Another look at the gospels

In the last blog covering The Living Word of God by Ben Witherington, I discussed the differences between modern biographies and ancient ones so that today’s readers might be more prepared for what they read in the New Testament gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. There are big differences in length, what is covered, and the amount of editorializing done by the author. Here is some more information about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that attempts to help us understand the mindset of those who wrote about Jesus.

Ancient biographies, of which the New Testament gospels are a part, had as their main goal “an adequate and accurate unveiling of the character of the person in question,” according to Witherington. That’s why there are many stories about Jesus which may have had little historical consequence but revealed his character. For example, think of the story of the wedding feast at Cana. Even though the story involved nothing of a historical nature, it did show his abilities and his relationship to his mother. Ancient biographies, in attempting to show us the character of the person, were highly selective and were not always written according to exact chronological order. For example, early parts of Matthew show Jesus doing nothing but talking or teaching, but the author is simply grouping the teaching material in one spot. When we look at Matthew, Mark, and Luke regarding the temptation of Jesus, we see a different order to the three temptations, not because the authors couldn’t get it straight but because they had a different purpose in relating this event.

Perhaps the best way to see the gospels is to think of them as interpretive portraits rather than snapshots. When we look at a painting of an individual, we see that the artist has been selective in what is shown to us so that we may gain some sort of insight into the person being portrayed. It’s not fair to hold the gospel writers to modern standards of newspaper reporting or modern biographical and historical conventions. Our question must be if the four gospels portray a good and true likeness of the historical Jesus. I think the answer to that is a definite “yes.”

The Gospels--did he really say that??

I just finished reading The Living Word of God by Ben Witherington, a professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary. In this book the author has interesting things to say about portions of the New Testament. He believes it's important to understand the various genres that makeup the twenty-seven books found there. Since I teach the Bible as literature at Palomar College, I wanted to share some of his points here; he believes we can understand the Bible much better if we understand the type (genre) of literature we are reading.

For this blog I'm going to focus solely on the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) as ancient biographies and histories. Many of my students assume that these gospels must be like modern biographies, covering the person's entire life, producing a chronological account, and containing precise quotations. They have questions when they discover this is not the case. They assume there must be errors in the text.

But Witherington claims these four gospels "all conform quite nicely to the conventions of ancient biographies, which were quite different in scope and character than most modern biographies." To start with, modern authors have unlimited space to tell their stories, but ancient biographies were restricted to material that could fit on scrolls. These authors had to be selective about what they covered. That's why, for example, we don't learn the entire story of Jesus’ life.

In addition, ancient biographies did not spend much time about early childhood development. People in the ancient world did not believe personality developed over time. Instead, they felt you were stuck with whatever personality you were born with. Again, we can see this when we look at the life of Jesus -- we know very little about him before his ministry started around the age of 30.

Another characteristic of ancient biographies was a focus on the death of the individual since this event was thought to reveal the character of the person. A shameful death was considered to be a revelation that the person did not have a good character. It's no wonder, then, that the gospel writers spent so much time on the death of Jesus -- they felt they needed to argue that this death was necessary to fulfill God's plan.

A fourth difference between modern and ancient biographies deals with the amount of editorializing the author did. Much editorializing abounds in modern biographies; the author is often eager to share his/her comments. However, the ancients tended to portray a person indirectly, allowing the words and deeds of the person in question to speak for themselves. That is certainly true of the gospels in the New Testament. We often hear the words of Jesus and are forced to decide for ourselves what he meant.

There is much more that Witherington has to say, but I'll save that for future blogs. I'm hoping that this information will allow us to appreciate the gospels for what they are rather than what they were never intended to be.

A cool book on a warm topic

Tom Bethell, a media fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, has an interesting book out called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. Among the other things he deals with in this book is global warming/climate change.

The author blames many gullible reporters for passing along scientific fraud and doubtful theories. He believes the media treat doctors and scientists as all-knowing, making it easier for alarmists to make outlandish claims about the environment.

What intrigued me was what he found when he examined statements of global-warming fans. For example, he mentions a Stanford climatologist, Stephen Schneider, who said, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little of any doubts we might have. This ‘ double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Now that is a revealing statement -- the American public only pays attention to scare stories.

Bethell also has a quotation from Christine Steward, who was former Canadian Minister of the Environment. Here's a woman in a governmental position saying the following: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." So apparently the end justifies the means -- as long as we have good intentions, it's OK for us to lie to you.

The Real Fight for Civil Rights

A friend of mine wrote the following. We all need to consider what's ahead for those of us who believe in traditional values. There's a long struggle coming up, and we should decide now what we will do--support groups that fight for us (for example, Alliance Defense Fund), create our own action groups, write letters, support political candidates who agree with us, etc. Please don't sit this one out.



Trevor Keezor recently lost his job as a cashier at a Home Depot in Okeechobee, Fla. The reason? He was wearing a pin on his apron that read "One nation under God."

Keezor had been wearing the pin for about a year in honor of his brother, a National Guardsman due to begin serving a second tour of duty in Iraq this December.

Forget the fact that the offensive phrase ---- which just happens to be enshrined in American law as part of our Pledge of Allegiance ---- is not an inherently religious one. Home Depot says it was only enforcing a strict policy forbidding employees from wearing unauthorized buttons and pins.

But is that the whole story? Keezor's pin was especially problematic because it invoked the G-word. That, and the fact that Keezor----a Christian----had recently taken to reading the Bible during his lunch break, was probably another factor that made his employer, and perhaps fellow employees, nervous.

This incident is just the latest in a long list of clashes between anyone expressing a thought, however harmless, that can somehow be construed as "religious" and those charged with enforcing America's post-Christian, post-religious orthodoxy.

And it's not the most upsetting one. As was seen in the aftermath of California's gay marriage debate, the secularist enforcers save their true venom for those whose expressions of religious belief go beyond simple affirmations.

Thomas Messner of the Heritage Foundation has catalogued a long list of incidents in which supporters of traditional marriage (Yes on Prop 8) were targeted because they had the temerity to exercise their rights as Americans by actively supporting a political campaign with which the "progressive" elite disagreed. While hardly an unbiased source, many of these stories where documented in the mainstream media as they occurred, and, if they are being refuted, it's news to me.

But it actually gets worse. A U.S. District Judge in San Francisco has gone along with demands from Prop 8 opponents----in this case two same-sex couples, a gay rights organization and the city of San Francisco----that the organizers of the Yes on 8 campaign turn over internal documents. The hope of the plaintiffs is to find proof that the Yes on 8 effort was motivated by anti-gay bias (whatever that means), which would, in their minds at least, make Prop 8 unconstitutional.

Thus, a politically organized group of American citizens is being asked to prove in a court of law that its reasons for holding a certain set of beliefs, and pursuing a given public policy goal based on those beliefs, were justified. The momentousness of this demand cannot be overemphasized.

Add to these other examples involving conscience clauses for healthcare providers, opt-out policies for the parent's of public school students, the nasty treatment of innocent bystanders such as Carrie Prejean, or the charges of anti-gay bias that are certain to arise out of the recently passed Hate Crimes law and you start to get a preview of what lies ahead, not just for social conservatives but any freedom-loving American; because anyone who holds a belief that is based on traditional ideas of morality---whether or not it's explicitly religious---will be subject to the same treatment.

This is not to suggest that issues involving religious liberty are straightforward; they are not, and they will force conservatives, the religious, and traditionalists of all stripes to address difficult quandaries on the proper limits of religious expression.

In addition to the instance, like the one involving Trevor Keezor, of a private corporation enforcing its dress code, cases involving Islamic taxi drivers in Minneapolis who refused to take passengers carrying alcohol and Muslim students in San Diego who where given a daily break for prayer spring to mind.

Despite what those in the progressive community may think, the fight for same-sex marriage will not be the defining civil rights battle of our time. Instead, the need to defend the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of anyone with a serious and well-developed moral and spiritual philosophy -- Christian and nonchristian alike -- will be the front along which the future freedom of all Americans will be decided.

Whether or not we remain the “Land of the Free and the Home of Brave,” in deed as well as word, will be determined by which side wins that fight.

A challenge to all followers of Jesus

There's one Christian author who challenges me every time I read his work, no matter what it is. The man is Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship. I came across the following in one of his books,The Body. See if these points resonate with you--

The verb tense of the commissioning of the disciples in Matthew’s gospel allows us to render Jesus’ words literally, "as you are going, make disciples." As you go. That means evangelism should flow naturally out of the context of our everyday lives. It's not a set of formulas, techniques, or memorized scenarios. It can't be put in a box. Evangelism is a consequence of holy living, of our own personal passion for Christ, and naturally flows out of the healthy life of the church.

Expressions Christians have used for decades, like "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life," no longer necessarily connect. Christians understand them, but few others can relate. For example, proclaiming that "the Bible says..." commanded respect in the 1930s and 1940s, even in the 1960s -- when 65 percent of all Americans believed the Bible to be literally true. Today only 32 percent believe the Bible is true. The majority find it an interesting collection of ancient legends and stories, but they don't believe it. So if you say, "the Bible says," only one out of three Americans is even ready to listen.

To evangelize today we must address the human condition at its point of felt need - conscience, guilt, dealing with others, finding a purpose for staying alive. Talking about the abundant life or life everlasting or Bible promises often just won't do it.

The secular person’s existential mind-set precludes his or her understanding us. We are in much the same situation as the first-century church, needing to educate in order to witness. So we must be familiar enough with the prevailing worldview to look for points of contact and discern points of disagreement. Before we tell them what the Bible says, we may have to tell them why they should believe the Bible (there is a great case to be made).

Each of us must see ourselves as ministers of the gospel. Also, we must be willing to be uncomfortable. Living in a post-Christian culture means that our Christian faith will be ridiculed and that we will be regarded as strange. That can be costly. But obedience often is. If we love the approval of Christ more than the approval of our peers, we will be willing to be perceived as odd now and then. Finally, we must learn how to support and encourage one another. We must equip one another with Christian perspectives on critical issues. And we need to exchange information. What Christians must do in a post-Christian age can be likened to the way the underground operated in Europe during the Nazi occupation in World War II. The underground had its own elaborate network of signals, method of communication, maps, charts, and its own command structure. The parallel is a bit extreme, perhaps, but useful as Christians determine how they will network with one another in a culture hostile to the open expression of Christian truth.

The Fort Hood massacre and "diversity"

As the days go by, my anger has increased over the Fort Hood killings by Major Hasan. The attack was bad enough, but many of the responses have been nothing short of insane. People are trying to tiptoe around the issue of religious fanaticism. Here are a few items that I've encountered followed by my reactions.

1. Dr. Phil, noted TV psychologist, was upset on a show the other day when someone brought up the killer's Islamic identity. He trotted out the old routine--the killer was a victim. Of what? Things like deployment, the Army, the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known.

Are we going to shift blame from the individual to society? Can we afford to wave away all individual responsibility? How is this fighting worse than that endured by others in Vietnam, Korea, World War 2? Is Dr. Phil unable to see evil and hatred when it rears its ugly head?

2. Another excuse, fear of deployment, surfaced in the headline for the New York Times's front-page story: "Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment." Who was the source for this idea? The perpetrator's cousin.

Are you surprised this paper, which prides itself on liberal leanings, couldn't see Islamic undertones to the killings? Evil is so "old-fashioned" these days, don't you know. Better to shut your eyes and whistle happy tunes. The Christian idea that we are all broken people who lean toward evil just doesn't resonate with this crowd.

3. Maybe the worst reaction of all came from the Army's chief of staff, General George Casey when he was interviewed for a Sunday talk show on television. He was asked about reports that the killer had made
anti-American tirades and had shown other danger signs but hadn't been reported for fear of offense to a Muslim member of the military.
These were speculations, Gen. Casey repeatedly said. We need to be very careful, he explained, "We are a very diverse army." He went on to declare,"This terrible event would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty."

I am so upset that a high-ranking member of our military has bought into political correctness. Is our Army to be a case study of "diversity," or is it to be a fighting machine?


In case you haven't heard some of the comments made by Hasan, here are a few reported by the media. Read these and decide people are "speculating" or "jumping to conclusions" if they suspect Islamic fanaticism is behind the attack:

1. A British paper reports that Hasan "once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats"

2. He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

3. Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."

What do I take away from all this? Several things:

1. Our military failed us. The CIA failed us. The FBI failed us. Our entire government failed us.

2. These are the same people who want us to turn over more of our lives to them so they can "protect" us?? I'm thinking health care right now.

3. Political correctness can get you killed.

4. Discrimination can be defended, depending on the situation. For example, I'm all in favor of racial profiling to keep us safe.

5. There is a huge difference in religions. Does anyone worry about an enraged Methodist attacking city hall? An out-of-control Presbyterian? A crazed Baptist, clutching the New Testament?

6. The Bible says there is such a thing as evil, and I see no reason why we should abandon this concept.

7. The liberal idea that all problems can be solved by changing the outside of people has hit a dead end here. Hasan was given a good education, money, a job, and other perks, but his heart was not changed.

Pelosi's plan for you

Well, the big vote took place last night. Get ready for huge changes in your health care. I came across an article that examines closely some of these changes. It's not a pretty sight. Tighten your seat belt and read the following.

The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

Eviscerating Medicare:

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

Questionable Priorities:

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."

These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.

• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.

• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."

Responding to the issue of respect and Christians

In the previous post, I listed a number of responses from people who were asked what they respected (or didn't respect) about Christians. Their responses gave me a peek into how today's society views Christians. As the old joke starts out, there was some good news and some bad.

The good news was that people respond when Christians live the life that Jesus commanded. Those who wrote about Christians were impressed when they saw love, respect for others, a willingness to hear the other person, and an attempt to maintain freindships despite religious differences. I was pleasantly surprised to hear how impressed the writers were when Christians approached them using logic. For too long we have circled the wagons in our Christians bastions and failed to vigorously contend for the faith, using apologetics (a rational defense of the faith). We have so much rationality on our side--logic, history, archeology, textual criticism, manuscript evidence, and scientific discoveries stretching from the outer reaches of the cosmos down to the incredible cell. I'm glad some are employing these tools as they interact with the world.

On the other hand, there was some bad news. Writers complained about a lack of respect among Christians, a lack of humility, a closed-mindedness, and hypocrisy. Some of this may simply be because Christians say they know the truth, which is unpopular today. But there are ways we can present our position without coming across so negatively. Greg Koukl, a popular Christian radio show host, writer, and speaker, puts it in a good way--we are to act as ambassadors for Christ, demonstrating knowledge, wisdom, and character. Today's postmodernist world wants to see how Christians live and how they treat others before they will respond to our message. That seems fair to me.

A fascinating question and interesting answers

I came across a powerful insight the other day:

The best argument for Christianity is Christians: their joy, their certainty, their completeness. But the strongest argument against Christianity is also Christians -- when they are somber and joyless, when they are self-righteous and smug and complacent, when they are narrow and repressive, then Christianity dies a thousand deaths.

I then googled "Has anyone met a Christian he/she actually respected?" The answers were fascinating. I've gathered several for you to read and think about. Maybe in the next blog I will comment on these answers.

Here goes:

1. I respect all Christians. It's their religion that I do not care for.
99% of the people I know are Christian. Since I have become an atheist, there is one characteristic in them that I have found to be sorely lacking: respect for me in return, even though we disagree. Christians have responded with statements/questions such as, "You're going to feel really bad if something happens to Vin [my son]", "What if you're wrong? You know you'll go to hell, right?" "Really? I actually thought you were a pretty decent person [yeah, I got mad over that one].", and, my least favorite, "Don't tell anybody....they'll think you're crazy!"


2. I think what I dislike about the stereotypical American Christian is the lack of humility, the lack of tolerance (despite what Jesus commands in the bible), the arrogance, and the lack of intellectual pursuit of truth.


3. One of my roommates was studying to be a pastor and he has a degree in Theology. I respect him greatly. He is a great source of information. He is accepting of others, supporting gay marriage and respecting the separation of church and state. He doesn't spend his time judging or preaching.
My best friend is also a Christian and she is also very accepting of others. She supports gay marriage. She knows and respects that I'm an atheist. She doesn't spend her time judging or preaching either.
Being a Christian doesn't mean that someone isn't worthy of respect.


4. One of my best friends is Christian, and he's pretty cool. We don't always agree, but he's always willing to have a friendly debate with me. Trick is, when we're done debating, we're DONE, and move on to another topic of conversation. He does drop the 'my God is totally awesome' hints every once in a while, but I understand that it's part of his religion to proselytize and that it kinda comes with the territory. I respect him a great deal for not only what he's been through in his life and how he's handled it, but how good of friend he's been to me and our other friends. Here are some traits that would cause me not to respect a Christian: I've met Christians who are overbearing, don't want to listen, or decide I'm stupid or silly right off the bat because I don't believe their 'truth'. Then there's the ever so popular condescending approach. And the fire-and-brimstone, 'burn in hell you rat bastard atheist scum' version.


5. How they treat others, their sense of personal responsibility and their values are things that I respect. I have met many Christians, many atheists and many fellow agnostics who possess these qualities. You don't need to be religious or non religious to be respectable. You just need to be a decent human being... maybe with a sense of humor! :)


6. One is a friend from high school. We graduated a year apart several years ago and were roommates a couple times. We can have discussions on everything from the origins of life to regular this and thats. We can always respectfully disagree without getting preachy or pissed off. And the other is a friend of mine from college that is probably the most compassionate Christian I've ever met. Tolerant and open minded every step of the way. As a matter of fact if she wasn't so religious I think we'd be a couple by now. I love that girl but her Jesus love is too much for me in that respect. So yes it's possible but most are close minded, backward thinking bigots as far as I'm concerned.


7. Not in person, but in this forum, I've encountered one or two. The one I remember was extremely knowledgeable regarding his religion, used logic (!) to make his points, rather than emotion or irrelevant bible quotes, and just generally impressed me as a person who had arrived at his faith rationally, rather than by indoctrination.


8. A persons religion doesn't matter that much to me. If they have a good attitude and good character (honest, sincere, positive) then they are a good person no matter what.


9. The first thing I hate about most Christians is their lack of broad mindedness, They have confined themselves to the belief that the christian way is the only way. Yes I have met Christians that are my good friends and family, and it's their humble nature and open mindedness and ability to understand deeper things that I respect and cherish them for. :)


10. This is basically a circumstance about being open minded to other people's beliefs...no matter how outlandish they may seem. For me though, the ones I respect the most are the christians that respect their own values, while at the same time not pushing them on others...If you wanna be a "holy roller", thats fine, but don't push your religion on me.


11. I usually make friends with the rocker christain type, and they are not one of those christains who freak out about everything.. example.. they are not aloud to watch harry potter or read it cuz of the so called "witch craft" .. honestly, thats just tooo far


12. I have met Christians I respect, I have met Jews I respect, I have met Muslims I respect. etc. I am not ignorant to the point of judging someone for their beliefs, its the attitude they exhibit that is the final criteria I use.


13. The ones I've known, care for the poor, care about the youth, care to reach out to those whom the world looks down upon, long suffering, kind, patient, self controlled, the list goes on. True christians are very loving people.


14. I just don't like christians that feel the need to proselytize, or the ones that act "holier than thou" , or the phonies that say what great christians they are and then fool around on their spouse, etc. (hypocrites) Otherwise, most christians are okay people.


15. yes. D. W. He is such a respectful person, and he listens and responds to any doubts that I have about the existence of God, rather than just spouting out bible verses and judging me. He is the ONLY christian that I talk to about religion.