An Open Response to The Messianic Drew

Recently the Christian apologist known as "The Messianic Drew" made this blog post about his journey from a secular Jew, to a Messianic Jew, and now ultimately to a Pluralist.  This is my open response:

-----
Hello Drew,

We don't know each other, but I have been a fan of your past work and needless to say am rather disappointed by this development.

In light of that, your closing argument can be rejected on a few grounds:

It is essentially the “Problem of Evil Revisited”.  That is, you’re claiming, “How could a good God do ___?” while failing to recognize that God, being omniscient, is always justified in the choices He makes, even if they seem outside our scope of reason (e.g. issuing the slaughter of the Canaanites, etc). 

As WLC has said, God is *the* moral ultimate, meaning that all moral values and duties derive their value from God’s very nature.  It is “Answer C” to the Euthyphro Dilemma.   If God were to impose a soteriology based on a “theology exam”, then so be it!  God doesn’t follow the moral bar we set for Him, He *is* the bar.

On the note of salvation by “theology exam”, a philosophy professor I know had these words to say about your post:

“God doesn't give theology exams! He supplies revelation, and then judges us on whether we accept it and base our lives upon it. If God judges Arius, it is because Arius refused to accept the revealed truth about Jesus. "The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness God has borne concerning His Son" (I John 5:10).”

You yourself also eluded to a “salvation” by divine revelation: “So are you living your life in an honorable or a shameful way? Will you feel honored for having responded to divine revelation, or ashamed of having ignored it?”  So it is a little ambiguous what you mean by failing a “theology exam”: not responding to divine revelation, or being honestly mistaken?

I would also like to point out that if God shames the wicked in judgment that He alone is permitted to make, that is not only exclusivist (God *only* accepts the righteous), but it is also a “theology exam” (God *expects us to know* that only the righteous will be accepted).

On a personal note, if you accept JPH’s view of heaven and hell as states of varying honor and shame, I’m surprised that you take such issue with the idea of God shaming people for not answering the “exam” correctly.  The honor/shame paradigm truly does remove the “moral monster” aspect of God’s judgment against those who are honestly mistaken:

For example (as JPH has given), someone like Anne Frank would be separated with the "goats" because she didn't believe in Jesus, but because she lived an honorable life she would receive an honorable resurrection, albeit outside of God's presence (he even theorized that in her resurrection, it would not be beyond plausibility that she would be eternally catered to by her Nazi executioners).  Contrast that with a murderer who converts on their death bed with no works to show for it: they would be with the "sheep", but receive a shameful resurrection, albeit within God's presence.

In closing I'd like to share with you a wager I have formulated against pluralism (and yes, I use the term "wager" to strike familiarity).  I'm curious to know what you will think:

1. If God is all-inclusive, He will accept everyone regardless of their beliefs.
2. If God is exclusive, He will only accept those who respond and conform to His revelation.
3. Therefore, it is more beneficial to worship an exclusive God.

Regardless of how you feel about the idea of an exclusive God (or even what that exclusive God requires), at the end of the day it is the better investment in regards to your eternal destiny.   Something to consider.

It’s obvious though that you’ve had a lot of repressed feelings over the years, and (I say this with love) I believe this post is more of an emotional eruption than a rational one.  And because you love the ways of logic, you’ve attempted to curb your emotional outpouring with a philosophical argument.

In a way this is a great message to all Christian apologists though, that as much study as we try and do, doubt can be very deeply seeded, and we need to be honest about our intellectual and emotional doubts (and knowing the difference between the two) and deal with them properly.  It is my prayer that you will soon see all this for what it is and come back around.

Blessings,
Darrell

A Response to Sam Harris

A friend recently sent me a this video by Sam Harris asking me what my honest opinion of it was.  While it was a private message, I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to it publicly.  So let's get started!

The Problem of Evil/Suffering (PoE)

It is understandable why many people view the PoE as a strong argument against the existence of a benevolent God.  But as the picture above suggests, upon further examination we actually find that because of the existence of objective moral evils, the PoE actually points to the existence of God.  Allow me to explain:

As Dr. William Lane Craig points out many times, moral values and duties can only exist in an objective sense if they have their source in a necessary, moral ultimate.  That is to say, they can only exist concretely if God exists.  Otherwise moral values and duties are simply social constructs with ascribed value, never having transcendent value that is true for everyone, regardless of our beliefs.   

So where am I getting with all this?  The problem with the PoE is that as soon as one makes the claim that God cannot exist because of objective moral evils, they unknowingly concede the moral argument for the existence of God:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

But it's not as simple as that of course.  Many times, those who appeal to the PoE do so from an emotional standpoint.  Especially when watching Sam Harris' video, the whole thing is ripe with emotional rhetoric (e.g. Do you know how many children die every minute?).  It's not enough to simply say "Moral Argument: checkmate Atheists!" and move on.  There are still things we should address.

To cite Dr. Craig again (as he is one of the most, if not the foremost Christian philosophers of our time), the PoE takes many forms.  There are three main variants: The Logical PoE, The Probabilistic PoE, and The Emotional PoE. First, the Logical PoE:

"According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore, I’m very pleased to be able to report that it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible."

Next, the Probabilistic PoE:

" According to this version of the problem, the co-existence of God and evil is logically possible, but nevertheless it’s highly improbable. The extent and depth of evil in the world is so great that it’s improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it. Therefore, given the evil in the world, it’s improbable that God exists.

Now this is a much more powerful argument, and therefore I want to focus our attention on it. In response to this version of the problem of evil, I want to make three main points:

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.
2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil. 
• The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
• Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.
• The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life. 
• The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. 
3.  Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable.

Similarly, if all you consider for background information is the evil in the world, then it’s hardly surprising that God’s existence appears improbable relative to that. But that’s not the real question. The real question is whether God’s existence is improbable relative to the total evidence available. I’m persuaded that when you consider the total evidence, then God’s existence is quite probable."

I encourage you all to read the full article here, as Dr. Craig goes into full detail on each of these points, along with closing comments that are quite valuable.  He also addresses the Emotional PoE.  But for the sake of time and space, we'll be moving on from this subject.

The Doctrine of Hell

The question "What about those who have never heard the Gospel?" has always been a tough one for Christians, and there have been many poor responses to that question.  Poor in the sense that the answer only raises more questions, and graver ones at that for the Christian.

If God saves those who have never heard the Gospel, and condemns those who reject the Gospel, then is it not better that we remain silent and never share the Gospel with others?  But that would contradict Jesus' commandment to "Go forth, and make disciples of all nations..."

So if the Lost are still Lost, and if that means that their judgment will be separation from God, how do we as Christians reconcile that with an all-loving God?  This is largely an emotional issue, but like we discussed above with the PoE, it is often not enough to simply give a logical answer and expect people to respond positively on an emotional level.

For that reason I'd like to take a moment to go over the doctrine of Hell, and what it actually entails.

When reading an ancient document, you must read it through the cultural glasses of the people and time in which it was written.  Many Christians and Atheists alike make this mistake.

The cultural climate of the Bible is one of honor and shame.  By honor we mean "worth in the eyes of others", and by shame we mean "a lack of worth in the eyes of others".  Such honor/shame societies do not feel internal guilt like we do in the west, but rather their consciences are projected externally onto their peers and superiors.  Most non-western cultures around the world still operate under this social paradigm today.  With that knowledge readily at hand, I will make the claim that the language used to describe Hell in the New Testament is language of honor and shame, not of physical torment. 

So what does all that mean?  When one dies, one is judged by what one has done with Jesus.  Those who have accepted atonement for their sins are welcomed, and those who have not are unable to dwell in the presence of God.  But wait, there's more.

In several places in the New Testament, we read of an event called the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:50-58, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, Revelation 20:11-13), and this is where the honor/shame paradigm really takes shape.  At the Resurrection, each person receives a new body of both flesh and spirit (like the risen Jesus), and is judged according to their works in life, and either rewarded or punished depending up their deeds.  This includes those who are not saved under Christ.

C.S. Lewis, in writing his book The Great Divorce, gives the disclaimer that the book is not intended as a theological commentary.  But little did he know at the time, he got a lot of ideas correct.  In the narrative we find a man on a bus in what is implied to be hell.  He overhears a conversation between two people who once found Napoleon, off in a distant cabin away from everybody else.  All he did was pace around and blame other people for his failures.  That was his eternal lot and the extent of his existence.

I say this to bolster the idea that when God judges us according to our works, those of us who have accrued greater shame (like Napoleon) will seal for ourselves a more harsh resurrection.  And those of us who are generally good (or even great) shall accrue greater honor, and receive a greater resurrection.

J.P. Holding once theorized that while people like Anne Frank, who died outside of the Gospel, would be condemned to Hell, it would also be no surprise to him if we were to see her being served and waited upon by her Nazi persecutors for all eternity.  Anne Frank accrued honor for herself, while the Nazis accrued horrible shame.  They may both be on the wrong side of the fence, but their level of shame is dependent upon their own actions.

So what happens to those who die without hearing the Gospel?  God must judge their sin, of which we are all infected with.  Sin cannot dwell in the presence of God.  But God is also just, Who rewards good and punishes moral evils.

So Sam Harris gets it wrong when he says that the unsaved will be burned and tortured for eternity come.  The only burning and torturing that will come is from the shame caused by each person's actions when they see the face of their Creator.

Slavery in the Bible

Harris makes the claim that the Bible supports slavery.  This is an old Atheist favorite that is patently false, which we also find (again) stems from a lack of reading the ancient documents of the Bible with the appropriate cultural glasses.

More extensive work on this topic has already been done, but I'll give you the breakdown:

In the Ancient Near-East, slavery was primarily voluntary, as it functioned as the welfare system of the time.  If you were orphaned, widowed, down on your luck, you became a slave to acquire food, clothing, and shelter at the expense of your labor.  But because such a system can easily get out of hand, or because masters can easily mistreat or exploit their slaves, God gave commandments to regulate the system.  Maybe some would have rather had God snap His fingers and poof this ancient economy into something else, but if you haven't gathered yet, that's not usually how God (in His wisdom) chooses to operate.

The Euthyphro Dilemma

This issue embodies what we call Divine Command Theory.  That is, 1) Does God command something because it is good?  Or 2) Does God command something because he wills it?

The problem with #1 is that if values and duties are good apart from God, then God is bound by something greater than Himself.  The problem with #2 is that if God commands things arbitrarily, then they have no objective value and God is whimsical.  But this is what we would call a false dilemma, because there is a hidden third option that is not implied.

God commands the things that He does because He is the good.  That is, He is the moral ultimate through which all morals gain their value.  If God commands the things that He does by the necessity of His own nature, then there is no contradiction, and the dilemma is solved.

The Slaughter of the Amalekites

Another favorite house of cards built by Atheists, this argument is quickly dissolved when you understand a little bit of history.  The Amalekites were marauders who had no problem preying upon the old and young alike.  As Israel was entering the Promised Land, the Amalekites did just this to the slower members of the exodus, and God promised to avenge them (Duet. 25:17-19).

Since we're on this train though, let's talk about the Canaanites.  God commanded the slaughter of many of the Canaanite tribes not simply to make way for the people of Israel.  Let us not forget that the Canaanites offered their children as burnt sacrifices to their Gods and refused to repent.  I don't know about you, but people who burn children alive deserve to die.  And if I'm in no place to make that judgement, certainly God is.

Transubstantiation

Sam briefly mocks the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which is the belief that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ.  He compares it to saying a few Latin words to turn bread into the body of Elvis.

Transubstantiation is a widely debated doctrine within Christendom, with beliefs ranging as widely as the elements being literally Christ's body and blood, to ontologically equal to Christ's body and blood (my view), or as being completely arbitrary.  But all I will say is that if Jesus really was God in the flesh and He instituted such a sacrament, I see no problem.  Elvis however, was not God in the flesh (I'm sure someone out there disagrees with me on this), and did in no way institute any sacraments.  Weak analogy, moving on.

Believing in God on Bad Evidence

This is another claim that has been addressed in greater detail in many places.  I will simply counter this by saying the philosophical arguments for God's existence are, by themselves, mind-blowing in their sufficiency.  Secondly, the historical and sociological arguments for the resurrection of Jesus have much more explanatory power than their alternatives.  Thus I am compelled not simply to be a theist, but a Christian.

God Stopped Doing Miracles

Yawn.

Christianity is a Cult of Human Sacrifice

A cult is an organization that employs mind-control tactics.  In that sense, no, Christianity is not a cult.  I can't speak for certain denominations or individual churches, but Christianity at large is not a cult.  That's just emotional rhetoric.

Saying Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice obviously strikes up images of say, the Aztecs, which I'm sure is precisely what Harris was going for.  But when honestly comparing the doctrines of Christianity to such religions, the claim does not stand.  Yet another weak analogy.

In Closing...

To make a long story short (too late), as I mentioned to my friend last night, "Sam Harris is right up there with Richard Dawkins when it comes to philosophical prowess, which isn't much."

But before we call this video utterly roasted, I'd like to share something that another friend of mine said to me recently:

"[T]o non-Christians, Christianity is measured in terms of how they measure the "truth" of their religions, that is, how it affects society and their perception of morality, not historic truth claims... to a non-Christian, the historicity of anything claimed by Christianity doesn't matter because religion is about (or should be about) making you a better person and giving you a spiritual feeling."

This comment greatly illuminates the rationale behind Sam Harris' video.  Instead of judging Christianity by it's historical truth claims, he tries to make a case against it (and religion in general) based upon his moral dislikes of what he thinks it claims.

I even ran into a Christian lately who, after I gave a lecture on the resurrection of Jesus, tried to tell the audience, "Now remember everyone, we as Christians are not supposed to convince the world that Jesus Christ is Lord.  We're supposed to just live good lives and love others."  

What nonsense!  Christianity is not a mere moral philosophy or self-improvement plan.  Surely we have the benefits of such programs, but Christianity is about restoring our broken relationship with the God who surely exists, because of the historical reality that Jesus rose from the dead, thus proving Christ was the son of God!

It isn't about what makes us feel good, my friends.  It is about what reflects reality.  Our beliefs should always reflect how things actually are, lest we slip into wishful thinking, relativism, and religious pluralism.

Sam has given me the wonderful opportunity to answer so many questions and provide so many helpful links in one place.  I hope those of you reading this will take the time to investigate these matters for yourself and utilize the links provided.  And again, I will always extend the invitation to anyone else who has honest questions or even accusations about this assurance that I have in Christ.

God bless you,

Darrell

The Role of Piety in Evangelical Culture

In the Evangelical subculture, "piety" is not a word we hear all too often.  We are familiar with other terms such as "holiness" and "devotion," but what about the concept of piety?  What is it?

It is no secret within Evangelical culture that the idea of righteousness through works is anathema.  Holiness and devotion aren't things that save us, but they are something that we should pursue if we are indeed regenerate believers.  Is the concept of piety all that different?

Piety can be defined as, "the quality of being religious or reverent."  It is no wonder the word never gets dropped in Evangelical sermons with a word like "religious" being associated with piety!  Whenever I have heard the term used, it is almost always in a negative, "pharisaic" context.  Piety is just something that the ultra-legalists pursue for their own self-righteous affirmation, right?

Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that as Christians our works do not matter in the grand scheme of our faith.  Confer passages such as James 2:14-26, John 14:15, 1 John 2:3-6, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, and Revelation 20:11-13.

As an aside, what about this term "religion?"  There's another "pharisaic" word that gets thrown loosely around.  Certainly you have all heard the mantra, "It's not a religion, it's a relationship."  In Evangelical culture I have heard religion defined as something like, "Religion is when men try to bridge the gap between God and man, but Christianity is not a religion because God bridged the gap for us."  While there may be some functional truth to that, it is a historically ignorant claim, and in a sense devalues our high-church siblings in Christ such as Catholics and Orthodox denominations who appear to have such "religious" practices.

Christianity is a religion, and Jesus did give us rules to follow and sacramental rituals to practice, such as the Eucharist and prayer (that's right, prayer is a sacramental ritual).  Because we are a part of this religion, care for the sacraments, holiness, loving our neighbors, keeping the commandments, doing good works, all of these things sum up what we call piety.

"Piety implies aspects of reverence, external action, and religiosity, any of which may be well-intended or used in a showy, inappropriate manner. Jesus warns against ostentatious shows of piety in Matthew 6:1–18. Proper piety is characterized by godly behavior, and the end result is that God is glorified: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16)." [1]

Salvation is binary and cannot be quantified.  You can not be "more saved" than someone else; you are either saved, or you are not.  Piety on the other hand is quantifiable, and will be rewarded accordingly both presently and at the Resurrection (see Rev. 20:11-13 above).


We all have Christian siblings in our lives that we look up to as paragons of genuine Christ-likeness, and that characteristic is exactly what we mean by piety.  Sometimes they might even seem so Christ-like (so pious) that merely being in their presence makes you feel inadequate, questioning how dead your "old man" really is.  Such shame can be a good or bad thing depending on your mindset, but what is important to point out is that Christ-likeness is attained through piety.  That is, through allowing yourself to be conformed to the image of Christ, adopting His characteristics and keeping His commandments.

During this crisis in the Middle East, there was a Christian family who had two sons kidnapped by ISIS militants.  In a video interview (which will change your life), the brother was asked, "Would you get upset, or someone from your family get upset if we ask for forgiveness to those who killed your brothers?"  And he replied, "Today I was having a chat with my mother asking her what she would do if she saw one of the ISIS members on the street... She said she would invite him home because he helped us enter the kingdom of heaven."

It is Christians like that which make me realize, "I could stand to strive for genuine piety with the hope of becoming more like Christ."  I feel shame that I would have behaved differently when other Christians, through pious submission to Christ, have become more like Him than myself.  This shame is not to be regretted, but to be embraced as from God.

Let us not demonize sacraments, religiosity, and good works that help us to become more like our King.

If I Were an Atheist

As a Christian apologist, I often wonder what my life would look like if I found the evidence for God and the resurrection of Christ to be insufficient.  Not only in the practical sense of "Now that I'm not studying apologetics all day, what should I do with my time?" but moreover, "How should I live my life, if there is any way I should live at all?"

For some reason, this is a scenario that I think about a lot.  As someone who aspires to be a rational person, I have to consider that this could be within the realm of plausibility.  So with what I know now about objective morality, the nature of knowledge and all those sorts of things... what would my atheism look like?  This is in no way a satire against atheism or some type of caricature of atheists.  These are all my honest thoughts.

Some of what I am about to say may be very uncomfortable to read, regardless of what your worldview may be.  But please bear with me to the end.


No Virtue or Vice

If God does not exist, then objective, transcendent morals do not exist.  Even if they did exist apart from God, if there is no eternal justice for good and evil, then those objective morals would have no value, thus granting no reason to adhere to them.

That being said, I can tell you straight out that I would not believe in objective good and evil.  I would believe that good and evil are socially contrived ideas that aid in human survival.  That is, they help us to not drive ourselves into extinction.  This falls in line with a teaching called Social Contract Theory, and is consistent with evolutionary biology

This doesn't mean that I would start killing indiscriminately or being an overall "evil" person; on the contrary, I don't think my moral compass would change all that much, though more so out of emotional dissonance than cognitive dissonance.  But I would also be unhindered by my moral compass, knowing there would be no eternal consequence for anything that I did.

Keep this principle in mind, as we will be touching on it later.


Time Management

If God does not exist, then the ultimate destiny of the universe and all life therein is heat-death.  The heat-death of the universe is when all matter and energy in the universe will disperse evenly, turning the universe into cold soup.  Unless God intervenes, we are all assured this fate.

In light of this, I can tell you that the things I did with my time or how I treat my fellow humans would not matter in the slightest.  If the end game is heat-death, then who cares?  Who will be around to care who cared? 

Get the point?

So how would I spend my time?  Most likely I would simply do things that made me feel nice, because all would I have is the present, experiential moment.  This might even include traditionally noble things like helping others, marveling at the natural world, or being a faithful husband.  But I can tell you for certain that there would be a lot more video games going on.


Existential Dread

But surely in time, I can surmise that I would become victim to existential dread and depression.  With no objective meaning to anything in life and no promise of enduring consciousness, philosophies such as Secular Humanism or the Übermensch would all be smoke and mirrors; cute inventions by a hopeless worldview (regardless of its truth) that grasps tearfully at straws in the wind.

The hope of a life well lived and going to my death bed with grace and dignity would offer no comfort.  After all, who will ultimately be around to care?  Who will care that I thought someone should care?  Nobody.  Darkness.  Where would that leave me?


Self-Deception

If good and evil, virtue and vice did not exist, then that means things like self-deception are not wrong in any sense of the term.  As mentioned previously, the only thing I would be concerned with at this point was prolonging my sense of present experience for as long as I could.  I wouldn't know why this should be a concern, but it is.  I wouldn't know why, but I had to survive (whatever "I" means).  Perhaps it was just my genetic programming.

Either way, in order to escape existential dread that logically follows from the scientific data we have about heat-death, I would have to create some type of self-deception that actually promised eternal consciousness.  I would already have recognized that Secular Humanism and the Übermensch are self-deception, but they do not provide everlasting experience, and therefore no true comfort.  So what would that leave me with?


Theism

There are many routes I could take in this self-deception, but the most coherent would be a well rounded theism.  Out of pride I would hope that one day I might again find logically justifiable grounds for belief.  But at the present, I would simply deceive myself into believing in a God who promised eternal life to the faithful.

Some of you might view this as cowardly.  But if God is not real, then that is okay because courage is not a virtue, and neither is logical consistency.

But if this God were real, wouldn't he prolong my conscious present experience by granting me eternal life?  If not, I would fall victim to death (and ultimately heat-death) and be none-the-wiser.  I would have comfort.  Either way, I would win.


Conclusion

Atheism necessarily entails the rejection of objective moral values and virtues.  Atheism necessarily entails a lack of objective meaning to life and the way you live.  Atheism necessarily entails permanent death and an end to conscious experience.

Theism -and I would argue especially Christianity- offers the answer to all of these issues.  And if there is no reason to shun any practice as wrong, there is no reason to shun deceiving oneself into a theistic worldview.  Furthermore, there is no grounds for shunning those who choose to deceive themselves.  In fact, evolution favors those who survive, not those who are logical, and there is no reward for being a logically consistent person.  Only reward for survival.

Now I must say that as a Christian, and especially a Christian apologist, I DO NOT endorse blind faith when there is such an overwhelming wealth of evidence concerning the existence of God, and more importantly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I can make this claim because my worldview necessarily entails the virtue of logic.

If you are an atheist reading this, I would encourage you to investigate the evidence for these things.  You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

If not, there's always self-deception.

St. John of Damascus - The Day of Resurrection

----------------------------------------------------------------
Rating:

Theological Correctness:  5/5

Use of Group Pronouns:   5/5
Focus on Victory:             5/5
The Lordship of God:       5/5
Musicality:                        5/5

Total:                                 5/5

Please read the details about our rating standard here!

Lyrics:

The day of resurrection! Earth, tell it out abroad;
The Passover of gladness, the Passover of God.
From death to life eternal, from earth unto the sky,
Our Christ hath brought us over, with hymns of victory.


Our hearts be pure from evil, that we may see aright
The Lord in rays eternal of resurrection light;
And listening to His accents, may hear, so calm and plain,
His own “All hail!” and, hearing, may raise the victor strain.


Now let the heavens be joyful! Let earth the song begin!
Let the round world keep triumph, and all that is therein!
Let all things seen and unseen their notes in gladness blend,
For Christ the Lord hath risen, our joy that hath no end.

----------------------------------------------------------------

This song is too short!  Not only that, but this song goes back a long time!  This hymn was written by St. John of Damascus (670-787) and translated from Greek to English by J.M. Neale in the 1800's.  There's something quite enriching about knowing our faith stretches back hundreds of thousands of years, and having that solidarity with believers past who sang the same songs (which partly accounts for my bias towards hymns over CCM).

We have unashamedly rated this song a perfect 5/5, as it hits the mark in every category.  The only thing we could really nitpick in this song is the allusion of heaven being "skyward" (that is, geographically "up"), but we feel that is hardly a problem in light of how this song includes all of Creation in the story of resurrection.

There are many renditions of this hymn musically, but Youtube's The Sunday School Songster does a fantastic job on solo guitar.  His arrangement sure gets stuck in your head, which is a wonderful thing with such great theology backing it up.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Are you enjoying the music you listen to on this blog?  You can find it all in one place by visiting our Theologically Correct Music Playlist!

----------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew Bridges - Crown Him With Many Crowns

----------------------------------------------------------------
Rating:

Theological Correctness:  5/5

Use of Group Pronouns:   4/5
Focus on Victory:             5/5
The Lordship of God:       5/5
Musicality:                        5/5

Total:                                 4.8/5

Please read the details about our rating standard here!

Lyrics:

Crown Him with many crowns,
the Lamb upon his throne.
Hark! How the heavenly anthem drowns
all music but its own.
Awake, my soul, and sing of Him
Who died for thee,
and hail Him as thy matchless King
through all eternity.

Crown Him the Lord of life,
Who triumphed over the grave,
and rose victorious in the strife
for those He came to save.
His glories now we sing,
Who died, and rose on high,
Who died eternal life to bring,
and lives that death may die.

Crown Him the Lord of love,
behold His hands and side,
those wounds, yet visible above,
in beauty glorified.
No angel in the sky
can fully bear that sight,
but downward bends His burning eye
at mysteries so bright.

Crown Him the Lord of years,
the Potentate of time,
Creator of the rolling spheres,
ineffably sublime.
all hail, Redeemer, hail!
For Thou has died for me;
Thy praise and glory shall not fail
throughout eternity.

----------------------------------------------------------------

One of the great perks to attending a Lutheran (LCMS) church now is my wife and I get exposure to some great hymns.  I had heard this one before, but it didn't really click until I heard it during the Easter service this year.

This arrangement is a little more CCM than you would otherwise hear it, but the vocals are spot-on.  More importantly however, the theology and focus on the resurrected Christ is outstanding!

My only criticism of the song is its few instances of "me" language (lack of group pronouns).  However I do feel that those few instances are overshadowed by the overarching context of group acknowledgement.  I also chose to give Use of Group Pronouns a rating of 4/5 instead of 3/5 due to the fact that replacing such instances of "me" language with group pronouns would not work poetically.  Sometimes you can do that (leaving no excuse for "me" language"), but sometimes you just can't.

To reiterate what I've said elsewhere in case some of you are wondering, "What's wrong with singing about Christ dying for 'me' personally?", it's important to note that the Bible was written to collectivist, group-oriented minds.  Thus almost everything we read in the New Testament is to be understood in a group context.  Church is not something you do by yourself for instance, but it only has meaning and power when it encompasses a collective body of believers.

Christ certainly died and rose for us all corporately and individually, but in our individualistic culture we have seriously lost touch with our sense of group attachment and commitment.  Because music affects our thinking so greatly (often without our realization), this test we present here offers only the music that majors on group focus, drawing us back to the unity in Christ that God desires.

So is there anything wrong with saying Christ died and rose "for me"?  Absolutely not.  But is it better to say Christ died and rose "for us"?  Absolutely so!

To get back on track to the main topic however, this song get's a hearty 4.8 on the theological correctness scale.  Enjoy and share it with confidence!

----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you enjoying the music you listen to on this blog?  You can find it all in one place by visiting our Theologically Correct Music Playlist!

Brood of Vipers? What does that mean?

Many of you may have noticed throughout the Gospels in particular a certain insult that gets thrown around by figures like John the Baptist and Jesus.  What's all this "brood of vipers" business about?

Ancient Near-Eastern society was group-oriented (not individualistic) and agonistic, meaning they were constantly competing socially for honor (much like Japanese culture).  A person was either ascribed honor through inheritance (bloodline) or acquired it through challenge and riposte.

Honor in general was taken very seriously, about as serious as we in the west treat money, if not more so.  Among the two types of honor (ascribed and acquired), ascribed honor was defended the most vigorously.

One way to attempt to discredit someone's ascribed honor was to question their familial lineage.  Conversely, one could defend their ascribed honor by providing a genealogy (hence Matthew 1 and Luke 3).

"Given this emphasis on defensive [marriage] strategy and holy seed, imputations of doubtful lineage are among the gravest insults in the culture, sure to get prompt attention.  For example, John the Baptist's calling the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jerusalem a "brood of vipers" means nothing less than "snake bastards," a doubly offensive term... These are powerful insults in a culture where purity of lineage is a central concern." [New Testament World, 154]

After calling the Pharisees and Sadducees "snake bastards", John the Baptist "... anticipates that the crowd will respond with assertions of proper lineage, and consequently poses the alternative view that the true lineage has a moral rather than simply a biological base." [Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 33].  He did this by claiming, "Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our ancestor'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children of Abraham."

Jesus likewise used such insults against His opponents: "brood of vipers" in Matthew 12:34, "adulterous generation" in 12:39 (or "generation of bastards"), and so forth.  Remember also when Jesus went to teach in Nazareth, the people questioned His authority because they knew of His humble familial origins:

"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't His mother called Mary, and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?  And His sisters, aren't they all with us? So where does He get all these things?"  And they were offended by Him." - Matt. 13:55-56

These terms used by John, Jesus, and their opponents where powerful social rhetorical devices used to slander their honor in the deepest way possible.  Most of us in the west cannot fully understand just how deep these words were meant to cut.  Kind of takes the soft edge off our Lord that we often like to ascribe, doesn't it?