This past weekend (12/14 & 15/'13) I taught Acts 5:12-42, where Peter and the other apostles obey God's command to proclaim the Good News about Christ, and in so doing disobey the Jewish authorities to shut up about Jesus.  The clash of authorities isn't resolved in the passage, but each side is determined not to back down. 

Since I'm a visual learner, I devised this chart to better help me understand and communicate what to do when two legitimate authorities say opposite things:  "When any authority commands you to do what God forbids, or forbids you to do what God commands, you must obey God."

In all things, then, we are subject to authority––we recognize it, respect it and respond to it (Romans 13:1, 1Peter 2:13-15). But if any authority (whether government, parents, employer, husband, or church) clashes with God's, and commands you to do what He forbids, or forbids you do what He commands, always obey God, the highest authority.    

At last!  The truth about the Bible!
The same channel that gave us the series that took the message of the Bible seriously now is offering the alternative viewpoint: the Bible is an enigmatic book that purports to be “God’s Word” but in actuality was written by fallible unknown human authors, is full of contradictions and inaccuracies and can’t be taken seriously or interpreted straightforwardly.  

The disclaimer that introduces each episode warns the viewer:

“This program explores the mysteries of the Bible from a variety of historical and theological perspectives which have been debated for centuries.”

Among the many “shocking” revelations this four-part series alleges are that Moses didn’t really write the first five books of the Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy)––the real authors are not known; none of the authors of the four New Testament Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) ever saw Jesus, and their accounts contradict each other.  In fact, according to the series, what we know as the Bible probably bears little resemblance to what was originally written. The show isn’t two minutes old when the narrator in solemn tones voices doubts for us: “Has the Bible been translated, edited and even censored so many times that the original stories have been compromised by time?” 

If the first episode is any indication of the others, the series will be fast paced, strikingly filmed, intriguing in the questions and inconclusive in answers.  Its purpose is to play to our curiosity and raise doubts in our minds.  (Sounds a lot like what Satan did with Eve.  But I digress...)

What the History Channel won’t tell you is this:

The “experts” cited and interviewed are some of the most liberal “scholars” today.  For instance, Bart Ehrman (a graduate of the college I attended) is not a Christian––not even a theist. He denounces historic Christianity and, not surprisingly, denies anything special about the Bible. Ehrman’s worldview begins with no god and the assumption therefore that religion is a human invention. He is one of the “experts” cited.  

Reza Aslan is another scholar who is liberally interviewed. He speaks authoritatively about the New Testament being riddled with inaccuracies and outright lies, but explains that everyone knew it to be so and so it was acceptable to pretend it to be something that it wasn’t.  Aslan is an associate professor of creative writing (not theology or New Testament?) at the University of California, and a Muslim who holds that the Quran is inspired and the Bible has been mistranslated. 

These are but two of the many scholars and experts the History Channel has asked to weigh in on the validity of the Bible.  One might think that they represent the vast number of academics, but there are literally thousands of scholars who have equal or greater academic credentials, who hold to a high view of the Bible and who think Ehrman and Aslan to be absolutely wrong in their views and dismissive of vast evidence to the contrary of their opinions.  Why weren’t any of these individuals cited or interviewed?

It is also frustrating that the writers of the series are biased and selective in their arguments and present them as unanswerable.  For instance, one expert states that the prediction that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14) is clearly a mistranslation because the original Hebrew word refers just to a young woman.  Whoever the author of Matthew’s Gospel was simply got it wrong and mistranslated the word as “virgin” (Matthew 1:23). The implied truth?  There was no miracle of Jesus birth. Unmarried Mary actually was impregnated by someone other than God (which in that society would make Jesus, by definition, a bastard.)  

Any possible answer to Matthew’s misstep?  Actually, yes.  The Hebrew word (almah) does refer to a young woman of marriageable age, and not specifically to a virgin.  Yet in Jewish society, a young woman of marriageable age (unlike in our society) was assumed to be a virgin, else she would be stoned for unfaithfulness or declared a prostitute (which is another word altogether).  Further, Isaiah’s prediction requires the notion of virginity with the pregnant woman for it to be a miraculous sign; otherwise, he’s simply saying, “a woman will give birth to a son...”  Not really special. Finally, Matthew was a Jew who spoke and read Aramaic and Hebrew, and no doubt had read Isaiah’s scroll.  When he translated the sense of “almah” he used a Greek word for “virgin.”  Case closed.  

My point?  The series seems to toss out every criticism (however slight or silly) and buttress them with arguments from very liberal “experts”, but the series investigates no dissenting opinions and leaves the negative claims completely unchallenged.  

The series is really not a serious study on how we got our Bible, how manuscripts were written and copied, how they were translated or how we know that our Bibles clearly reflect the ancient original texts.  Instead, for the sake of selling something sensational, the writers of the series throw out all sorts of allegations––some true and some anything but true––to get viewers to watch.  For instance, one person makes the statement that what many typically believe isn’t in the Bible: there were three Wisemen who visited Jesus in the manger.  The truth is that Matthew does not tell us how many there were, and he places the event later, not in a manger but in a home (Matthew 2:1-12).  So far, so good.  But then before the next commercial break, the narrator shifts his focus and allows Reza to make the unfounded claim that all the stories about the birth of Jesus are completely fictitious.  Seems like a leap in the dark?  Either that, or a rush to get some ratings no matter the cost.

I’m not one to censor much of anything.  I really do believe that truth can stand up to scrutiny.  So what am I recommending?  If you want to watch it, just eat the meat and spit out the bones.  And if you don’t know what to swallow and what to gag on, you’d better to do some note-taking and some reading and research.  

Or, just relax and watch American Pickers. The History Channel got that one right.

Sometimes I can barely stand to read “Letters to the Editor” in our local paper.  The antagonizing remarks and lack of any reasoned responses often bring out the worst in me.  In Sunday’s paper (May 26, 2013), one woman’s contribution began with this blast:

“The Republicans are finally doing what they do best, keeping their promise to bring down the first black president of the United States.  They’ve threatened this action since 2008 and now they are going at it full force.  In their constant weakening of this country by affecting monies for education and monies shoring up our infrastructure, Republicans are affecting jobs… …if the Obama haters in Washington did fund the above programs, there would be a spurt of growth in this country as never seen since the ’60s…”

I’m irritated just re-typing it.

There are so many things wrong with her statement, it’s difficult to know where to begin:

1. This is not the position of “Republicans” –– in fact, I do not know personally of a single Republican who actually embraces what she alleges––that “they” intend to “bring down” the President.
2. Republicans do this “best”?  As opposed to what?
3. I don’t remember any promise or threat to bring down the first black president by anyone, much less Republicans.
4. The insinuation is that the President’s race is what Republicans find most disagreeable:  he is black, and therefore should not hold this high office.  The truth is that he could be green or pink or Hispanic or Caucasian or Native American and it wouldn’t matter.  Not race but policy is what upsets conservatives, not Republicans.  
5. How are “they” going at it “full force”?  I identify myself as independent and conservative, not  Republican––but I know Republicans include everyone from Rand Paul (a libertarian conservative) to John McCain (an institutionalized big government progressive).  Lumping everyone together is both inaccurate and idiotic.
6. Her charge of “affecting monies for education…and shoring up our infrastructure” is simply not accurate.  “Republicans” did not stop the Stimulus––which flooded the economy with billions of dollars for “shovel ready” projects (few of which came about), and “green” projects (most of which went bankrupt), and did not do anything for “jobs”.  Jobs are created by regulating and taxing less, not more, so businesses will prosper and expand, and create more jobs.   Government-created jobs are funded by taxes, which are finite in amount.  Unless the Government intends simply to print money and pay people directly, it must extract a larger percentage of money from those outside the public sector.  If you don’t believe that, then why doesn’t the Government simply stop collecting taxes altogether, and simply print money to pay its employees?  Then there would be no need to worry about bond issues and approvals for taxes to pay for education and infrastructure.  BUT if money comes from somewhere, represents something other than paper, it is supposed to be a finite amount; so we borrow from other countries to fund our indebted living.  And we pay interest on that increasing debt in repayments.  The problem Conservatives (not necessarily Republicans”) have with spending money isn’t with education or infrastructure, but with the nearly $17,000,000,000,000 (i.e. trillion) of debt we have accumulated––six trillion of which has been added just in the past five years.  At some point, we  will not be able to beg, borrow, tax or steal enough money to pay our loan payments as a country.  Then, we go bankrupt.  Our currency is backed by “the full faith and credit of the United States of America.” What happens when we cannot afford to repay our loans, much less make promised salaries to those working in government jobs and payments to retirees (including Social Security which is projected by the Social Security Administration to be bankrupt in this coming decade)? 
7. Her notion is simply false that if those who hate Obama and control all the pursestrings approved Carte Blanche every government proposal and request, the economy would grow and thrive.  It would not.  Not only is that group a fiction in her mind, the money required to fund whatever programs she has in mind comes out of someone’s pocket, limiting what those business owners and taxpayers can do otherwise.  Besides, since February of 2009, nearly $800 billion has been spent to “stimulate” the economy.  After four years of stimuli, our national unemployment numbers at best remain virtually unchanged from when the stimulus began (7.5-8%).  More of the same probably will not bring different results.    

The first step in making a good argument is to understand and represent fairly the opposing viewpoint.  Such reasoned discussion is more likely to be persuasive to others, and make the original critic think.  

The bold by-line over this woman’s letter said, “How to spread hatred and fear”; she is an excellent example of how to do just that.

It was one of those random run-ins with a person I hadn’t seen in some time.  I asked the normal and expected question, “How have you been?” but didn’t expect his answer.  Having recently retired, and looking for some new direction in his life, he decided to commit to memory some Scriptures––and not just a few random verses, but large chunks––chapters and even entire books of the Bible.  He confessed it had been one of the most challenging, but personally rewarding experiences he could remember.  

Before you write him off as some eccentric with a freakish memory and too much time on his hands, let me assure you that you can do the same thing––and you should.  In fact, I think God expects you to employ the power of your memory in learning Scripture.  King David, a man after God's own heart, expressed that heart in his desire to memorize Scriptures:
"On (God's) Law, (the happy man) meditates day and night." (Psalm 1:2)
"I have stored up your word in my heart that I might not sin against you." (Psalm 119:11)

If Jesus is any model for us to imitate, His example is a powerful motivation.  When He was weakest and tempted by Satan in the desert, He responded by quoting Scriptures that clarified His Father's will for Him (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10).

If you’ve been with us in our weekend services this past year, you have received some business cards with Scriptures on them and have been challenged to commit them to memory.  In fact, in the services, we’ve tried to help you get started by having you repeat the verse while blanking out key words.  This is a direction we intend to continue.  We are committed to memorizing Scripture!

If you are still reading, I imagine the excuses are starting to bounce around in your head like popcorn over a fire:
“I just can’t memorize.  My brain isn’t like yours.  Mine is like a cup with no bottom: what goes in falls through, holding nothing.”

Frankly, unless you are severely learning-disabled, you can memorize information.  Try this little test:
What is your phone number? 
What is your address? 
What is your previous address? 
What is your Social Security number? 

Amazingly, most of us have already memorized a random series of numbers and words that identify our geographical location, the way we contact each other electronically, our governmentally assigned ID number, as well as a host of other disconnected information.  The fact is--we can and do memorize what we think is useful and vital.  The question is, do we think the Scriptures are as important as our phone numbers? 

If we do, we’ll have a pleasant surprise.  Memorizing some statement or passage from Scripture with a discernible flow of thought is much easier than trying to commit to memory a set of random numbers with no rhyme or reason.

“I just don’t have the time to sit around and memorize.  I’m a busy person!”
I have found over the last few months that the best times I can work on memorizing is in the small snatches of time that I am waiting in lines or for an appointment, or when I have a few moments of time not long enough to do anything else.  

If I’m attempting to memorize just a sentence or two (like Ecclesiastes 12:13-14), I usually take a few minutes before I go to sleep and when I awake.

Besides--we always find time to do what we consider is important.  If we think something important, we’ll find a way.  Otherwise, we’ll find an excuse.   

“Why bother--what good is it anyway?  I have  a Bible.  If I want to know what’s in it, I’ll open it up and read it.”
I can only respond by admitting that I have never had the Scriptures affect my life so deeply as when I have committed them to memory: Psalm 1––concerning the two directions of life; Psalm 139––revealing what God knows about you; Romans 8––reinforcing God’s providence and love for you; these and other passages that I have memorized have deeply affected how I think and how I live.  As a teabag left to steep in scalding water, so the thoughts and statements from the Bible left over time to steep in my mind--have grown stronger and more poignant with each passing day.  God’s words have returned to instruct me, reassure me, comfort me, rebuke me, and--at times--even to haunt me.  As one once wrote, “It is not how much you get into the Bible, but how much the Bible gets into you.”  If that is true, then memorization clearly is one of the gateways to God’s Word getting “into” us.  

“I don’t really want to expend the mental energy to try.  Frankly, by the time I get home and have some free time, I’d rather read the paper, watch TV, or turn my mind off--not turn it up!”
I must admit, I have thought the same way.  Still, anything worth doing is worth expending some effort on.  

I read once where the result of senility, often occurring as we grow older, is the loss of one’s inhibitions, so that the senile person says and does whatever has been in his mind and heart all along.  In other words, those of us not affected by senility have the blessing of holding in check that which we think or are tempted to do; we are able to censor our baser thoughts and impulses.  As one grows senile, he looses the ability to keep his guard up; whatever has filled his mind--good and bad, shabby and bright, exemplary and embarrassing, all comes leaking out.  We all have known some who in senility have become foul mouthed, angry, and demanding; others, no longer having any guard, become sweeter, more bold about Jesus, and a joy to be around.  I have to wonder: what will I be like if and when my guard dissolves?

I have no idea whether or not I will be able to stop or control the onset of senility.  What I can do now is bathe my thinking so that when my brain becomes a glass house, what is seen will be what is “true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy” (Philippians 4:8).  As God’s Word takes root in my mind, my thinking and entire perception of life gradually changes (Romans 12:1-2).

OK, OK!  So let’s say I’m willing to try.  Where do I start? 
1.  Start with something short––any of the recent verse cards in Ecclesiastes or the Gospel of John would be a great choice; or if you have a statement in Scripture that has meant something to you, choose that one. 

2.  If you choose something other than one of our verse cards, copy the Scripture on a separate sheet of paper or 3x5 card.  By seeing it as a whole, you will more easily be able to trace the flow of thought.  So before you start memorizing, study the passage and ask yourself, “Exactly what is He trying to say?”  Whatever the length, try to trace the flow of thought.  I have found it helpful to paraphrase the meaning of each phrase in my own words.  

3.  Carry the card or paper with you in your pocket.  Pull it out whenever you can and read it.  Try to memorize it a phrase at a time, rehearsing what you have already learned.

4.  Don’t give up.  If you get discouraged and drop it for a while, return to it later.  You’re not under any deadline.  If you get busy and forget it, come back to it when you remember.  The tortoise who finished beat the rabbit who didn’t.  Don’t give up.  

5.  Finally, I have found that enlisting another person to memorize the same passage and keep me accountable is an indispensable encouragement.  And as you are memorizing, share what you’re doing with someone else––ask them to see if you can recite the passage correctly.  It will help you and encourage them.

Take the challenge.  Let me know what passages you’ve chosen and how you’re coming.  You’ll hear nothing but clapping and cheers from me if you even try!