Christian Reflections on the Passing of Jane Goodall

Jane Goodall (1934-2025), famed for her decades-long study of chimpanzees and for her advocacy of animal rights and environmentalism, passed away on October 1, 2025, at the age of 91. Christians should have no trouble appreciating her legitimate and significant contributions to our knowledge about chimpanzees and other primates. Goodall observed that chimps made and used rudimentary tools (e.g., stripping a twig of leaves and using it to extract insects from a nest) and that they exhibited emotions and sociality. Gaining fuller and more accurate knowledge about the animal kingdom helps us to clarify what we have in common with animals and what makes us truly unique. At the same time, we may be saddened by the fact that Goodall promoted a mystical, more or less pantheistic conception of the world in which the divine is in all things, excluding the reality of a transcendent Creator with whom we need above all to have a loving relationship.

While Goodall made a genuine contribution to our understanding of primates, she interpreted her experiences among the chimpanzees in a way that minimized the uniqueness of human beings in relation to the rest of creation. What makes humans unique is not the use of tools, but the ability to conceptualize tools and to think about the significance of tool-making. We are unique not in having emotions or feelings but in having the capacity to view our feelings from a standpoint outside our experience. Ultimately, these differences arise from our unique status as biological creatures with the capacity to transcend the biological—a capacity that is integral to what the Bible calls the image of God. Our failures to reflect God’s goodness in the world, in our relationships with each other and with other living things, cannot be overcome by getting closer to nature but by getting reconciled to God, which is precisely what Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, came into our world to do for us.

Regrettably, Goodall’s admirably persistent pursuit of nature did not lead her to a similar pursuit of nature’s Creator. While she rejected atheism, she did not consider herself a Christian (or anything else specifically) and was content to believe in an undefined spiritual power in all things. Essentially, her spirituality was akin to the animism illustrated in the 1995 Disney animated film Pocahontas, especially in the song “Colors of the Wind.” Animals and trees all have souls or spirits (apparently no different than ours) and nature itself is alive. We can and should have an attitude of respect and responsible stewardship toward living things without divinizing nature.

Below are a number of resources of relevance to understanding, appreciating, and assessing the thought of Jane Goodall. Some of these resources support her beliefs while others take issue with them. Osborne’s article in the Smithsonian Magazine might be the best place to start. It is important, as always, to understand before we criticize (Prov. 18:13). Continue reading

Posted in apologetics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Data Scientist Analyzes the Book of Mormon. What Could Go Wrong?

“Like many people (not just Mormons), the Bald Coder assumes an oversimplistic, false dichotomy in which comprehensive scientific proof and subjective opinion are the only two options.”

A YouTuber calling himself the Bald Coder (apparently Guarav Agarwal?) has made four videos on the Book of Mormon. His most recent such video, posted September 28, 2025, is entitled “I’m a Data Scientist. I analyzed the ENTIRE Book of Mormon.” He explains that he wanted to come up with objective, quantifiable numbers in regards to three questions: “(1) How much does the Book of Mormon talk about Jesus Christ? (2) How much do the teachings align with the Bible? (3) Does the Book of Mormon bring you closer to God?” Oddly, his data analysis ignores the second and third question (though he does say something about the third question at the very end). The Bald Coder also says he compares the Book of Mormon to the Bible using the same metrics to determine how “Christ-centered” each of those two scriptures are. The analysis for the first question is based on direct mentions of Jesus, references to his teachings, atonement, or resurrection, emphasis on Christian doctrines and principles, and focus on Christ’s role in salvation.

In addition to those three “religious” questions, he asks for the benefit of the “non-religious” whether the book is “ethical” or “moral” in what it says. This question is pursued based on whether the text promotes virtues (compassion, honesty, etc.), condemns vices (greed, violence, etc.), encourages ethical behavior, communicates messages about justice and mercy, and promotes treating others with respect and kindness. For both the “religious” and the “non-religious” questions his analysis will lead to a score between 1 and 10.

After running the numbers, the Bald Coder announces the result. The Book of Mormon has a mean score of 7.89 out of 10 for being Christ-centered, while the Bible’s mean score in this metric is only 5.11. The Book of Mormon’s mean “moral score” is 9.03 while the Bible’s mean moral score is 8.24. Continue reading

Posted in apologetics, Mormonism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Did Paul Merely Try to Persecute Christians? A Response to Robyn Faith Walsh’s Second Argument

In a follow-up video to her earlier video arguing that Paul did not persecute Christians, which I discussed in my previous blog post, Robyn Walsh offers another argument in defense of her claim. In this video, she reports that two classicists had told her that the two verbs used in Galatians 1:13 in reference to Paul’s pre-Christian treatment of Christians were “conative” imperfects, meaning that Paul had tried to persecute and destroy the church but hadn’t actually persecuted it. I’ll quote her at length to make sure I’m representing her claim accurately:

Right away, both of these classicists said to me, “These are conative imperfects.” The verbs, they’re imperfect, and they’re conative. C-O-N-A-T-I-V-E. And what this means is they’re sort of conditional or indicate an action that wasn’t fulfilled, that wasn’t completed. So when Paul “ravaged” it, the reason this is incorrect is that it’s a conative imperfect—that it means he tried to do it, but he didn’t. I’ve been looking into why New Testament translations and commentaries—and this is, I’m just beginning this exploration—I’m feeling an article coming on! But I think there’s such a commitment to this idea of the violent persecution on the part of Paul in something like Galatians 1:13 that people are ignoring the purpose of the conative imperfect, that they are not including that kind of unfulfilled aspect of what that verb is trying to convey, and they are just running with this idea that he’s, you know, committing all these acts, violent acts, and in an extreme way, and I’m just not sure that that’s the case. (3:36–4:46)

Since Walsh claims that New Testament translations have ignored the conative use of the imperfect in Galatians 1:13, you would assume that she actually surveyed a number of such versions. It seems that she did not. Indeed, the one—yes, just one—English version she mentioned, the NRSV, does not say what she claims it says. Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Did Paul Persecute Christians? A Response to Robyn Faith Walsh

I can’t stand it. I just can’t stand it when scholars play fast and loose with the facts.

On Bart Ehrman’s YouTube channel earlier today, Robyn Faith Walsh asked, “Did Paul Really Persecute Christians?” In less than seven minutes, she offered her “interpretation” on the matter, which is that Paul did not persecute Christians, but rather “pursued” them in an effort to correct their bad teaching. Ten hours later, the video had already garnered over four thousand views. Walsh gave two main arguments in support of her interpretation, both of which I will address here. I will cite the video in (approximate) minutes and seconds in parentheses.

Acts: An Unhistorical Second-Century Work?

First, Walsh dismisses the account in Acts as unhistorical. According to Walsh, Acts was probably written in the second century—perhaps late in the second century—and cannot be trusted as a source of historical information. “It is a later text, second century, scholarship tends to believe, maybe a little bit even later into the second century and definitely looking to establish Paul as a real founding figure of early Christianity many decades after his lifetime” (1:11–20).

The fact is that scholars have dated Acts anywhere from the 60s to sometime in the second century, and if we are just asking what “scholarship tends to believe” (which calls for some sort of generalization as to what view dominates the academic field) the answer is that the second-century position has by far the least advocates. Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Is It Wrong to Say that Christ Is Fully God and Fully Man?

Posts are showing up on Facebook arguing that it is theologically incorrect to affirm that the incarnate Christ is “fully God and fully man.” Supposedly, these expressions should be avoided in favor of the creedal wording “truly God” and “truly man.” One individual claimed that “the orthodox” have rejected the description “fully” in this context. (I’ll just comment right here that there is zero support for this claim.) Another claimed that these expressions “misrepresent” orthodox Christianity, even asserting that the only correct word to use in this context is the word “truly.” A common complaint is that “fully” is at best “sloppy” and is at least potentially heretical. The basic argument against the word “fully” is that it supposedly leads to or implies the contradictory position that Jesus is only God and that he is only man, rather than both God and man.

The source for this line of criticism is an offhand comment made by the late R. C. Sproul in response to John MacArthur in a panel discussion at Ligonier’s 2017 National Conference. When MacArthur affirmed that Jesus was (and is) “fully God, fully man,” Sproul replied:

Well, I prefer “truly God and truly man,” because it can be confused. And when you say that Jesus was fully God and fully man, if you mean by that, that that one person was absolutely, totally God, and that’s all, then you’d be denying his humanity. Or if you say He was fully man, then there’s no room for his deity. That’s why we like to say vere homo, vere Deus: “Truly God, truly man.”[1]

I’d like to point out that Sproul expressed his point in far more modest language than is being used by those who are using his argument on social media to impugn the theological soundness of other Christians. Sproul began by saying “I prefer” and concluded by saying “we like to say.” He never suggested that MacArthur was sloppy, espousing a contradictory Christology, misrepresenting orthodox Christianity, or teaching something potentially heretical. Sproul merely asserted that he preferred the wording using “truly” because he thought it avoided a possible confusion. Agree or disagree with Sproul, he made his point in a fair-minded and humble fashion in a polite exchange with a friend.

That having been said, I have several points to make in response to the argument that it is in any way problematic to speak of the incarnate Christ as “fully” God and man.

It’s no less confusing to say “truly” than “fully.”

Continue reading

Posted in Jesus and Christology, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“Temple of Solomon” and Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon: A Response to Robert Boylan (re-post)

Note: This post originally appeared on October 1, 2016, on IRR’s Religious Researcher blog, which no longer exists (in that form).

Solomon Dedicates the Temple at Jerusalem (Tissot, ca. 1896)

In a recent online article, I explained that the expression temple of Solomon (using the prepositional phrase of Solomon instead of the possessive form Solomon’s) is not, as LDS scholar Donald Parry had claimed, evidence of an ancient Hebraic original text underlying the Book of Mormon and in fact is evidence against that claim. In that article, I pointed out that the Book of Mormon also uses the more idiomatic English expression Solomon’s temple (in the same verse, 2 Ne. 5:16). I also argued that either expression is both chronologically and culturally anachronistic. At the time Nephi would have been speaking, the temple in Jerusalem would have been the only Jewish temple known to him, and its replacement by a second temple would not have been begun until after his death. More significant still, ancient Israelites and other people in their culture named a temple for the deity to whom it was dedicated (temple of Yahweh, temple of Dagon, temple of Diana, temple of Hercules, etc.), never for its mortal builder. I cited hundreds of texts in support of this point, mostly from the OT, but also from the NT and other ancient Jewish literature. I also discussed one apparent “exception,” where a Hellenistic Jewish author used the expression temple of Solomon in Greek (not Hebrew!) in order to manufacture a contrived etymology of the name of the city Jerusalem.[1]

A Highly Selective Critique

Earlier today Robert Boylan, who has posted a fairly large number of pieces criticizing my articles on his blog, posted an attack on IRR’s recently announced renovation of the Book of Mormon section of its website.[2] The only article that Boylan mentioned specifically was the article on the expression temple of Solomon. Only one paragraph of 188 words, out of the 955 words of Boylan’s whole article, actually discusses the subject of that expression. Boylan devoted somewhat more of his article (210 words) to another alleged Hebraism in the Book of Mormon (garb of secrecy in Helaman 9:6). For the sake of focus, in this article I will respond only to Boylan’s comments about temple of Solomon, including comments made in an update to the article. If time permits, I will respond to some of his other comments separately.

Boylan’s first assertion is unexplained: “When read carefully, the author’s “arguments” dies the death of a thousand qualifications.” He repeats this claim at the end of his article, again with no examples or specifics. Since he offers no examples of these supposed mortal qualifications, not much can be said in response. In scholarship it is always desirable to acknowledge possible or alleged counterexamples or contrary evidence that might seem to count against one’s conclusion. Somehow Boylan thinks he can claim that such carefulness disqualifies the whole argument. As noted above, in my own research on this subject I was able to find just one apparent counterexample to one of the points I made, and I addressed it. This one alleged counterexample falls 999 qualifications short of Boylan’s alleged thousand qualifications![3]

Boylan completely ignores the first part of my article, in which I explained that Parry’s argument for temple of Solomon as a literal translation of an ancient Hebraism is invalid because the very same verse uses the expression Solomon’s temple. Thus, so far as Boylan’s critique goes, this point remains completely unchallenged. Even if temple of Solomon is not un-Hebraic, as I argued in the second part of my article, it is not evidence of a Hebraic original, as Parry claimed.

Were Ancient Near Eastern Temples Named for Their Builders?

As mentioned above, my second point was that in the cultural world of ancient Israelites temples were named for the deity to whom they were dedicated (temple of Yahweh, temple of Dagon, etc.), never for their mortal builder. Boylan asserts that “this is an easy ‘argument’ to respond to.” The use of the quotation marks around the word argument (the second occurrence in the space of three sentences in Boylan’s article, with a third occurrence later in the same article) is rhetorical gamesmanship, impugning the argument before critiquing it by insinuating that it does not even rise to the level of something that could fairly be described as an argument. This show of disrespect reflects Boylan’s general disdain for evangelicals, especially evangelicals critical of Mormonism (and is plainly expressed in the rest of his article).[4]

Let us now look at Boylan’s attempt to debunk my argument. He writes:

On the use of “Temple of Solomon” vs. Temple of YHWH/Temple of <<cult deity>> would be due to the fact that there were, among the Nephites, other temples of YHWH. Temple of Solomon would be a valid locution to distinguish the Old World temple from that of the New World temples (which were distinguished from one another from their location such as the temple at Zarehemla [Mosiah 1:18] and temple at Bountiful [3 Nephi 11:1]).

Here are the two texts that Boylan cites:

  • “…and proclaimed unto all the people who were in the land of Zarahemla that thereby they might gather themselves together, to go up to the temple to hear the words which his father should speak unto them” (Mosiah 1:18).
  • “And now it came to pass that there were a great multitude gathered together, of the people of Nephi, round about the temple which was in the land Bountiful…” (3 Ne. 11:1).

It is quite true that 3 Nephi 11:1 refers to a temple by its location, using the expression which was in the land Bountiful. (Mosiah 1:18 does not do this; it happens to mention “the land of Zarahemla” but not in order to distinguish one temple from another.) This would have been a perfectly acceptable way to distinguish one temple from another in the ancient Hellenistic and Middle Eastern world. (Not everything in the Book of Mormon is a mistake!) On the other hand, one searches the Book of Mormon in vain for such expressions as temple of Nephi (for example). In fact, 2 Nephi 5:16 is the only text in the Book of Mormon that uses any expression with the words temple of (Mosiah 11:10, “the walls of the temple, of fine wood, and of copper, and of brass” obviously is not an exception). Thus, it does not appear to be correct that the Book of Mormon authors referred to temples by the name of their builders in order to distinguish one Nephite temple from another. Instead, where any attempt to distinguish one Nephite temple from another is made, this is done by referring to its location, as Boylan himself says—not to its builder. Therefore, this statement in 3 Nephi 11:1 does nothing to undermine the point I made in my article.

The statement in 2 Nephi 5:16 does use the words of Solomon in order to distinguish the Jerusalem temple from the temple that Nephi and his people built. That is precisely the problem. My point was that an ancient Israelite who wished to refer to a different temple and compare or contrast it to the one that Solomon had built would not refer to the latter as “the temple of Solomon.” This point cannot be answered merely by asserting that Nephi did so. Unfortunately, Boylan’s attempt to refute my argument fails because he has misconstrued the argument. He writes:

Among other things is the claim that the Book of Mormon should have used “Temple of Yahweh” or a similar locution…. If the temples were simply designated as “temple of the Lord” or a similar locution, how could Nephi distinguish the Old World temple from those in the New World?

I did not “claim that the Book of Mormon should have used ‘Temple of Yahweh’ or a similar locution.” The Book of Mormon need not have used that specific expression at 2 Nephi 5:16. What I claimed is that an ancient Israelite text would not have used an expression such as temple of Solomon. Boylan’s criticism here proceeds from a basic misrepresentation of my argument.

Boylan’s Update: Doubling Down

In an update to his blog post, Boylan quotes the above sentence and then claims that I was “being disingenuous again.” He attempts to support this accusation by quoting from my original article. Let’s do that here as well:

In ancient speech, Israelites would not have referred to their first temple in Jerusalem as “the temple of Solomon” because a temple was named for its deity, not for its mortal builder. The point can be easily confirmed in regards to the biblical practice even from the KJV. The temple in Jerusalem is called the temple of the Lord (23 times in the OT and once in the NT) and the temple of God (10 times in the NT), but never the temple of Solomon. Similarly, a Canaanite temple was called “the temple of Dagon” (1 Chron. 10:10), because it was dedicated to the worship of Dagon. A temple in first-century Ephesus was likewise called “the temple of the great goddess Diana” (Acts 19:27). Paul refers to the human body of a Christian as “the temple of the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. 6:19 KJV). No personal name or title is ever used in this construction in the Bible, in any ancient language.

Boylan gives no explanation as to why the above quoted statement conflicts with what I said above in my response to him. In the above quotation from my article, I did not say that Nephi should have used the expression temple of Yahweh (or temple of the Lord, or any equivalent). What I said is that no ancient Israelite would have referred to it as “the temple of Solomon” because temples were named for their deities, not for their mortal builders. Please note that the following two statements are not synonymous:

  • Nephi would not have used the expression temple of Solomon.
  • Nephi should have used the expression temple of Yahweh.

Perhaps Boylan mistakenly inferred the second statement from my emphasis on the fact that biblical writers so often used the expression temple of Yahweh or temple of God. But again, this did not mean that I was claiming that Israelites always used that expression when referring to the temple in Jerusalem. That is, the following two statements are also not synonymous:

  • Israelites commonly used the expressions temple of Yahweh, temple of God, and the like.
  • Nephi should have used the expression temple of Yahweh or the like.

Now let’s get to the point. Boylan asked, “If the temples were simply designated as ‘temple of the Lord’ or a similar locution, how could Nephi distinguish the Old World temple from those in the New World?” As I have just stated and explained (at more length than should have been necessary), Nephi was under no obligation to use the expression temple of the Lord or any similar wording. If he had wanted to refer to the two temples in a way that clearly distinguished them, he had several options. He could have referred to the first temple as “the temple that was in Jerusalem” (Ezra 5:14 KJV, see also 5:15; 6:5), an example given in my article. He could have called it “the temple that Solomon built” or “the temple in Jerusalem” (cf. 1 Chron. 6:10, “the house [i.e., temple] that Solomon built in Jerusalem”), or “the temple at Jerusalem” (Ps. 68:29; cf. Dan. 5:3). He could have used wording similar to what is in 3 Nephi 11:1, such as “the temple that was in the land of Judah.” He could even have combined expressions, saying, for example, “the temple of the Lord that was in Jerusalem.” Thus, Nephi could easily have distinguished the two temples in various ways; he did not need the expression temple of Solomon to do so.

Boylan concludes his remarks on this issue as follows:

So, not only does the article often die the death of a thousand qualifications, it shows the author lacks critical thinking and intellectual honesty.

This is another example of Boylan’s unfortunate penchant for engaging in character assassination. In this instance the full extent of his attempted justification for this accusation is his claim to have identified a difficulty or objection to my argument (or “argument,” with scare quotes). Let us assume for the sake of discussion just for a moment that his objection was a good one. In that case, would he have established that his opponent lacked critical thinking or intellectual honesty? Hardly. Boylan’s comment here not only presupposes that he is correct, it also presupposes a false dichotomy: One is either correct in one’s opinion or one is intellectually dishonest. These are not the only options. Intellectually honest people with good critical thinking skills nevertheless can and do make mistakes.[5]

In this instance, I remain unconvinced by Boylan’s objections. I am satisfied that the argument I presented stands and hope that fair-minded Mormons will give it fair consideration.

 

NOTES

[1] Robert M. Bowman Jr., “‘Temple of Solomon’: Two Problems for a Hebraic Book of Mormon” (Institute for Religious Research, 2016).

[2] Robert Boylan, “‘Temple of Solomon’ and the Book of Mormon,” Scriptural Mormonism, 1 Oct. 2016.

[3] In an update to his blog post discussed here, Boylan claims to identify a second “qualification” in my original article on the subject: “When it comes to possible exceptions (e.g., the temple at Arad and other issues), Bowman has to qualify his arguments (and it is more than once). My point stands.” But the temple at Arad is not a qualification to my argument at all. My claim was that in Nephi’s time there was only one Israelite temple dedicated to Yahweh. The temple at Arad, I explained, was not an exception: “Archaeologists have discovered remains of an Israelite temple in Arad in the south part of Israel (not far from Beersheba), but this temple was destroyed sometime in the late eighth or seventh century BC, most likely before Nephi would have been born.” This statement does not undermine my argument one iota; it anticipates and refutes an objection I thought some Mormons might try to make.

[4] In his update, Boylan quotes my conclusion about his show of disrespect without quoting or mentioning what it was in his article I found disrespectful.

[5] In his update, Boylan attempts to deflect my objection to his personal attack on my honesty by saying, “Readers should pursue James McGrath’s post Trinitarians without Colons to see just one example of how Bowman has abused/misrepresented theological opponents (this time, James McGrath via Dave Burke, a Christadelphian apologist Bowman debated in 2010 on the Trinity). It is not a character assassination if the charges are true.” But McGrath does not claim anywhere in that post that I abused Burke or him, nor does he claim that I misrepresented either of them. McGrath and I strongly disagree theologically, but neither of us attacks the other in the way that Boylan has been doing.

Posted in Mormonism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Defending the Trinity Lecture Notes Now Online

This week I spoke at the Defend Conference at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I had an unusually heavy schedule! I gave a plenary presentation on “The Trouble with the Trinity” followed by a five-part breakout series on “Defending the Trinity.” The lecture notes for the five breakout sessions are now online:

#1: Trinitarianism and Anti-Trinitarianism (Wed. 2-3pm)
#2: Mormonism, Monotheism, and the Trinity (Wed. 3:15-4:15pm)
#3: Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Deity of Christ, & the Trinity (Wed. 4:30-5:30pm)
#4: Oneness Pentecostals, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity (Thur. 2:15-3:30pm)
#5: Unitarians, the Creeds, and the Trinity (Thur. 3:45-4:45pm)

You can find all of those notes and many other papers of mine on my Academia.edu page.

 

Posted in Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus and Christology, Mormonism, Trinity, Unitarianism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Genesis 1:1 and Creation Ex Nihilo (Out of Nothing) Revisited

Reconsidering Creation book coverJews and Christians often quote Genesis 1:1 in support of the belief that God created the universe out of nothing (Latin, ex nihilo). Biblical scholars, however, often challenge the use of Genesis 1:1 to support creation ex nihilo. Note how the following two English translations of Genesis 1:1-2a read very differently:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void. . .” (Gen. 1:1-2a KJV).
When God began to create heaven and earth—the earth being unformed and void. . .” (Gen. 1:1-2a TNK).

I have quoted the KJV and the TNK (the 1985 Tanak version of the Jewish Publication Society) because they use almost exactly the same vocabulary despite the structural differences in the translations. The traditional exegesis understands verse 1 as an independent statement, a complete sentence. Many other English versions reflect the same interpretation as the KJV (e.g., CSB, ESV, LEB, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, NLT, and others). Other versions reflect the exegesis that takes verse 1 as a dependent clause, with the main clause being verse 2 (“The earth was formless and void. . .”) or even verse 3 (“Then God said. . .”). Those taking verse 2 as the main clause include the GNT and the NRSV. Those that take verse 3 as the main clause include the TNK, quoted above, and the NABRE (a Catholic version).

Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Did Jesus Doubt?

Jesus Tempted in the Wilderness, by James Tissot (ca. 1890)

In an article published on April 1, 2021, two Christian scholars argued that Jesus had “moments of doubt.” The Christianity Today article, by A. J. Swoboda of Bushnell University and Nijay K. Gupta of Northern Seminary, is entitled “Jesus Was the God-Man, Not the God-Superman.” Three days later, Robert Orlando, the filmmaker and founder of Nexus Media who has also written on biblical topics, had an opinion piece posted on the conservative website Townhall.com entitled “Was Jesus a Momentary Agnostic?” Orlando also argues that “Jesus was capable of doubt.” Many Christians will be surprised by the claim that Jesus experienced doubt. The issue is clearly worth considering.

Swoboda and Gupta begin as follows:

In many children’s Bibles, the Son of God swoops in like Superman to save the day. In these clearly mythological depictions of Christ, Jesus never fails to say and do the right thing.

This is a very worrisome beginning. Do Swoboda and Gupta think that on any occasion Jesus failed “to say and do the right thing”? Such a claim would go beyond the idea that Jesus doubted.

Swoboda and Gupta give no specific examples of such “edited stories” in “children’s Bibles,” making it difficult to assess their claim. As it stands, we have grounds to be skeptical that any “children’s Bible” gives “clearly mythological depictions of Christ,” unless they really mean that depicting Jesus as always saying and doing the right thing is mythological.

Of course, we agree that Jesus “breastfed as an infant,” “learned to walk,” “went through puberty,” and the like. That’s all noncontroversial. But then Swoboda and Gupta assert that “part of what he received from us in his humanness was our ability to doubt—and doubt he did.” This is the thesis of the article: that Jesus doubted. Did he?

I doubt it.

Did the Devil Tempt Jesus to Doubt He Was the Son of God?

The authors point out that the devil tempted Jesus with the words, “If you are the Son of God” (Matt. 4:3; see also Matt. 4:6; Luke 4:3, 9). They correctly observe that “the real human Jesus could be tempted—though he did not sin.” However, being tempted to doubt is not the same thing as doubting. Neither in the Temptation narratives in Matthew and Luke nor anywhere else in the Gospels is Jesus ever portrayed as doubting anything.

Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies, Jesus and Christology, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Was the Capitol Break-in a Christian Insurrection?

In “Reflections on a Christian Insurrection” appearing in Banner, a monthly publication of the Christian Reformed Church, editor in chief Shiao Chong argues that the mob break-in at the Capitol on January 6 was a “Christian insurrection.” Is this a fair claim? I read his article, looked up the sources he cited in support of his claim, and gave him every chance to convince me. He didn’t. I don’t think his claim is at all fair or accurate. For sake of space and keeping in mind my own expertise in religion and comparative amateur standing in politics, in this response I will focus on Chong’s claim that the event was a “Christian” one, and I will not address the claim that it was an “insurrection.”

Chong points out that “the Christian presence in the mob was undeniable.” The evidence he cites, even if taken at face value and not fact-checked, would show only that some people involved in the event presented themselves as Christians. It would not prove that the event was “a Christian insurrection.” That is a broad generalization that unfairly contributes to the propaganda that Christian conservatives are as a whole somehow responsible for the break-in. Indeed, before the article is over, Chong will in effect make that accusation.

When we follow Chong’s links and attempt to confirm his statements, what we find does not help his generalization much. His first link is to an article in The Atlantic that asserts that some people who were marching toward the Capitol spoke about their belief in Jesus and the Bible, but the author admits he lost track of his group before they reached the Capitol. So he doesn’t know if any of those individuals actually entered the Capitol building. From his own account, most of the people in the group he followed were foul-mouthed, even pot-smoking individuals, whose identifiable affiliations were QAnon and the Proud Boys, not the Southern Baptist Convention (for example).

Chong says, “Many were waving Christian flags or flags with Christian sayings, such as “Jesus is My Savior.” A link for this statement takes us to the Religion Unplugged website, which features a large photo of a “Jesus 2020” banner well outside the Capitol building. That web article’s lead example of a Christian symbol inside the Capitol was a picture taken of Jake Angeli supposedly sitting in the Speaker’s chair. One dutifully clicks on the link to a Facebook tweet asserting, “This is Jake Angiel [sic] he sat in the Speakers chair,” which was meant to be two sentences: “This is Jake Angiel. He sat in the Speaker’s chair.” The photo shows Angeli (not Angiel) outside holding a sign that says, “Hold the line patriots. God wins.” Yes, that proves it! Evangelicals staged an insurrection at the Capitol! Except Angeli is not an evangelical. Wikipedia (no friend to evangelicals) has some interesting information about Mr. Angeli. He is a New Ager as well as a self-described “Qanon & digital soldier.” He is known online as the “QAnon Shaman” or “Q Shaman.” Angeli described the storming of the Capitol as “an evolution in consciousness… we were actually affecting the quantum realm.” Wikipedia reports, “Prosecutors have alleged that Angeli believes he is an alien or higher being, and he is destined to ascend to another reality.” And this is the face of the supposed “Christian insurrection”!

Pro tip for journalists writing on religion: The New Age movement is not Christian, and it certainly is not evangelical. Evangelicals write books and make videos criticizing New Agers.

Another link to Twitter that the Religion Unplugged article gives to document a “Christian flag” on the floor of the House of Representatives takes us to a feed on Twitter with one picture taken inside the Capitol somewhere with a flag visible, but one cannot tell if it’s a regular American flag or something different. There are, however, pictures of people in the march (not in the Capitol) with an “Iranians for Trump” sign and an Israeli flag!

The rest of the alleged evidence (for which no documentation is given) in the Religion Unplugged article concerns “Christian” paraphernalia supposedly spotted outside the Capitol. The lack of documentation and the admission that the evidence was seen outside the Capitol makes this supposed evidence meaningless to establish the claim that the event was a “Christian” insurrection.

The Religion Unplugged article did not quote any evangelicals, even though it is aimed at evangelicals who supported Trump. The author did, however, manage to quote an ex-evangelical podcaster and a retired Episcopal minister.

Going back to the Banner article, Chong adds more evidence of nefarious Christian involvement in the Capitol break-in: “Some carried crosses.” A link takes us to a photo on Buzz Feed of a man holding a cross somewhere outside, standing still, and praying. There is no evidence that this man was involved in storming the Capitol building. There were tens of thousands of people in Washington that day to show support for Trump. Only about eight hundred stormed the Capitol—maybe three percent or even less of the total crowds in Washington. (Reliable estimates of the total number of people in Washington that day for the Trump-related events are not available, but the National Park Service’s estimate the day prior was 30,000.) Indeed many of those tens of thousands of people were evangelical Christians (and again, many of them were not). To take a single photo of a man standing peacefully outside the Capitol praying with a cross and try to make that into evidence that the Capitol break-in was a “Christian insurrection” is journalistic malpractice.

Seemingly, the best evidence cited in the Banner article for Christian involvement is what Chong calls “a video of the insurrectionists praying a Christian prayer in the Senate chamber.” That sounds bad. But then we go to watch the video and guess who is actually making the “prayer”? It’s our consciousness-evolving, quantum-realm affecting, QAnon Shaman, Jake Angeli!

Here’s another pro tip for religion journalists: New Agers and other faux Christians (including the real “Christian” white supremacist groups such as “Christian Identity”) use Christian language when praying. That doesn’t make them Christians, and it certainly doesn’t make them evangelicals.

Chong then states, in a seemingly generous acknowledgment, “To be fair, I suspect there were many nonviolent Christians in the crowd who were probably caught by surprise at the sudden turn of events from what started out, for them, as a peaceful protest march.” No, that is not being “fair” at all. If Chong were being fair, he would have said that the vast, vast majority of people in the crowds for the march were nonviolent and peaceful. Again, apparently less than three percent of the people who showed up in Washington associated with the protest and march participated in the break-in at the Capitol.

The article could hardly get any worse, but Chong manages it. He asserts that because there were Confederate flags, other racist symbols, and even a rioter with a shirt saying, “Camp Auschwitz,” another result of the “insurrection” is that “Christianity is also tarnished by being linked to racism and anti-Semitism.” This is either hopeless ignorance or willful misrepresentation. Conservative evangelicals are the least anti-Semitic, most pro-Israel, pro-Jewish segment of America today—even more pro-Israel than American Jews as a whole!

There were indeed racist groups involved in the Capitol break-in, but they were not evangelical groups, nor is there any evidence of significant involvement by evangelical individuals in these groups. How many evangelicals would one expect to be involved in the “Kekistan” group ruled by a frog-headed deity, or in neo-Nazi groups, or in the Black Hebrew Israelites? These are some of the groups identified in the Insider article that Chong cites as documentation of “racist symbols” of those who entered the Capitol building. We should also note that apparently only a small percentage (on the order of ten percent) of the identified participants in the Capitol break-in have identifiable ties with white nationalist or other extremist groups.

By the way, for those who may be tempted to connect Christianity to the Nazis: No, Hitler was not a Christian.

Chong proceeds to flog “Christian nationalism,” another broad generalization that allows him to criticize essentially all conservatives who voted for Trump as “either ambassadors or accommodators of Christian nationalism.” Specifically, he claims that 78 percent of all self-described evangelicals fall into one or the other category. This is suspiciously about the same figure as the percentage of evangelicals who voted for Trump (estimated at between 76 and 81 percent). In short, the claim that is being made is that virtually all (and we could probably drop the word “virtually”) evangelical Trump supporters are either Christian nationalists or people who “accommodate” Christian nationalism. What is Christian nationalism? It “includes assumptions of nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity, along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism.” It would take another piece as long as this one to deconstruct this litany of accusations against tens of millions of American evangelicals. The short explanation is that if, for example, you don’t accept critical race theory, if you think same-sex marriage is wrong, and if you favor a strong U.S. military, and you identify as a Christian, you’re a Christian nationalist.

Toward the end of his article, Chong again attempts to sound fair-minded, commenting: “If we show grace to Black Lives Matter protestors over last summer, which we should, we ought to show some grace here too.” But he does nothing of the kind. He had just smeared tens of millions of American Christians (mostly evangelicals). In a link, Chong points to an article he had written last year on the BLM protests. That article does not “show grace to Black Lives Matter protesters”; it aggressively takes side with the movement and makes excuses for it. This is about the extent of Chong’s criticism of BLM: “Yes, BLM has problems. But so does every movement in history, including Christianity. Besides, not every BLM activist agrees with each other.” Funny how the fact that not every Trump supporter agrees with one another does not prevent Chong from pronouncing sweeping generalizations about them being at least complicit in Christian nationalism.

In that article, Chong claims that he is “not condoning violence of any kind,” but he is understanding and sympathetic to the BLM and related rioters in stark contrast to his attitude toward the Capitol rioters. The BLM rioters’ violence was, Chong says, “lamentable, though understandable,” and he is quick to say, “But we should not lump the vast majority of peaceful protestors with the small minority of rioters who may or may not even be associated with the protest.” Contrast this comment with his weak admission in the article on the Capitol break-in, “I suspect there were many nonviolent Christians in the crowd” (my emphasis). If Chong had treated BLM in the same way he later treated the “Christian nationalists” who broke into the Capitol, he would have linked to a few photos of BLM protesters carrying signs appealing to Jesus in support of their protest (“Black Lives Matter! Jesus Thinks So Too!”) and from there generalized about the dangers of the millions of Christian “ambassadors” and “accommodators” of BLM being responsible for the violence at the “mostly peaceful” BLM riots.

Chong then launched into the usual defensive stance: “However, focusing on the rioting and destruction of property has become another act of unhearing. Do we really want to emphasize the destruction of property over the killing and oppression of black lives? Rather, as someone who is pro-life ‘from the womb to the tomb,’ I will emphasize people’s lives over property.” However, according to an article in The Guardian back in October 2020, which attempts to present the facts in as favorable a way to BLM as it can, “At least 11 Americans have been killed while participating in political demonstrations this year and another 14 have died in other incidents linked to political unrest.” This included two police officers shot during protests; there were also at least four police offers injured in such events, and a retired African-American police officer was shot during a robbery (“alleged looting”). Chong’s polemic completely ignores these deaths and injuries.

No responsible person wants to “emphasize” the wrong of property damage “over” the killing or oppression of black lives. That is a complete misrepresentation of what conservative critics of BLM think about the subject. We should unqualifiedly condemn both killing and deliberate destruction of private and public property.

This background concerning Chong’s defensiveness toward BLM is necessary background for understanding what came next in that article. Put your cup down first….

Even Jesus staged a one-man riot (Mark 11:15-19). A riot is defined as a violent disturbance of the peace. Jesus overturned the tables belonging to money changers and merchants in the Jerusalem temple, driving people out who were buying and selling. This was not a minor inconvenience…. Race, or ethnicity, was part of Jesus’ protest riot, too…. Jesus’ protest of the temple, then, condemns not only fusing religion with unjust economic practices but also fusing religion with ethnic exclusion/segregation, a precursor of our modern racism. Given this biblical context, do you think Jesus would more likely support the protests for racial justice or complain about the destruction of property?

Yes, he went there.

Here is how Merriam-Webster defines riot: “a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent.” That is a legal definition, also given at Dictionary.com, along with this more informal definition: “a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets.” Cambridge Dictionary gives a similar definition: “an occasion when a large number of people behave in a noisy, violent, and uncontrolled way in public, often as a protest.”

There is no such thing as “a one-man riot.”

Apparently, according to Chong, looting, burning cars and buildings, destroying businesses (often black-owned businesses!), taking over or damaging police stations and government offices, and other acts of violence are “lamentable but understandable” collateral damage of righteous protests that we should “support” (Chong’s word) if it’s for the right cause. If innocent people (even black people!) are killed or injured in the mayhem, we will try not to mention it, and if we must mention it then we will minimize it. And Jesus’ act of forcibly driving out moneychangers from the temple supposedly is precedent. Yet, somehow, Chong, as a professing Christian, citing Jesus to justify riots from the left is not problematic, whereas conservative Christians publicly displaying their faith in Jesus while engaging in a protest on the right (i.e., the thousands of Christians who participated peacefully in the march on January 6) damages “our moral credibility.”

In the immediate aftermath of the storming of the Capitol on January 6, conservative politicians and Christian religious leaders (evangelical and otherwise) rushed en masse to condemn the incident. (Some speculated at first, wrongly as it turned out, that the break-in was led by Antifa or other left-wing agitators, precisely because the actions of those who broke into the Capitol were so out of character for traditional conservatives.) Within a few days, there were probably hundreds of statements issued by such influencers unequivocally condemning the criminal actions of the persons involved. No such response came from liberals or progressives in response to the months of violence all around the country that took place in the cause of BLM. Chong’s response was actually fairly typical: We don’t condone violence, but shut up about the violence.

To sum up:

The break-in at the Capitol was not a Christian insurrection. It was not a Christian action. It had no support or approval from any mainline, liberal, or evangelical Christian church or leader. It certainly was not staged by evangelical Christians. Almost all, if not literally every single one, of the evangelical Christians in Washington on that day were outside the Capitol when it happened—with the exception of the evangelicals who were supposed to be there, namely those who were in Congress. The face of the Capitol break-in was a New Age shaman, not an evangelical Protestant. Evangelicals are not anti-Semitic; they are Israel’s best friends. Very, very few white evangelicals are racists, though admittedly by the standard of critical race theory they are all racists by default, regardless of how they feel and act toward people of color. The people who participated in the Capitol break-in do not represent Christianity, and they certainly don’t represent evangelical Christianity. As one of the tens of millions of evangelical Christians in America who love the Lord Jesus Christ, who seek to honor him in the way we live, and who are law-abiding, peaceful, responsible citizens, I will not remain silent while such misrepresentations about us are spread through social media. I hope you won’t, either.

Posted in apologetics, Politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment