regulations to keep abuses at a minimum—is that it offers the necessary checks and balances that improve quality, production, and cost simultaneously. And checks and balances are an undergirding principle of the Christian faith: if we’re all depraved, we need to keep each other’s dark side suppressed. The involvement of the government is needed when the checks and balances are out of whack. When the government takes over businesses, where are the checks and balances? It’s an interesting phenomenon that those countries that have historically followed free market economics are generally more prosperous than those that haven’t—and they also tend to be more Christian. Nevertheless, my reading of what the stimulus package may mean could well be wrong.

But now, I’m worried that the reaction to Obama policies is only going to divide the nation more and send us back to the dark days before 1964. As an evangelical Christian with conservative political leanings, I see an evil that is far worse than where the stimulus package might be heading. It is what this cartoon represents, even if not intended by the cartoonist: a half-baked parody that was filtered by the kind of irresponsible journalistic sloppiness that couldn’t pass muster in a school paper of any university in the country. The Ku Klux Klan must be downright giddy right now.Similar Posts:

• A Review of the New International Version 2011: Part 4 of 4
• When is Civil Disobedience the Right Thing to Do?
• God's View of President Barack Obama – Part 2
• Is Chuck Colson Really Making a “Call to Arms” in America?
• A Theology of Fear and Government Mistrust

I tell all. Don’t miss this . . .Similar Posts:

• God's View of President Barack Obama
• TUP – God's View of President Barack Obama Part 1
• Is Obama the Antichrist?
• New York Post’s Racist(?) Cartoon
• When is Civil Disobedience the Right Thing to Do?