When In Doubt, Blame God

Some time ago while browsing Facebook, I came across the following comment: “More people were killed during the crusades than any war so what's that tell you! Worship me or die!” This type of statement is commonly thrown into conversations about Christianity and is often made willy-nilly with little or no evidential support. Those who make these statements often seem to believe that just by asserting them, they somehow become true. Since this particular comment was not made on my page, and I felt it inappropriate to start a debate on someone else's page, I'll instead address that statement and the general sentiment here.

The first part of this comment, “More people were killed during the crusades than any war...”, is patently false. While estimates vary, the general consensus is that there were between one and five million deaths resulting from the Crusades. These numbers are dwarfed by twentieth century casualties of war. Approximately 10 million people died as a result of World War I.¹ That number rose to between 40 million and 50 million for World War II.² The Crusades, while brutal, barely begin to measure up to the massive death toll of twentieth century wars.

I think it's safe to say, however, that the point of this comment was not simply to compare casualty numbers. A cursory glance at the historical data can resolve that question. Most likely, the point is an echo of the claim made far too often these days that Christian ideology is the cause of more deaths in history than anything else. The Crusades along with religiously motivated killings such as the Inquisitions are often cited as examples defending this argument. Again, if we consult history, we find a much different story.

It's no secret that the Nazis, under the rule of Adolf Hitler, put approximately six million Jews to death during their reign. In addition to this number, nearly two million non-Jewish Poles and over three million Soviet POWs were executed.^{3, 4} This puts the murder count of the Third Reich at over eleven million innocent people. Of course, many critics of religion are quick to point out that Hitler was raised as a Catholic. Yet, this methodical extermination of all non “Aryans” was not based on a Catholic worldview. According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's Holocaust Encyclopedia:

In formulating their ideology of race, Hitler and the Nazis drew upon the ideas of the German social Darwinists of the late 19th century...The Nazis also adopted the social Darwinist take on Darwinian evolutionary theory regarding the “survival of the fittest...Since each “race” sought to expand, and since the space on the earth was finite, the struggle for survival resulted “naturally” in violent conquest and military confrontation.⁵

Hence, it was an evolutionary worldview, not a Christian worldview, which drove these heinous acts.

Additionally, consider the actions of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and Chinese ruler Mao Zedong. In an act designed to dissuade a rebellion, Stalin deliberately confiscated food resulting in the starvation of up to 10 million Ukrainians.⁶ Mao was responsible for the largest famine in history, causing the deaths of between 16.5 million and 40 million people.⁷ Yet, both of these dictators operated under naturalist worldviews, denying the existence of God.

The historical record plainly displays that Nazist and communist worldviews are responsible for the deaths of at least 40 million people in the twentieth century alone. Any critic of religion would be hard pressed to find comparable numbers in killings in history associated with Christianity. Therefore, it is not belief in God, but lack thereof that drove the largest deliberate non-war exterminations of human beings.

Nevertheless, suppose the claims were true. Let's imagine for a moment that we could conclusively show that “Christian wars”, or wars fought over competing religious ideologies which involved Christianity, caused more deaths than any other ideology in history. The quote at the outset would seem to indicate that this makes God responsible for these travesties. That historical atrocities were perpetuated in the name of God somehow makes him culpable. I don't know about you, but I hope to never find myself in this position.

Imagine there was a serial killer running around murdering people and claiming that you told them to do so. Perhaps the police would investigate these accusations. Once it was established that you are against such things and all evidence of your relation to these crimes was found lacking, you would hope to be absolved of such accusations. Indeed, your reputation should not be smeared because of someone who wrongfully applied your name to their crimes. Such is the case with God. Even if Christian wars and killings accounted for the most lives lost in history, it would not be sufficient cause to blame God.

This sheds light on the larger issue that when things go wrong, we are quick to blame God. When we get sick, lose a loved one, or lose our car keys, many of us immediately ask, “Why did God do this to me?” Yet, the biblical account offers the ultimate answer to nearly all of these questions. The answer is that God didn't do this to us. We did it to ourselves. Human beings brought sin upon themselves, which is the direct cause of most of the problems they live with. While we might complain that God has not given us this or that, we would do well to remember what God has given us. He has paid for our sins with his own blood (Acts 20:28), and all we have to do to claim this gift is accept it and put our trust in him. Instead of deserving our blame, he deserves our thanks and praise.


Notes:
1. "World War 1" World Encyclopedia. Philip's, 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. American River College. 29 November 2010
2. "World War II." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2010
3. “Mosaic of Victims: Overview.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1 Apr. 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
4. “Nazi Persecution of Soviet Prisoners of War.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1 Apr. 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
5. “Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1 Apr. 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
6. Sheeter, Laura. “Ukraine Remembers Famine Horror.” BBC News. BBC News, 24 Nov. 2007. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
7. Harms, William. “China's Great Leap Forward.” The University of Chicago Chronicle. 14 Mar. 1996. The University of Chicago. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.

Qopycats?

I've been thinking about something I read in the U.S. News and World Report magazine I discussed in my previous entry. In one of the articles, a measure of doubt was cast on the authenticity of the Gospels. It was suggested that portions of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were "borrowed" from the Gospel of Mark in that Mark was written first and the other two used it as a sort of template to produce their Gospels. It was further suggested that Mark was "borrowed" from an as yet unidentified earlier source known by the scholarly community as "Q". Thus, it is concluded that there aren't really three corroborating sources (Matthew, Mark, Luke), but only one original source ("Q") from which the others were copied and recopied. Or, so the story goes. We'll set aside the fact that this "Q" document hasn't even been found and is, therefore, purely speculative. Now, I've seen these arguements presented elsewhere, and they are very often used in an attempt to discredit the Gospels as reliable sources. But should they be discredited?

First, it seems that the case for the "plagarizing evangelists" falls a little short. If Matthew and Luke really did copy their material from Mark, then they must have been some of the worst copyists in all of history. Several details between the Gospels have the distinct appearance of contradictions. Notice I said "appearance." I did so because I do not believe they are actually contradictory and can be reconciled with a little time and study. But I digress. Given the time they were written and the fact that so many eyewitnesses were still alive, how could Matthew and Luke possibly hope to have any credibility while being so sloppy in their acts of "borrowing" material? Especially when some of the apparent contradictions revolve around arguably the most central tenant of Christianity: the resurrection. In Mark, the two Mary's and Salome first arrive at the tomb and are met inside by a young man in a white robe. Also, the stone was already rolled away from the tomb's entrance. In Matthew's Gospel, Salome is not mentioned and the women experience an earthquake and see an angel descend and roll the stone away. In Luke's version, the two Mary's and Joanna (along with other women not mentioned) were the first on the scene. As in Mark's version, the stone was already rolled away, but instead of one man greeting them, two stood beside them. Let's be honest here. If you were writing a gospel that you had stolen to impact people for your faith, would you be so careless with the details surrounding the most critical and foundational aspect of your beliefs? I doubt it.

But, just for kicks, let's say we agree that Matthew and Luke copied Mark who copied this undiscovered "Q" document. Regarding the credibility of these Gospels, what follows from this? Nothing! Suppose they did copy portions. So what? It simply does not follow that they should be discredited based solely on this notion. Let me use an example to clarify. After 9/11, Time magazine ran an article on the events surrounding that date and the tragic loss of life on American soil. Imagine that, some time afterward, I also wrote an article about 9/11 and copied a few paragraphs from Time's article. Fast forward a thousand years when someone discovers the remains of both Time's and my articles. Of course, they notice the similarities between the two and they conclude that I "borrowed" my material from Time. As it turns out, they'd be right. Could they then legitimately conclude that 9/11 never occurred based solely on this evidence? Of course not! Likewise, they couldn't conclude that, instead of commercial planes crashing into buildings, a Cessna landed on the roof of a building. Yet this is what some have done in the case of the Gospels. They conclude that, either Jesus didn't even exist, or he was simply a guru or a really swell guy. These conclusions are completely unfounded based on these details.

Keep in mind that these accounts (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are based on eyewitness testimony. The author of Matthew was the apostle Matthew who witnessed Jesus' acts and heard his words. The author of Mark was a disciple of Peter, who witnessed Jesus' acts, heard his words, and, according to Jerome, approved and authorized the Gospel to be read in the churches. The author of Luke was the disciple of Paul who, post-resurrection, witnessed Jesus' acts and heard his words. So, it can hardly be said that these Gosples are fanciful fiction. Even if some portions were copied, they were done so by way of agreement with what was written. They copied and wrote down what they believed because they witnessed it!

What better testimony do you need than multiple independent eyewitness accounts? For my money, it doesn't get much better.

Not-So-Secret "Secrets"

U.S. News and World Report recently released a Collector's Edition magazine titled “Secrets of Christianity”. The magazine purports to reveal these secrets and explore the questions raised by them. The introductory article states, “Like massive desert sand dunes that shift and re-form, some of the most cherished beliefs about early Christianity are collapsing, and fresh ideas are replacing them.” Not surprisingly, there are few (if any) “secrets” revealed in this magazine. In fact, most of the material covered has been discussed ad nauseam in the last couple of years.

The first, and, as the article claims, “most compelling”, questions raised are “Did Jesus really exist, and if so, who was he?” I must say that it seems slightly irresponsible to even raise the first question. There is very little debate anymore that Jesus existed. Practically all scholars agree that Jesus existed in history as a real person. I think this question has been more than sufficiently answered. The same is not entirely true of the second question. While I feel it has certainly been sufficiently answered, there is yet much debate regarding the identity of Jesus.

Unfortunately, this magazine offers little in representing that debate. The first section, entitled “Who Was Jesus?”, would be more appropriately titled, “Who Does James Tabor Say Jesus Was?” Indeed, the first article in this section focuses on Tabor's view that Jesus intended to set up an earthly kingdom restoring Israel and conquering Rome. True, a few gratuitous quotes from other liberal scholars are thrown in at the end of the article. (They even include a quote from Anne Rice. That's right, the fictional novelist and author of “Interview with a Vampire” weighs in for U.S. N&WR.) However, most of the article's concepts come from Tabor.

As if that weren't enough of Tabor's perspective, the third article is an excerpt from Tabor's book, “The Jesus Dynasty”. The point of this article seems to be connecting four of Jesus' apostles to his brothers. In like manner, the fourth article is a brief presentation of the Talpiyot tomb evidence delivered in the program aired by the Discovery Channel titled “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”¹, of which Tabor was a main contributor.

I don't just want to “beat up on” Tabor. As a matter of fact, he is highly credentialed. He received his Ph.D. in New Testament and Early Christian Literature from the University of Chicago. He is Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He previously held positions at the University of Notre Dame and the College of William and Mary. He's no dummy. However, the application of his knowledge has fallen short, even by the standards of liberal scholars. In the U.S. N&WR article, Paula Fredriksen is quoted characterizing his work by saying, “It sounds like a creative reimagining of the historical material, more like historical fiction than history.” Either way, too much of one perspective seems off balance.

Only the second article had a glimmer of balance. This article is an excerpt of a debate on the Resurrection of Jesus between New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright, and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at Depaul University, John Dominic Crossan. Unfortunately, only two pages (which amount to one if the graphics were removed) were dedicated to this topic. However, Wright managed to make the point that the ability of the authors of the Gospels to maintain foundational revealing details surrounding the resurrection despite “their very different language and the obvious apparent surface inconsistencies” is best explained when viewing these accounts as true. Not the most convincing argument, I'll grant, but something is better than nothing. Crossan's long-winded response? “The resurrection is a metaphor” [paraphrase]

Of course, this debate is nothing new. The issue can be traced back to the very time period when Jesus walked the earth. He, himself acknowledges this point of contention: “When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:13-16)

Thomas echoed this belief when he said of Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) And what about Jesus? Who did he claim to be? Referencing the name of God revealed to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3:14, Jesus said "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58) That they all understood his claim to be God was evidenced in the fact that immediately after, the religious leaders tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy.

I suppose U.S. News & World Report could have saved a few bucks if they had just consulted what God's word established two millennia ago. But then what would I have to write about? Fortunately, God's word is constantly reinforced by history, archeology, science, and philosophy. The same is the case with the identity Jesus. Who is Jesus? My response is the same as that of Thomas: My Lord and my God!

¹ For an analysis of the Talpiyot tomb evidence: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7125

Tainted View

More and more these days I find myself in the disadvantaged position of loving my wife so much that I endure the suffering of awful television programming. Today's torture came by way of the ever popular daytime television show "The View". For those who might not have had the pleasure of watching this program, I'll summarize the setup. Four or five women sit around a table and discuss what they call "Hot Topics" prior to interviewing celebrities and politicians. On the surface, this doesn't seem terribly harmful. That is, until you actually watch it.

Though I try to focus on other things while my wife is viewing this program, I often find myself sucked in by the nonsensical rhetoric espoused by the panel. Such was the case with today's episode. While discussing the recent law passed in Oklahoma which requires patients requesting an abortion to view an ultrasound of their fetus prior to the procedure, panelist Sherri Shepherd made the statement, "I am not for abortion, but I do believe women should have a choice about what they do with their bodies."

This is a sentiment repeated often within our culture. On the surface it might seem like a completely fair thing to say. In fact, it may be praised as civilized in as much as one can hold an opposing view while respecting another's right to make decisions for themselves. Yet, is that the end of the story? Is it merely a case of "live and let live"? Far from it. Allow me to explain.

First, a little background about Ms. Shepherd. In 2008 Sherri was interviewed by a magazine in which she admitted "[I] had more abortions than I would like to count." As a point of clarification on this story, she later stated on "The View" that she gained much comfort when a Christian told her "when you get to heaven all your babies are gonna be there saying, 'Hi, mama.'"

What does this statement inform us regarding Sherri's view of the unborn? If she believes her unborn babies are awaiting her in heaven, then she must believe they are and were persons. This likely provides a great deal of insight as to why she makes the claim, "I am not for abortion." You'll probably find that many who claim to be personally against abortion do so because they believe the unborn are persons. While I could go into detail as to why the unborn are, in fact, persons, that isn't the point of this blog entry.

Instead, the focus of this entry is to show the absurdity of a statement like, "I am not for abortion, but I believe women should have the right to choose..." If we take the information we've established so far and insert it into this statement, we see a very scary picture develop. Since, in Ms. Shepherd's case, we can be relatively certain of her views regarding the personhood of the unborn, let's use her statement as our model. By replacing the word "abortion" with "killing people", we're left with the following statement:

"I am not for killing people, but I do believe women should have a choice..."

Is this really the message people who make this statement are trying to send? "I personally don't agree with murder, but people should have the choice to do so"? Yet, that's exactly what is being stated. It's shocking how many people make this statement and don't seem to realize its implications. By the way, I didn't bother finishing the sentence because the rest, while cleverly articulated, serves only to excuse the actions under the guise of "rights". I highly doubt that anyone who makes this statement believes there's some inherent or legal "right" entitling a person to murder someone else.

Of course, the people making these statements aren't consistent with them. They're quick to condemn murderers. They often publicly denounce war because it results in the death of innocent people. Yet, when faced with the murder of the unborn at an unprecedented rate, they easily dismiss the matter by trying to make it a subjective issue.

What's more, if we take this concept a step further, it becomes even more evident. Suppose someone were to say, "I am not for slavery, but I do believe people should have a choice about whether or not to own slaves." Or maybe, "I am not for genocide, but I do believe people should have the choice to eradicate an entire race." Would any reasonable person agree with either of these statements? Of course not.

Folks, we live in an age where more and more people abandon reason for the sake of "tolerance". We sacrifice what is right to accommodate what "feels" right. Far too often, it comes at the expense of the most innocent among us.