Supersede Me - Evangelicals rethink how to convert Jews. By Mark Oppenheimer

Supersede Me - Evangelicals rethink how to convert Jews. By Mark Oppenheimer:

"If Occam's razor is right, and the simplest theory is best, then Ariel Sharon's stroke was not a big mystery. Morbidly obese 77-year-olds with high-stress jobs like, say, trying to secure the Holy Land for God's chosen people are good candidates for hemorrhagic episodes. But 700 Club host Pat Robertson thought he had a better explanation..."

Mike Kruse has this linked this morning at The Kruse Kronicle and I thought I would make a few observations.

Mark Oppenheimer is writing about the doctrine of "supersession", which many Christian, including Pat Robertson appear to believe. Basically, this doctrine holds that when Jesus came, all previous convenants were superceded, and that the only one in force was the New Covenant.

While I believe that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life", my understanding of Scripture is that God's Covenant with Israel is for eternity, and that did not change when Jesus came.

How these older covenants will continue to play out is not known to me or anyone else; it is God's prerogative. We ARE called by God to tell the good news to the world, and this includes Jews, Muslims, as well as adherents of other religions. The Book of Confessions, Book of Order, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) website are in agreement with this duty, as I documented in an earlier posting on the first of the Great Ends of the Church -- The Proclamation of the Gospel for the Salvation of Humankind.

This article quotes John Neuhaus, the editor of First Things as saying that evangelizing of the Jews must be based on mutual respect, and not proceed from the assumption that we need to correct their errors or roll back their ignorance (my paraphrase). Rather we "can and must say that friendship between Jew and Christian can be secured in shared love for the God of Israel."

At the bottom of Oppenheimer's article are links to other Slate articles on religion, and most of them are worth following.

The high cost of losing our religion - Opinion - smh.com.au

The high cost of losing our religion - Opinion - smh.com.au:

"...If church-going women floated into women's liberation groups, she said, a lot of time was spent raising their consciousness about what an oppressive institution it was: "If you started to think about your life as a woman, the first thing you would do is reject Christianity."

Church attendance began to decline, along with the number of candidates for ministry. In the 1950s, 44 per cent of all Australians attended church at least once a month. According to National Church Life Survey research, this figure fell dramatically in the 1960s, to 30 per cent in 1972.

What is increasingly obvious is that, in the midst of the excitement and turmoil, those driving the social change of the 1970s failed to seriously understand the power of religion as a social force.

Many scorned those who tried to reform the church and argued it should be rejected entirely. Comments such as those of the theologian Mary Daly were typical: "For women to seek ordination in the Christian church is as destructive as it would be for black people to seek to become leaders in the Ku Klux Klan."

Their rationale was understandable, but intellectually, this was a major stuff-up. It's not a question of what they believed, but one of whether they recognised the importance of reforming the church...."

I wasn't sure if I really wanted to comment on this article from the Sydney Morning Herald, as its tone betrays a strong sense of antipathy toward "conservative" Christians. Some of the issues raised, however, deserve scrutiny.

For the author, Julia Baird, the bottom line is that when feminists and other liberal and radical groups rejected the Church in the 1960's and 1970's, they ceded the Church to the conservatives. In so doing, they deprived themselves of an important platform for effecting social change, and the result is that today the Church in Australia is dominated by conservatives

That may be partially true, in that the more orthodox and traditional members remained behind.

The underlying assumption that the "liberals" are better equipped and more willing to work for social justice than the "conservatives" is not realistic. See George H. Gallup's article, Dogma Bites Man, for the results of some polling data that suggest otherwise.

It appears that nearly all the "mainline" denominations are losing members and that more conservative denominations are gaining members. The reasons are complex, but some suggest it has a lot to do with the willingness of churches to state clearly what they believe and what expectations they have of members. According to Beau Weston, "What people want most out of religion is religion. Liberal churches that work hard to accommodate the secular world by offering a refined, intellectual, reasonable faith keep losing people to the even more reasonable pleasures of the newspaper, the golf course, and the warm bed." This same quote appears in Presbyterian evangelicals -- They just might be on to something (Presbyterians Today). The PT article discusses many issues related to membership gains and losses in Presbyterian congregations.

Baird does correctly point out that blaming it all on a liberal exodus is probably too simplistic:

"...It would be simplistic to blame a swag of 1960s activists alone for the resurgence and dominance of conservative religion in political life today. Especially when journalists have so often been dismissive of religion, and tardy to understand its potency and personal sway...."

But then she concludes with this:

"...But I cannot help but wonder if the "smart-arses" of the boomer activists and intellectuals had tackled the corruption and decay in the churches as well as the state, instead of simply turning on their heels, if many politicians would be singing from a different hymn sheet today."

Wondering is always appropriate. The problem here is that there is no indication "corruption and decay" is or was the problem in Australian Churches or elsewhere in the world, nor is there any way to know that the loss of members would not have eventually taken place even if "boomer activists" had not rejected the church. In fact, this article points out that the Uniting Church in Australia (described by Blair as representing the "progressive wing of protestantism) has continued to lose members, experiencing a 22% drop in attendence from 1991-2001, compared with conservative denominations that have grown in size and influence.

Instead of wondering about the past, why not become engaged with the Church and its mission?

Kruse Kronicle: Church is a Family Business

Kruse Kronicle: Church is a Family Business:

"I have heard that two equally common complaints sum up the frustrations of most pastors and church board members. The first is that the church is run too much like a business. The second is that the church isn’t run enough like a business...."

"...The truth is you don’t need to visit cutting edge churches to see this debate played out. The tug-of-war between business and family metaphors plays out in countless traditional congregations. For instance, most large Presbyterian Churches I know operate in accord with highly programmatic business oriented thinking. Many other Presbyterians I meet say they would never join these large congregations because they enjoy the warm friendly family nature of their small congregation. Of course, almost every church I have seen close could have had as their epitaph “We were a warm friendly family church.” So who is right in this debate? I would say both…and neither...."

Mike Kruse raises an issue that hits close to home. There are many times when I have wanted to state forcefully "We are NOT a business; We are a community of faith!"

Mike's article goes into some detail about what "family" was in the context of the early Church, and what it is today -- and how there are key differences.

His resolution of what may be a false dichotomy between business and family has given me considerable food for thought:

"...A church is a family devoted to a business (or mission.) Lose either the family or business aspects and you have a significant distortion of Paul’s metaphor for church...."

Go ahead and read Mike's whole article.

Presbyterian Outlook: Desegregation or re-segregation?

Presbyterian Outlook: Desegregation or re-segregation?:

"Show me a major city that has a significant African-American population, and I’ll show you a school called “Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary (or Middle or High) School.” Its students will be nearly, or 100 percent, African-American. Wasn’t MLK promoting racial integration?

Show me a denomination that has spoken prophetically against race hatred, against apartheid, against segregation, and against all kinds of social injustice, and I’ll show you any one of thousands of Presbyterian churches, where nearly 100 percent of each congregation’s members come from the same race. Aren’t we promoting racial integration?..."

Jack Haberer, in this Presbyterian Outlook editorial, raises a question that keeps coming up -- but never seems to be resolved.

The answer seems deceptively easy -- be welcoming of visitors of different backgrounds than ourselves -- but how do we get people through the front door of our churches?

It is a two-way street. Not only do we need to welcome strangers who come through our doors, but we need to be strangers who enter the doors of unfamiliar congregations.

This is something that cannot be forced or legislated. Most people will attend services in a congregation where they feel comfortable, whether they are Black, White, Korean, Hispanic, or Chinese. (The last three describe congregations in Columbia, MO which have an ethnic identification as part of their name).

I still have not personally resolved this issue, and neither has my congregation. The topic has come up on a regular basis in the 17 years my wife and I have been members. Is the fact that people go where they are comfortable a symptom of evil in our churches? Is self-imposed segregation the problem? Is denominationalism the underlying problem?

The "Religion Leads to Societal Ills" Meme, revisited

For an interesting look at how statistics can be used to provide illusory support to a popular misconception, read this article, Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies, and then read the following:

From our bulging "How not to do statistics" file by Scott Gilbreath of the Magic Statistics Blog.

Dogma Bites Man by George H. Gallup, Jr.

I am not a statistician, so I leave it to others to interpret the original article as well as the rebuttals.

I am particularly impressed with the results of polling done in 2002, which suggested that the 10% of respondents who scored highest on "Love of God" were significantly more likely to be involved in service to the poor and suffering, and believed that all people are loved by God and therefore we should also love them (Dogma Bites Man).

(Thanks to Beau Weston of The Gruntled Center for alerting me to these articles.)

New Orleans Mayor Says God Mad at U.S. - Yahoo! News

New Orleans Mayor Says God Mad at U.S. - Yahoo! News:

"NEW ORLEANS - Mayor Ray Nagin suggested Monday that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that "God is mad at America" and at black communities, too, for tearing themselves apart with violence and political infighting.

"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin, who is black, said as he and other city leaders marked Martin Luther King Day...."

Sigh...

Some Abortion Foes Forgo Politics for Quiet Talk - New York Times

Some Abortion Foes Forgo Politics for Quiet Talk - New York Times:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - The eight women sat in a semicircle facing a wooden cross, reflecting on the abortions they said they had never gotten over.

Though they now opposed abortion, they criticized the demonstrators who protest outside clinics.

"They think they're helping these women," said Mendy Mason, 34, who described being suicidal and depressed after her abortion. For women like her, she said, the demonstrators only inflict more pain.

"The pro-life movement wants to demonize the mother and concentrate on protecting the innocent child," Ms. Mason said. "But you can't rip a baby from a woman's womb without ripping out her heart. My babies are in a much better place than I am."...

This is a rare look at a side of the abortion issue that isn't as well publicized as the more public debates. These women have a great deal to say to both sides, and do it with quiet eloquence.

I hope both extremes in this often ugly debate can listen to these women and realize that (1) for these women, choosing an abortion had real and serious consequences; and (2) that harassing women outside the offices of abortion providers does nothing to improve matters.

Multimedia Is New Way to Relay Old Lessons - Los Angeles Times

Multimedia Is New Way to Relay Old Lessons - Los Angeles Times:

"Retired college professor Grace Christensen of Rancho Santa Margarita grew up singing old hymns and reading from the Bible during Sunday worship.

But now she and other congregants of the 400-member Santa Margarita United Methodist Church in Orange County seldom use Bibles or church hymnals during worship service.

Instead, modern technology enables her to participate by watching two big screens where the texts appear in large letters. A crew manning an audiovisual booth in the back of the sanctuary modulates the sound system so that she can hear and see well no matter where she sits, she said...."

Another example of how churches embrace technology...

I should note that some friends of ours went to Australia for a sabbatical about 8 years ago, and described how words to hymns were projected on a screen during services, using overhead transparencies. but even so, the concept is not exactly new. Digital projectors are now down in the $700.00 ballpark, and they can do the job far more efficiently.

There is power in using visual images, music, and words together in an integrated package. MTV, Super Bowl half-time shows, TV advertising are all ways in which imagery can be used to entertain -- or to manipulate. Political advertising and propaganda are generally negative examples of the latter. Visual imagery can also be used to instruct. It is hard to imagine professional meetings that do not rely on PowerPoint in their sessions.

Why not churches? It certainly seems to be a staple in young, growing, congregations. And not to put too fine a point on it, but if congregations are to grow, or even maintain their numbers, they will need to attract youth.

The computer professional in me says "Go for it! You'll not regret it."

The more cautious person in me says "Use it carefully and wisely."

Guardian Unlimited: Supposing ... we could inoculate against religion

Guardian Unlimited: Supposing ... we could inoculate against religion:

So the other day I'm flopping about in my pants watching The Root of All Evil, Richard Dawkins' new Channel 4 series about religion, and it's alternating between terrifying and hilarious. Terrifying because it feels like a report detailing the final seconds before the world slides into an all-out holy fistfight, and hilarious because every time Dawkins meets a religious spokesman, which he does at regular intervals throughout the programme, he quickly becomes far too angry to conduct a civil conversation with them - visibly fumes, in fact, and adopts the expression of an outraged Victorian gentleman who's just been mooned by a cackling street urchin while escorting a lady across Bloomsbury Square. It doesn't exactly move the debate forward.

British humor is not for everyone, but this piece about Richard Dawkins' recent television series tickled me.

Richard Dawkins is a highly respected scientist, but he is stepping way out of his role as a scientist in his attempt to convince people of the inherent evil found in religion. This idea is becoming a meme in the various debates about religion. (Ironically, it was Richard Dawkins who coined the term "meme", which describes the cultural transmission of ideas from one person to another).

The problem with many memes is that they are uncritically accepted, especially in this era of unprecedented access to information and ability to disseminate information (like this blog, for example...) In my original posting on this blog, I mentioned the need for responsibility with this quote from Mark Twain: "A lie will travel halfway around the world before truth has put its boots on". Memes seem to follow the same principle.

One meme that I find particularly egregious is that religions are evil because they have adherents who do evil things. Islam must not be defined by Osama bin Laden or those with similar beliefs. Christianity cannot be defined by the excesses of the Crusades or by the ill-conceived public statements of individuals that seem to find their way into the media on a depressingly regular basis.

Following Jesus, and doing all He has taught us to do, could only leave the world a better place. The Scriptures teach us to feed the hungry, tend to the sick, welcome the stranger -- as if they were Jesus himself (Matthew 25:31-46). Paul, in his letter to the Galations says "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23).

There is no law requiring such things, either -- but those who follow the Lord will make an effort to be all those things and more -- even if we are imperfect in our response to what the Lord requires of us.

Preservationists lose battle over Wilson’s Creek

Preservationists lose battle over Wilson’s Creek:

"REPUBLIC (AP) - A controversial housing development that abuts a Civil War battlefield has won approval from city officials, but a civil lawsuit could still stall the project...."

The battles in Missouri and Arkansas are not as well-known as the ones east of the Mississippi, but they were significant nonetheless. The outcome of WIlson's Creek -- and several months later, Pea Ridge -- secured the western states for the Union, thus reducing the need for a large Union garrison in Missouri. It would be a tragedy if the rural countryside around Wilson's Creek National Battlefield were converted to housing developments. Our heritage should be given more respect.

Considering the location, this would be a bedroom community for Springfield, with a sizable increase in the tax base for Republic.

The Eagle and Child: Rushkoff's Testament -- a different read on Abraham

The Eagle and Child: Rushkoff's Testament -- a different read on Abraham:

Buzz had been building for some time: media theorist Douglas RushkoffVertigo label -- not what older generations expect from a comic book at all. was writing a comic book series based around stories from the Bible. This would be an edgy more mature GenX style presentation under DC's

This, and the articles it references, seems quite interesting. Russell Smith points out that that many liberties are taken with the narrative, but the themes are sound, and the author takes the Scriptures seriously.

As the father of a 13-year-old who finds the "graphical novels" more attractive than reading traditional books, this may be a way to get youth more interested in reading the Bible. I remember Classics Illustrated -- for many years my only exposure to The Count of Monte Cristo was the comic version. I finally read it in its entirety, and it was rather hard to wade through it -- and I am a voracious reader.

N.J. Lawmakers Suspend Death Penalty - Yahoo! News

N.J. Lawmakers Suspend Death Penalty - Yahoo! News:

TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey lawmakers voted Monday to suspend executions while a task force studies the fairness and costs of imposing the death penalty.

The measure now heads to Gov. Richard J. Codey, who has indicated he will sign it before leaving office on Jan. 17.

Under the measure, a 13-member commission would have until November to report on whether the death penalty is fairly imposed and whether alternatives would ensure public safety and address the needs of victims' families.

This is a hopeful sign that the inequities of the death penalty in the United States will be scrutinized. New Jersey is the third state to declare a moratorium, but the first to do it legislatively.

California is also considering a legislative moratorium on the death penalty, according to this AP news release.

Gruntled Center: Great Families vs. Social Darwinism

Gruntled Center: Great Families vs. Social Darwinism:

"On Lawn, at Opine Editorials, has a very gratifying appreciation of last week’s series on national greatness and the ecology of families. He or she called these comments “The Social Darwinism of Families.” This got me thinking about the ways in which my position is like social Darwinism – and in a crucial respect is the opposite of social Darwinism...."

Here are two interesting discussions of how sociobiological principles affect the ways families function in society. Follow both links (the one to the Gruntled Center and the one Gruntled is blogging about) and read the entire articles.

I was in graduate school when Sociobiology -- The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson was published in 1975. It was greeted by a quick and (in my opinion) vicious attack led mainly by two or three of his colleagues at Harvard. The controversy centered mainly around fears that trying to apply genetic and evolutionary principles to behavior evolution would lead to racism and other undesirable outcomes. These attacks, which seemed to confuse ideology with science, never gained much traction, and the field of sociobiology is a highly respected field today.

I prefer "sociobiology" to "social darwinism" because to me social darwinism is more of an attempt to use Darwin's theory to bolster a preconceived idea of how society should function.

In any event, the idea that altruistic behavior is in the best interests of the family (nuclear or extended) is one that has been studied for many years. A humorous comment I remember from 30 years ago is "I would willingly lay down my life for my brother -- or any eight of my cousins."

Gruntled closes with this:

"...Human beings lead the most satisfying lives not when they are crushing the competition, but when they are serving the greater good. And, counter-intuitively, serving the greater good is actually the best way to serve your own interests. The strong family lineages that endure and advance in wealth, power, and esteem tend to be those that serve the greater good. This is congruent with an evolutionary theory, but goes beyond what is normally understood as social Darwinism.

It is quite satisfying when a scientific/sociological understanding of what is good for strong families converges with what we believe as Reform Christians.

No wonder atheists are angry: they seem ready to believe anything

No wonder atheists are angry: they seem ready to believe anything

In my previous post in the subject of Richard Dawkins, I failed to note that Presbyweb and The Kruse Kronicle had linked to the above article, which is more comprehensive than the one to which I had linked. The Guardian piece is opinion rather than news, but it makes several points worth considering.

Mike Kruse's take on this is that Dawkins is a "secular fundamentalist", and that seems to me to be a apt description.

Religion ‘a form of child abuse’ - [Sunday Herald]

Religion ‘a form of child abuse’ - [Sunday Herald (Scotland)]:

"CONTROVERSIAL scientist Richard Dawkins will assert tomorrow evening that religion is a “virus” that amounts to child abuse.

The new two-part series, to be shown on Channel 4, will compare Moses to Hitler and claim that God is racist. It will also argue that religion is a “backward belief system” responsible for terrorism.

The controversial films, which were produced by IWC creative director Alan Clements and written by Dawkins, are a polemic against faith and a stout defence of science.

Entitled The Root Of All Evil, the series shows Dawkins visiting theological hot-spots in Lourdes, Colorado Springs, the al-Axa mosque and an English faith school. In each case the presenter, who is an atheist, attempts to show that religion is an “elephant in the room” trying to subvert reason...."

With all the recent news regarding "Intelligent Design" and whether it is proper to teach it in science curricula, it is ironic that such a respected scientist as Dawkins would step so far out of his area of expertise and attack those who have experienced God and have chosen to make it a part of their lives.

What is even more ironic is that Dawkins, a self-described atheist, would use his atheistic world-view in this fashion -- because in asserting that there is no God, he is asserting a negative -- and this is not subject to the rigorous methods of science. Dawkins is entitled to his opinions, but they are in no way to be considered "science".

Science and religion are two different ways of approaching reality, and their sources of authority do not overlap. It is just as wrong to teach intelligent design as if it were science as it is for a scientist to claim that those who have experienced God and teach their children about God are tantamount to child abusers.

The sad thing is that Dawkins does not need to attack religion in order to issue a defence of science and its methods. Science, as a self-correcting method of acquiring and organizing knowledge, and making predictions that can be tested, is easily defended.

CNN.com - Robertson suggests God smote Sharon - Jan 5, 2006

CNN.com - Robertson suggests God smote Sharon - Jan 5, 2006:

"(CNN) -- Television evangelist Pat Robertson suggested Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which Robertson opposed...."

Confusing theology with ideology is not useful...

Is there an answer?

Is there an answer? (free registration is required to read the full articles in The Presbyterian Outlook):

"Surely, our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) needs an answer. The net losses of 1,887,629 members and 1,985 churches, from the total of our two previous denominations in 1966, cry out for an answer. Lest you conclude that the answer would be to mount a major membership and church building drive, let me suggest that these dismal statistics, in reality, are the symptoms of a deeper malaise, the score card for a team in serious need of coming together for a common purpose.

The church universal, including our PC(USA) denomination, needs an answer. In this country, the church has lost its role of arbitrator/advocate for a moral and ethical society. The church is under attack by new age philosophies that challenge the church’s basic doctrines of sin, repentance, forgiveness and submission to the will of God. Respect for and confidence in the church is daily challenged by widely repeated voices of atheism and agnosticism. In Europe, the church is a remnant of echo-filled cathedrals and dwindling faithful. The church needs an answer...."

William H. "Bill" Wilson has had a long history of service to the PC(USA) and the PCUS, having served on various boards and as Synod of the Sun moderator and moderator of the 197th General Assembly. His words in this Presbyterian Outlook Guest Viewpoint are a timely reminder that we are in need of not only finding the answers, but asking the right question in the first place: "The answer needed by our church begins with one simple, but profound question: For what reason does the church exist?"

Wilson notes that there may be many good and diverse answers, but they will all, ultimately, converge on our witness to the Good News of Jesus Christ in the world.

Given that most Presbyterians already believe this, why do we even need to say this? Wilson's point is that our preoccupation with our divisions gets in the way of our witness to the world around us. The message is mixed, and we need to clarify it.

What a difference it could make if the resources, both financial and human, that have been diverted to fighting among ourselves could be reallocated toward our mission to the world!

The Presbyterian Church (USA) needs to move forward in what unites us rather than be dragged down by what divides us.

Amid 'Terrorism, Nihilism,' Benedict Seeks Path to Peace - Los Angeles Times

Amid 'Terrorism, Nihilism,' Benedict Seeks Path to Peace - Los Angeles Times:

ROME — Roman Catholics embarked Sunday on a new year with a new pope, who used the day's festivities to urge stronger faith in God as a way to make peace in a world threatened by "terrorism, nihilism and fanatic fundamentalism."

Benedict XVI, presiding over the first New Year's Day program of his papacy, led a morning Mass inside St. Peter's Basilica and afterward addressed thousands of pilgrims gathered in the square outside. The Vatican marks Jan. 1 annually by celebrating World Day of Peace, a theme that infused Benedict's comments Sunday.

"A leap of courage and of faith in God and in mankind" are crucial to promoting global peace, the pope said.

It is the duty of everyone — of individuals, world powers and international organizations — to take up the cause, he said, singling out the United Nations and its responsibility to further justice and solidarity in a world confronting the "phenomenon of globalization."

Pope Benedict XVI makes some good points in this article. Each of the groups -- individuals, world powers, and international organizations -- have shown a depressing lack of consistency in their response to evil in our world.

Christians are called to be a part of this process by God, and have responded in many ways. Bread For The World and the One Campaign are two such organizations. The One Campaign, in particular, is a multi-pronged approach to the issues of hunger: Aids, debt relief, extreme poverty. These are issues of justice as well as compassion. Micah 6:6-8 and Matthew 25:31-46 make this abundantly clear.

The Trilemma, Continued

In my previous posting, I noted that a trilemma was used by C. S. Lewis in at least two instances: one in his book on apologetics, Mere Christianity; and one in his novel, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.

Not everyone is convinced that the Lewis trilemma is useful in apologetics, but it may be good to point out that Lewis was dealing with one specific issue -- the assertion that "Jesus was a great moral teacher, but not the Son of God."

As the Wikipedia article on the Trilemma points out, the three options that define a trilemma must be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. In other words, choosing one option requires that the other two be rejected as false, and the three options must cover all possibilities.

So, assuming that Jesus made claims of divinity for himself (which Scripture leads us to believe), then either he is the Son of God or he is not the Son of God. If he is not, then he is either a liar or he is delusional.

Lewis' point was that if he was not the Son of God, then being a liar or crazy would not be consistent with being a "great moral teacher". This pretty much means that the two characterizations -- Son of God; Great Moral Teacher -- must be accepted together or rejected together.

Does this prove that Jesus was the Son of God? No. All it does is remove one of the arguments against his divinity.

It seems to me that trilemmas are only good for logically eliminating possibilities. What is left is not necessarily "proven".

Let's look at another claim that might lend itself to a trilemma: Did Jesus rise from the dead or didn't he?

Some have said that the disciples concocted this story, and that it was all a lie. Others have said that the disciples were under some sort of mass delusion. The Scriptures make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

So, given the underlying assumption that resurrection claims were in fact made, then we are left with the following possibilties:

• The apostles lied, and in turn convinced others of the lie, and this lie resulted in the Christian religion as we know it today.
• The apostles were victims of mass delusion and convinced others of the truth of their claims.
• The apostles saw the Risen Lord, and told the Good News to all who would listen.

So, what can we do with this? I think the first option can be disposed of quickly: According to both Scriptural and secular sources, most of the original 11 Apostles died as a result of their activities in preaching the Good News. Would they have been willing to die for a lie they themselves concocted?

The second option, mass delusion, is a little trickier. Jonestown comes to mind as does the Heaven's Gate sect. Both groups committed mass suicide as a result of mass delusion. It is hard for me though, to accept mass delusion as an explanation for the spread of the resurrection story. I'd have to believe that the women at the tomb, the eleven remaining disciples (including Thomas, who had to see for himself), and others who claimed to have seen the Risen Lord were all suffering from a common delusion. The apostles were accused by some of having had "too much wine", but as Peter pointed out, "It 's only nine in the morning". (Acts 2:13-16)

Occam's Razor suggests that when two competing explanations are made for a particular event, the simpler one is preferred. Both of the above options that deny the Resurrection require assumptions that are not supported by known facts. Another "explaining away" of the Resurrection is that Jesus was taken down from the cross in a comatose state. To believe this requires that one believe that the Romans (who were very good at crucifixion) bungled this one.

If the resurrection never happened, then the crucifixion should have been the end of it. So what made the apostles, and those who heard and believed the Good News, go out into the world and preach and teach what Jesus had taught them? What made them willing to suffer death for what they believed?

To use a well-known quote from Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Or, in matters of faith, becomes easier to accept as the truth.

Does this trilemma prove that the Resurrection happened? No. But it goes a certain distance toward eliminating some common objections to the idea, and coupled with what we know of the way the early Church spread over the Middle East, and into Europe, it makes the Resurrection more plausible on an intellectual level.

It still remains a matter of faith -- but the more I think it through, the shorter the leap becomes.

Happy New Year!

Auld Lang Syne

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to min'?
Should auld acquaintaince be forgot,
And days o' lang syne?

Chorus:
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes,
And pu'd the gowans fine;
But we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidl't i' the burn,
From morning sun till dine;
But seas between us braid hae roar'd
Sin auld lang syne.

And here's a hand, my trusty fiere
And gie's a hand o' thine;
And we'll tak' a right guid willie-waught
For auld lang syne.

And surely you'll be your pint-stowp
And surely I'll be mine;
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

-- Robert Burns (1759-1796)

The Poetical Works of Robert Burns
Edited by the Rev. Robert Aris Wilmot
Boston: Lee and Shepard, Publishers (1872)