AU replies to the "War on Christmas"

[USIncognito]

I'm not sure if this is the correct subforum to place this in, but it seems right since the culture warriors strum und drang smells of political motivation. I'm on the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State mailing list and this open letter from Barry Lynn to Jerry Falwell was in my inbox today. I thought I'd share it, and see if there are any comments.

Dear Jerry:

Heres some news: There is no "war on Christmas!"

Ive seen you on various television news shows claiming that there is but, in fact, there simply isnt. Even as I write this, millions of Americans are erecting Christmas trees and nativity scenes at their homes, and thousands of churches are planning special Christmas services.

And, if I might say so, most of them are planning their lives without getting permission or encouragement from you.

I am deeply disappointed that you have chosen a time that Christians observe as a season of peace and good will and turned it into a time of religious divisiveness and community conflict. Your "Friend or Foe" campaign may be great for fund-raising and publicity, but it has sown discord unnecessarily.

Contrary to your wild allegations, Jerry, neither Americans United, nor any other civil liberties organization that I know of, is waging any kind of war on Christmas. The First Amendment of our Constitution ensures every Americans right to observe religious holidays or to refrain from doing so. We can wish each other a "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays," and its really none of your business which term we choose. We can call our decorated tree a "Christmas tree" or a "holiday tree," and thats our right. (We can observe the holidays of other traditions as well.)

I think we all know whats really going on with your campaign. You want an America where there is no separation of church and state and where your rather narrow interpretation of Christianity is forced on everyone. If you can convince Americans that their cherished Christmas traditions are under fire, you think maybe they will join your nefarious crusade to tear down the protective church-state wall that guarantees our freedoms.

Well, it wont work, Jerry. Americans are, by and large, a tolerant lot, and they are quite unlikely to join forces with someone like you who is so far out on the political and religious fringes. Many people remember the outrageous comments you made after the 9/11 terrorist assaults, suggesting that America had it coming because of our (in your opinion) sinful ways. They also remember your dire warning that Tinky Winky, a kids TV character, was brainwashing our children into homosexuality! You cant rehabilitate an image like that by trying to depict yourself as Father Christmas.

I am particularly outraged that you are attacking our public schools as part of your misguided project. Our public schools serve children from 2,000 different faith traditions and some who follow no spiritual path at all. They generally do a tremendous job of helping each of these students without imposing any particular religious viewpoint. They steer a careful course, broadly allowing student religious _expression while trying to avoid school endorsement of specific faiths. That means there are sometimes disagreements about what songs should be sung in the winter concert or what decorations should go in the hall. We can work through those decisions by applying common sense, the Constitution and plain old civility.

Thanks to the crusade by you and your allies, however, some of these schools are being targeted for venomous attacks. After the Alliance Defense Fund unfairly maligned a public school in New York for its holiday observance policies, education officials there received hateful mail of all sorts. One e-mail said "You are either bigoted Jews who hate Christians or mindless secularists."

Since I debated you about the Christmas issue on Fox News Channels "OReilly Factor," I have received 66 nasty e-mails, including two death threats. Observed one of my correspondents, "Hope you die soon. Merry Christmas."

Jerry, this is the kind of interfaith and community hostility that you are stirring up, and I implore you to stop it now. You are polluting the public square with animosity and anger. And at Christmas, of all times!! Have you no decency?

Youve dubbed your latest round of antics a "Friend or Foe" campaign. Well, Jerry, I am a friend of the Constitution and a foe of intolerance. You should be too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Executive Director

PS: I saw on a couple of the news shows that you are again questioning my ministerial credentials. I believe the _expression that you used on Fox News Channels "The Big Story with John Gibson" is that I am "about as reverend as an oak tree" and that I never "preached in" a church. Drop me a line, Jerry, and Ill send you (again) a copy of my ministerial credentials from the United Church of Christ. And by the way, Id be happy to come to Thomas Road Baptist Church and deliver the sermon on the Sunday of your choice. Your congregation might like a change of perspective every now and then.

[melikio]

And yet, fundamentalism rapes and pillages the truths of Scripture far more than liberalism does - we're more apt to look at facts and use reason as well in our reading of Scripture, not to mention uphold the principles of divine grace and self-sacrificial love in their ministries (the two most important principles of the Gospel).

I agree.

And at the very least, Christians should NOT be out here, trying to control, coerce or pressure people socially with their religious views. I mean, doesn't it make sense to REALIZE (let it sink in) that NO ONE can be forced to be a believer/follower?

In many cases, we end up with HALF-HEARTED, semi-committed religious people, who don't really know what "believe" or "faith" means. The ONLY thing I know that keeps people DOING the right things consistently (not only talking about them), is the LOVE they are encouraged to make an INTEGRAL part of life. Religion alone is so often meaningless and impotent, and we don't usually notice that in people until some DIRE symptoms cause them to break down or break away.

How much more inspirational, supportive and motivational is LOVE than LAW? When I mention LOVE, it is NOT the ineffectual feel-goody emotion some think it is, I'm referring to the effectual catalyst and PRACTICAL manifestation of God's power in human beings (FOR human beings). Christians SHOULD know this and live in it, but so freakin' often, you get people who come with a RULE... like a messenger delivering a legal document. And in reality, why shouldn't the response be the same as when some guy receives a divorce paper: "WHAT THE HECK IS THIS?!! ARRGHH!!

Some Christians do not realize and some don't even care that their religion isn't really a message of LOVE. But then, I would ask them: "How do you EXPECT it to have a GOOD effect upon HUMANS?" I would tell them, that God is NOT giving out brownie points to the guy who merely says what sounds right or correct. But I believe that God is LOOKING at EACH INDIVIDUAL HUMAN HEART to see if love is the motor running the "fatih-machine" that we can EACH be. How that machine operates, is determined primarily by what's INSIDE of it; it's construction and its FUEL. Hatred, anger and false superiority... aren't things I associate with Jesus Christ, especially where it relates to how we should treat others. How can a person who despises another, say that they are doing good? If we decide to err on the side of grace and compassion, then many sins are covered (what some confuse with "permissiveness"). But people who are basically "Christian-Jerks", that are almost always poised to RULE OVER others, are somewhat like a curse. They have so many people believing that absolute "conformity" to THEIR views/interpretations, defines whether or not they get to "Heaven". That what they tend to do... there is NO DOUBT about it socially, just listen to the Conservative-Fundamentalist Christian views which are so POPULAR today. And be certain folks, that kind of view will burn itself out, when the hypocrisy that is harbored in such attitudes reveals itself. God is NOT ignoring that, not one iota. Here we have a "Christmas" so COMMERCIALIZED, that it make and so-called "war on Christianity/Christmas" look like a complete joke (by comparison). We have people so worried about the sexuality of others, that they cannot even focus on the problems related to their OWN human relations and sexuality (divorce, bad parenting and the rest).

And from what I've seen, fundamentalists do a hell of a lot more pandering to their followers than liberals do. In every public forum between fundamentalists and theological liberals in which reason and not public opinion was the arbiter, fundamentalists have demonstrably lost. This should say something about its validity.

Fundamentalists TALK religion well. They know the "right" things to say. They are good at saying, "Christianity is X and such. YOU need to get right with God."

Fundamentalists and others who are arrogant, are seemingly more perfect than others. IF I see a person and cannot see anything wrong, no faults, no weaknesses etc., then I WORRY...because that person believes their own PRESS, they will have the MOST difficult time with BEING COMPASSIONATE. They are either very perfect (in their minds) and cannot understand what it is to MISS the mark, or they think they have "arrived", and their PRIMARY CONCERNS are the sins or perceived faults of OTHERS. Thus, they get caught up in analyzing and convicting OTHERS, instead of coming to a place where they can truly relate to and SERVE others.

I KNOW they believe they are "right", and I work very hard to be compassionate toward those who have a different view. I've seen such "perfected" and religious people hurting in secret, and I've seen them literally appreciate the limited "perfection" in me (as a human being). No, this doesn't mean being soft on "sin", but it does often mean being soft and gentle with what's "inside" of people. To be "careful" would be be a better way of saying it, but the Golden Rule is the practical concept behind doing what I'm saying.

Sometimes, I get the impression that many who believe they have THE TRUTH, want to rule the world. Well, one doesn't have to look at much history or study the Bible too much, to know that's not what JESUS came here to accomplish. You see, He already RULED the world, and He just wanted to let people know that He cared about them (as much as anyone ever could).

I know that's a rough "summary" of Christian reality, but is that the message we see coming from most political conservatives and/or fundamentalist Christians?

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

Quote:
And yet, fundamentalism rapes and pillages the truths of Scripture far more than liberalism does - we're more apt to look at facts and use reason as well in our reading of Scripture, not to mention uphold the principles of divine grace and self-sacrificial love in their ministries (the two most important principles of the Gospel).

Extremists or people that believe there are fundamental elements that cannot change or cannot be changed about the Bible? Big difference. There are many non-fundamentalists that have invented a different Jesus and Gospel. Jo resurrection no Christianity for example. Yet there are people that teach this and claim loudly they are Christians and even Reverends. Look at the Jesus seminar.

Fundamentalists and others who are arrogant, are seemingly more perfect than others. IF I see a person and cannot see anything wrong, no faults, no weaknesses etc., then I WORRY...because that person believes their own PRESS, they will have the MOST difficult time with BEING COMPASSIONATE. They are either very perfect (in their minds) and cannot understand what it is to MISS the mark, or they think they have "arrived", and their PRIMARY CONCERNS are the sins or perceived faults of OTHERS. Thus, they get caught up in analyzing and convicting OTHERS, instead of coming to a place where they can truly relate to and SERVE others.

I KNOW they believe they are "right", and I work very hard to be compassionate toward those who have a different view. I've seen such "perfected" and religious people hurting in secret, and I've seen them literally appreciate the limited "perfection" in me (as a human being). No, this doesn't mean being soft on "sin", but it does often mean being soft and gentle with what's "inside" of people. To be "careful" would be be a better way of saying it, but the Golden Rule is the practical concept behind doing what I'm saying.

Sometimes, I get the impression that many who believe they have THE TRUTH, want to rule the world. Well, one doesn't have to look at much history or study the Bible too much, to know that's not what JESUS came here to accomplish. You see, He already RULED the world, and He just wanted to let people know that He cared about them (as much as anyone ever could).

I know that's a rough "summary" of Christian reality, but is that the message we see coming from most political conservatives and/or fundamentalist Christians?

Arrogance or confidence? There are absolutes from scripture that caused every martyr to choose death over denying truth. I get the impression from looking at men like Reverend Barry Lynn that false teachers are just as alive today as when the letters had to be written to fight them out of the first century church and he "may" be one of them. Pastors like Jerry Falwell speak biblical truth against the majotity tide of this modern society. That sounds like a place to find a Christian. Embracing secularism does not mean joining with unbelievers but using their incredible egotism as a political and societal tool to keep Christians speaking freely within a system that touts freedom of expression and speech as a immutable truths. Christians can agree with some secular things.

[MagusYanam]

Jo resurrection no Christianity for example. Yet there are people that teach this and claim loudly they are Christians and even Reverends. Look at the Jesus seminar.

This is the same Jesus Seminar that printed the Bible that I'm reading now? Crucifixion, Resurrection and all? I think you far mistake the matter - the Jesus Seminar is a body devoted to historical Biblical research, which is nothing any good, honest Christian should fear.

There are absolutes from scripture that caused every martyr to choose death over denying truth.

Truer words were never spoke. So why have the 'fundamentalists' exchanged these absolutes - things like grace, love and fellowship - for militant sectarianism and political whoredom? I've read the 'fundamentals' which define 'fundamentalist' thought - and grace, love and fellowship are strangely enough not among them.

Pastors like Jerry Falwell speak biblical truth against the majotity tide of this modern society.

So why is his lobbyist organisation called the 'Moral Majority', hmm? He wants the majority tide and thinks he has it. I don't think he gives two cents for Biblical truth or other truths when they don't suit his political ends. I haven't seen him giving liberal Christianity the credit it deserves for producing the great moral drives that have made this society modern: the end to slavery, the New Deal, the Great Society, the end to segregation, etc., etc.

[melikio]

Arrogance or confidence? There are absolutes from scripture that caused every martyr to choose death over denying truth. I get the impression from looking at men like Reverend Barry Lynn that false teachers are just as alive today as when the letters had to be written to fight them out of the first century church and he "may" be one of them. Pastors like Jerry Falwell speak biblical truth against the majotity tide of this modern society. That sounds like a place to find a Christian. Embracing secularism does not mean joining with unbelievers but using their incredible egotism as a political and societal tool to keep Christians speaking freely within a system that touts freedom of expression and speech as a immutable truths. Christians can agree with some secular things.

Look, it's one thing to BELIEVE and hold firmly to what YOU yourself (or family) accept and believe; it is another to hold to abjectly systematic social pressure, to unjustly influence and sway others to your "faith" or point of view (via law/politics and social pressure).

That is NOT what truly loving Christians should be about; there is no way around that, and it should be understood well-enough by now. Allowing people grace and liberty, is NOT a new concept and Jesus was the epitome of that. Not that anyone must condone "sin", but that people should be allowed to choose Christ, not "herded" like unwilling animals into what "Christians" believe it THE way. Getting people to move toward Christ, is NOT about using the same CARNAL tools mankind has too often used to bring harm upon itself. Yet, that is what too many Christians are DOING. Live/let live is not just a little "saying", there is meaning and purpose in it, just as there is where "meat" and "vegetables" are mentioned in the Bible.

I'm hard pressed, to find a conservative or "fundamentalist" Christian, that understands to importance of sharing their beliefs and views, yet not PUSHING them upon others. If we are talking about "Christian" love, then we are certainly talking about NOT "forcing" our own way with others. THAT is a straight-up "absolute" that is practically EASY to extract from the Bible. And as important as love is, this cannot be minimized anymore than promoting the idea that any particular sin isn't problematic. PUSHING morals, beliefs and biblical interpretations via LAW or POLITICS, is a carnal thing; it is not a loving thing, no matter how one tries to define it; it's a POWER TRIP. That some Christians do not recognize it as such isn't surprising, because they live under the delusion that THEIR WAY, is THE ONLY WAY. It's one thing to "believe" that and hold to it firmly, and another to IMPOSE that in any way upon others. I think many Christians need to understand and accept, that others either cannot or will not conform to their particular views or beliefs, and that loving others (all the more) as a result is NOT the wrong thing to do.

Long before I ever saw an atheist argue with a Christian about anything, I saw those wearing name-brand "Christian" labels going at one another. Bottom line: Since who is "right" has yet to be fully determined (God being the final arbiter), the COMMAND to love your brethren and your enemies STANDS. And while others may never come to your side of this or any issue, it doesn't give you or anyone the moral, social or spiritual right (autonomy) to pressure them into becoming what YOU want or believe for them.

America's Founding Fathers likely all knew "religion" to a scholarly or spiritual degree that rivals most any "Christian" today; they weren't stupid or inexperienced... even if they were "imperfect" human beings. I personally believe that having the "right" to discuss or argue this topic, is preserved by the very thing that SOME religious folk are trying to UNDO (one ammendment or LAW at a time). If those people had the actual INTEGRITY and PERFECTION of Jesus Himself, it wouldn't worry me one iota, but since they aren't really "Jesus", I don't think it will ever be a good thing to hand them the absolute political or legal power they seem to "crave". If we are talking about physical CRIMES where there are victims, I understand and even advocate certain extreme actions by "moral" people, but this idea that EVERYONE must honor and believe in the same traditions, will never really work with human beings. Let God (if you really believe in Him) handle what's HIS to handle.

People either believe or they do not; that doesn't mean you know the final chapter or even sentence of their lives. Believe and live as you should, but IN LOVE give others the LIBERTY (and grace) they have been granted by their Creator (nature's God); the exact same liberty you yourself have been afforded. It's one thing for someone to HATE God (and it happens), but it's another for them to hate God because they suffer from the perception that they have been PUSHED TO HIM (by believers).

-Mel-

[melikio]

So why is his lobbyist organisation called the 'Moral Majority', hmm?

Some do not honor or appreciate the freedom God has afforded each individual person. They find that they can control others, and do it, in the name of "love". But their "version" of love, is one that limits and restricts others, where there is not true right or authority to do so.

There was a time when the "majority" of Americans believed in and accepted "slavery". (What changed THAT type of thinking?) And there was a time where more than a few nations believed that it's "rulers" or "laws" could effectively PLAY GOD, but eventually found that such thinking led to catastrophe.

The "WAR" on Christmas discussion eventually will fade, but the true spirit of the "season" will remain with those who know its meaning; even the commercialism and hype won't seriously affect people who know that.

-Mel-

[snappyanswer]

America's Founding Fathers likely all knew "religion" to a scholarly or spiritual degree that rivals most any "Christian" today; they weren't stupid or inexperienced... even if they were "imperfect" human beings.

These men had wooden teeth. They also did not have any means to study the Bible as we do today. They were mostly secularists or deists were they not? A far cry from knowing anything about religion.

They took what suited them and discarded the rest. The only modern-day comparison of their spiritual degree.

[melikio]

These men had wooden teeth. They also did not have any means to study the Bible as we do today. They were mostly secularists or deists were they not? A far cry from knowing anything about religion.

They took what suited them and discarded the rest. The only modern-day comparison of their spiritual degree.

And nations based solely upon "religion" were/are better than America is, in what ways? (It certainly didn't stop many "in-charge", from being corrupt and oppressive. Because of "religion", some rulers held far more power and possessed the potential to screw up massively; they were merely human beings, not Gods.) For that same reason, it's not a good idea to build a government based completely upon a "religion" (Christianity included).

As far as the "religion" the Founding Fathers knew: I certainly don't know their hearts, but they surely had biblical training and traditional values that would likely make today's staunch-conservatives seem like moral INFANTS.

But that doesn't matter, because they KNEW religion COUPLED with government or law was a BAD thing, which has been proven in history numerous times.

-Mel-

[snappyanswer]

This is the same Jesus Seminar that printed the Bible that I'm reading now? Crucifixion, Resurrection and all? I think you far mistake the matter - the Jesus Seminar is a body devoted to historical Biblical research, which is nothing any good, honest Christian should fear.

Unless they are heretics or anti-Christs trying to destroy Christians from pretending to be Christians. This would be a good way of looking at people like Barry Lynn.

This is what the Jesus Seminar thinks about Biblical truth:

"For those who believe the Bible to be the word of God a 16% historical accuracy rate may seem ridiculously low." But that is what they came up with about Jesus.

From the Jesus seminarians on their website: http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Se ... minar.html

The Jesus Seminar was organized under the auspices of the Westar Institute to renew the quest of the historical Jesus and to report the results of its research to more than a handful of gospel specialists. At its inception in 1985, thirty scholars took up the challenge. Eventually more than two hundred professionally trained specialists, called Fellows, joined the group. The Seminar meets twice a year to debate technical papers that have been prepared and circulated in advance. At the close of debate on each agenda item, Fellows of the Seminar vote, using colored beads to indicate the degree of authenticity of Jesus' words or deeds. Dropping colored beads into a box has become a trademark of the Seminar.


Complete text of opening remarks from the
Jesus Seminar


In the Beginning

The renewed search began with the first meeting of the Jesus Seminar in March 1985 when founder Robert Funk addressed the assembled scholars in Berkeley, California:

We are about to embark on a momentous enterprise. We are going to inquire simply, rigorously after the voice of Jesus, after what he really said.

In this process, we will be asking a question that borders the sacred, that even abuts blasphemy, for many in our society. As a consequence, the course we shall follow may prove hazardous. We may well provoke hostility. But we will set out, in spite of the dangers, because we are professionals and because the issue of Jesus is there to be faced, much as Mt. Everest confronts the team of climbers.

Complete text of opening remarks.


The Search for the Real Jesus

The complete results of the Jesus Seminar deliberations on the sayings of Jesus were published in 1993 as The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. The Introduction to that book offers some important perspective on the "search for the real Jesus":

The Five Gospels represents a dramatic exit from windowless studies and the beginning of a new venture for gospel scholarship. Leading scholarsFellows of the Jesus Seminarhave decided to update and then make the legacy of two hundred years of research and debate a matter of public record.

In the aftermath of the controversy over Darwin's The Origin of Species (published in 1859) and the ensuing Scopes "monkey" trial in 1925, American biblical scholarship retreated into the closet. The fundamentalist mentality generated a climate of inquisition that made honest scholarly judgments dangerous. Numerous biblical scholars were subjected to heresy trials and suffered the loss of academic posts. They learned it was safer to keep their critical judgments private.

However, the intellectual ferment of the century soon reasserted itself in colleges, universities, and seminaries. By the end of World War II, critical scholars again quietly dominated the academic scene from one end of the continent to the other. Critical biblical scholarship was supported, of course, by other university disciplines which wanted to ensure that dogmatic considerations not be permitted to intrude into scientific and historical research. The fundamentalists were forced, as a consequence, to found their own Bible colleges and seminaries in order to propagate their point of view. In launching new institutions, the fundamentalists even refused accommodation with the older, established church-related schools that dotted the land.

One focal point of the raging controversies was who Jesus was and what he had said.

More from the Introduction to The Five Gospels


The Words of Jesus:
An Agenda and a Voting Process

The Five Gospels explains how the Jesus Seminar agenda was shaped, why voting on the sayings of Jesus was adopted, and how voting was conducted:

The goal of the Seminar was to review each of the fifteen hundred items and determine which of them could be ascribed with a high degree of probability to Jesus. The items passing the test would be included in a database for determining who Jesus was. But the interpretation of the data was to be excluded from the agenda of the Seminar and left to individual scholars working from their own perspectives.

The Seminar had to agree on two questions that established the course of its deliberations. It first had to decide how it would reach its decisions. It then had to determine how it would report the results to a broad public not familiar with the history of critical scholarship over the past two centuries and more.

Voting was adopted, after extended debate, as the most efficient way of ascertaining whether a scholarly consensus existed on a given point. Committees creating a critical text of the Greek New Testament under the auspices of the United Bible Societies vote on whether to print this or that text and what variants to consign to notes. Translation committees, such as those that created the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version, vote in the course of their deliberations on which translation proposal to accept and which to reject.

Voting does not, of course, determine the truth; voting only indicates what the best judgment is of a significant number of scholars sitting around the table. It was deemed entirely consonant with the mission of the Jesus Seminar to decide whether, after careful review of the evidence, a particular saying or parable did or did not fairly represent the voice of the historical Jesus.

More on the Jesus Seminar voting from The Five Gospels


The Deeds of Jesus

The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds reports the Jesus Seminar deliberations on the historicity of events surrounding the life of Jesus. The Introduction to The Acts of Jesus discusses these deliberations:

The Acts of Jesus is an assessment of the reports in the ancient gospels of what Jesus of Nazareth did and what was done to him. These events together constitute the acts of Jesus.

During the second phase of the Jesus Seminar, which lasted from 1991 to 1996, the Fellows examined 387 reports of 176 events, in most of which Jesus is the principal actor, although occasionally John the Baptist, Simon Peter, or Judas is featured. Of the 176 events, only ten were given a red rating (red indicates that the Fellows had a relatively high level of confidence that the event actually took place). An additional nineteen were colored pink (pink suggests that the event probably occurred). The combined number of red and pink events (29) amounts to 16% of the total (176). That is slightly lower than the 18% of the sayingsprimarily parables and aphorismsassigned to the red and pink categories in The Five Gospels.

For those who believe the Bible to be the word of God a 16% historical accuracy rate may seem ridiculously low. Why did the Seminar end up with so many black (largely or entirely fictive) and gray (possible but unreliable) reports? The results should not be surprising to critical scholarsthose whose evaluations are not predetermined by theological considerations. Nevertheless, it is important to both the general reader and the scholars who participated in the Seminar to be as clear as possible about the reasons for this result.

More from the Introduction to The Acts of Jesus


Voting on the Deeds of Jesus

Voting on the deeds of Jesus followed the process used in reviewing the sayings:

As in the first phase (19851991), the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar continued the practice of voting. Voting is the most efficient way of determining whether a consensus currently exists among the Fellows on a given point. The usual scholarly procedure is to make up one's mind privately, publish opinions arrived at in some scholarly journal, and then wait to see whether other specialists agree. The process is glacially slow, painful, and usually indecisive.

Voting also makes it possible to make a report that is readily understood by a broad public; that public, after all, may not be interested in the arcane details and extended arguments that went into those votes. The Seminar once again employed colored beads for voting purposes. As in the first phase, the four colorsred, pink, gray, and blackrepresent degrees of judgment.

More on voting from The Acts of Jesus

[snappyanswer]

But there are other Christian scholars that see thinsg differently on the other side.

Good end to this article: In the final analysis, the work being done by the Seminar scholars is no different than the efforts of others who have gone before: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..." (Rom. 1:21-22).

CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271
Web: www.equip.org Tel: 704.887.8200

The "Jesus Seminar": The Quest for the "Imaginary" Jesusby Brian Onken

Did He or didnt He? Did Jesus really say the things attributed Him in the Gospels? For members of the Jesus Seminar, in many cases the answer is no. In fact, the Seminar participants have decided that only three of the Beatitudes were actually spoken by Jesus Himself "Blessed are you poor...you that hungeryou that weep."

The Jesus Seminar is a panel of New Testament scholars whose chairman is Dr. Robert Funk, professor of religious studies at the University of Montana. Over the next five or six years the panel will evaluate the approximately 500 sayings attributed to Jesus.

Through a voting procedure which involves dropping colored pegs into a ballot box, the Seminar participants hope to make the common opinion of the scholarly community clear. They seek to answer the question, "which savings of Jesus are authentic?" The projected final product of the Seminar participants labor will be a New Testament with Jesus "authentic" sayings printed in red ink, those of which there is some question in pink, those which are held in serious doubt in gray, and those which the panel determines are definitely not the words of Jesus in black.

The Seminar participants see themselves as a much-needed voice to "correct" the conservative bent in many a lay persons (and, in fact, church leaders) theology. Robert Funk reflects the basic perspective of the panel when he states that "to learn that the Jesus of the Gospel of John is a figment of the evangelists pious imagination or that Paul is not the author of the Pastoral Epistles goes down poorly with ecclesiastical officials, who are more concerned with membership and the collection plate with the historical truth" (San Francisco Examiner & Chronicle, 9 March 1986).

How did the Seminar come about? How justified are its conclusions? And did the evangelists really put words into Jesus mouth that He never actually said? To answer these questions, let us take a brief look at the history of New Testament studies as it pertains to the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), the presuppositions of the Seminar participants, and some weaknesses in their approach.

The Beginning of New Testament Criticism

The science of New Testament criticism is relatively new. Critical study of the New Testament books (e.g., questions of authorship, date, etc.) was not totally absent among early students of the Bible, but New Testament criticism really came into its own in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

In the early nineteenth century, rationalism, the dominant philosophy of the day, began invading New Testament scholarly circles. The New Testament was approached with an anti-supernatural bias, and mans reason became the final judge of its authenticity and authority.

Source Criticism

It was during this time that schools influenced by this rationalism turned their attention to the "Synoptic Problem" (i.e., the difficulty of accounting for the many similarities as well as differences evident between the first three Gospels). The effort to solve the Synoptic Problem through theorizing about source documents for these Gospels is known as Source Criticism.

To date, there is no universally accepted solution to the Synoptic Problem. However the "Two Source Theory" is widely accepted (even by some conservative scholars) Basically, this theory suggests that Mark was the first Gospel written, and that Matthew and Luke drew on Mark and a document called "Q" (probably from Quelle, German for "source") in writing their Gospels. The Two Source Theory has several weaknesses, including a lack of manuscript evidence for any such Q document.

Form Criticism

Source Criticism concentrated on studying the use of certain written documents purportedly behind the Gospels. However, it gave little concern to the origin of such sources. Questions eventually arose regarding what preceded these written sources.

Form Criticism (Formgeschicbte), accepting some form of Source Criticism theory, attempted to explain how the oral tradition was preserved, circulated and, finally, formalized.

The Form Critics task was to analyze the "form" of various units of oral tradition and classify them. Potentially a useful literary discipline, in the hands of such early Form Critics as Martin Dibelius and Rudolph Bultmann, it became a process of evaluating the historical validity of the identified units of oral tradition, And the presuppositions they introduced have resulted in the trends which we see today.

Form Criticism begins with the legitimate assumption that various oral reports about Jesus words and deeds circulated freely after His death. It then proceeds to argue that as these stories were retold, they were modified and embellished (and in some cases even created) by the Christian community to meet specific immediate needs. Both Dibelius and Bultmann embraced philosophies that al1owed them to categorize many such stories as "myth" or "legend" creations of the church thereby denying their historical basis.

Historie versus Geschichte

For Bultmann and many others who have followed in his footsteps, there are two types of history. "Historie" consists of the external and verifiable real space-time events; this is objective history "Geschichte" consists of events that are conceived to be true in mind or heart; it is internal and nonverifiable and constitutes "faith" or subjective history. There is no need for Geschichte to be based in Historie: "This distinction permits the assertion that something (say the resurrection of Jesus) is "true" [i.e.: geschichte] which is not "true" in the sense of history as-fact [i.e., historie]" (Richard Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 79).

Hence, for the Form Critic, underneath the Gospel record there is a Jesus of History (Historie). However, after His death, the reports of His life and teaching circulated, were modified, and finally accepted, creating a Christ of faith (Geschichte).

The task before the Form Critic is to "demythologize" the New Testament to work from the Christ of faith to arrive at the Jesus of history. This is the Form Critics "Quest for the Historical Jesus" to supposedly find the fact behind the story created by the church.

Redaction Criticism

Similar to the way Form Criticism grew out of apparent shortcomings in Source Criticism, so Redaction Criticism grew up in the 1950s our of apparent shortcomings in Form Criticism. The Form Critic, with his emphasis on the creative community, could offer no adequate explanation for the individual characteristics of the Synoptics. With Form Criticism, the evangelists were merely collators of the forms as found in the sources.

Redaction Criticism (Redaktiongescbichte) suggests that these distinctives are attributable to the evangelists. According to Redaction Criticism, the evangelists were not merely collators of oral tradition they were authors/editors ("redactors") in their own right. Supposedly they took the various forms available to them from the sources at hand and arranged, modified, and altered them, even, in some cases, going so far as to create material in writing their Gospels. All this was done with a specific theological purpose in mind. Hence, the evangelists are seen primarily as theologians and not historians, and it is assumed that their theological views rendered impossible their serving as good historians.

Summing it Up

Thus, beginning with an anti-supernatural, rationalistic base, the Source Critic attempts to identify the sources for the Synoptic Gospels. The Form Critic then explains how such sources grew out of the creative oral traditions concerning Jesus. Then the Redaction Critic explains how the evangelists put it all together, altering and creating along the way in order to fit their theological biases.

For one schooled along these lines of thought, the procedure for studying a biblical passage might well develop according to the following pattern. First, the "Gospel tradition" would be distinguished from its editorial framework. Then, each unit of the traditional material would be classified according to a particular form thought to fit the life situation of the early church. This would be followed by a stripping away of the alleged embellishments added to the basic tradition, Finally, judgment would be passed on the "stripped-down" traditions regarding their historicity and authenticity.

The Seminars Perspective
It is clear from the Jesus Seminars proceedings, and comments made by its participants, that the Seminar follows in the pattern of New Testament criticism just described. For example, the Salem Statesman-Journal (5 April 1986) reports:

In trying to determine the precise words of Jesus, the scholars [participating In the Seminar] consider the ancient culture and how the part under consideration fits into the flow of His teaching, Funk said.

The Great Commission, for example, has Christ ordering disciples to preach to the entire world and establish church institutions. Funk said scholars doubt that Jesus had a world view, and they say He had no interest in starting a church. The quotation was probably added later to Christs words, he said.

The idea that He was the savior of the world "was a fantasy created by the church" he said. Scholars of today look at such concepts as the Virgin Birth as "something not to be taken seriously or even argued about," he said.

Even In these brief comments, Robert Funks presuppositions are clear. For him, the Jesus of the Bible is not the Jesus of History. And, rejecting the Jesus of the Scriptures, he espouses a Jesus of his own creation.

This rejection of the biblical portrait of Jesus is reflected in all the Seminars work. In the first full voting session held in the fall of 1985, "the participants deem[ed] that more than half of the Jesus sayings in the Sermon on the Mount were put on his lips by Gospel authors or members of the early church" (Los Angeles Times 12 February 1986). In fact, at least nine of the Seminar participants do not feel anything recorded in the Gospels reflects what Jesus Himself said.

Thoughts In Response

Traditionally, the orthodox church has held that the Bible tells us what Jesus said and did. Although not an exhaustive record of His life (John 20:30), the Jesus of the Bible is the accepted Jesus of history.

Both the Scriptures and history affirm that there were many eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. These eyewitnesses, both pro-Christian (e.g., Acts 2:32) and anti-Christian (e.g., Acts 2:22), were alive at the time the oral tradition was forming and the written sources were supposedly prepared. It is inconceivable that the "creative believing community" with the help of the "theologically biased" evangelists could have successfully fabricated a "tradition" about Jesus that did not fit the historic facts. The hundreds of eyewitnesses would hardly have accepted such a fabrication.

Also, for the Jesus Seminar scenario to be workable, the early Christian community would have needed to lack a genuine interest in sound historical information about Jesus. Yet, even the Seminar participants desire historically sound and reliable information about Jesus (so they say). Why hold that the earliest Christians had less interest in preserving an accurate historical record of their Lord? Could the many who gave their lives do so for a Jesus of their own imagination?

The Jesus Seminar scholars also question the accuracy of the evangelists. They assume that because the Gospel writers were theologically informed and concerned they could not have written accurate history and, instead, resorted to manipulating and creating information to suit their own views. But, the Seminar participants are themselves theologically informed and concerned. How is it that they are capable of writing and evaluating objectively if the evangelists were incapable?

Perhaps the greatest internal flaw in the Seminars work has to do with its subjects nature. Ultimately, the Seminar participants reject portions of the Gospels as "nontypical" of Jesus, not on the basis of external evidence but merely their own subjective opinion concerning what He must have been like. Rejecting the Gospels as unreliable, they construct an imaginary Jesus and then measure the biblical portrait by their own corrupt standard.

As noted earlier, Funk states that Jesus had no interest in starting a church and that He was definitely not the savior of the world. Seeing that such views are not the views expressed in the extant historical material (i.e., the Gospels), where do Funk and his associates get such a view? It is, in the final analysis, personal bias; a "guess" masquerading as "truth" with the support of slanted "scholarship."

The fruit of the Jesus Seminar is the natural product of a diseased tree. With roots in rationalism, a tree afflicted with the errors of Form and Redaction Criticism has produced corrupt fruit. The assumptions and approach of the Seminar are both internally and biblically flawed.

In the final analysis, the work being done by the Seminar scholars is no different than the efforts of others who have gone before: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..." (Rom. 1:21-22).

[snappyanswer]

One more from CRI. But to stay on topic, Lynn of AU would probably line-up more with the J-S guys.

The Jesus Seminar and the Gospel of Thomas:
Courting the Media at the Cost of Truth


by James R. White


Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females dont deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven."1

A glance at the ancient text reproduced above immediately tells the reader that the author knew little, if anything, of biblical teaching concerning the roles of men and women, and of the fact that both men and women were created in the image of God. Such false teaching comes plainly from Gnostic sources that vilified the body and exalted the spirit, and in the process often denigrated the feminine and exalted the masculine. The early church struggled long and hard against Gnosticism, which constantly threatened her. As early as Pauls epistle to the Colossians, we find a strong warning against "protoGnosticism," telling us that Christ cannot be placed in any position other than that of Creator (Col. 1:1518; 2:89).

Anyone who thinks Gnosticism no longer has proponents should be advised that the truth is just the opposite. In fact, if the selfaggrandizing press releases of the Jesus Seminar are to be believed, the consensus of scholarship now believes that documents thoroughly influenced by Gnosticism, such as the Gospel of Thomas, from which the above citation is taken, are far more reflective of the actual teachings of Jesus Christ than the "canonical Gospels" familiar to most Christians Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The Jesus Seminar is a small group of extremely liberal scholars.2 Yet they seem to have a lock on the major media outlets so that their pronouncements are taken as the final word by major magazines, newspapers, and public broadcasting programs. As a result, headlines proclaiming that scholars have "discovered" that Jesus never said Hed return (so He wont), and the like, are common fare. What is worse, this kind of material finds its way into the college classroom as the "assured results of critical scholarship," and young Christians are faced with the specter of this imposing group of Bible scholars condemning their faith in a risen Savior as mere myth.

The leaders of the Jesus Seminar confidently proclaim themselves to be the standard bearers of the scholarly consensus. While they are, in reality, far away from the vast majority of biblical scholars, they vigorously deny their own marginality by proclaiming that everyone else is marginal.

In 1989 this writer attempted to dialogue with Dr. Robert Funk on a radio program in Phoenix, Arizona, concerning the Jesus Seminars conclusion that Jesus never intended to return. Funk was painfully clear that such men as F. F. Bruce and Leon Morris are "fringe scholars" whose opinions have been rejected by "the guild."3 I pointed out that when one defines who is and who is not a scholar, its quite easy to say "all scholars agree with us." All one has to do is say, "Everyone who disagrees with me is not a scholar." Sadly, most in the mainstream media never challenge the easy and grandiose claims of the leaders of the Jesus Seminar.

With the release of The Five Gospels in 1993, the Jesus Seminar helped propel the secondcentury Gospel of Thomas into the forefront of media attention. For all intents and purposes, the Jesus Seminar has "canonized" this "Gospel," known primarily from a Coptic translation found in Egypt at Nag Hammadi in late 1945 (though fragments of Thomas, written in Greek, had been discovered years earlier). In fact, it is quite clear that the scholars of the Seminar consider the Gospel of Thomas far more reliable and important than the Gospel of John, and probably more than Matthew and Lukes Gospels as well, as far as being useful in "reconstructing" the words of the "historical Jesus." Using their color coding method of determining Jesus real words, the Gospel of Thomas allegedly provides more of the authentic Jesus than does the entire Gospel of John.

That these scholars are unfairly biased toward the importance of Thomas can hardly be denied.

The large majority of scholars date The Gospel of Thomas to the middle of the second century. The reason is obvious. The religious beliefs and concepts that came into vogue after the New Testament period deeply influenced this work. Strange, esoteric doctrines and beliefs appear throughout Thomas. These teachings are not only directly contradictory to the teachings of the canonical Gospels, but they also point to a date for the production of the work well into the century after Christ. Here is a sampling of interesting statements attributed to Jesus in The Gospel of Thomas:

"When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father" (15).

"If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty" (29:13).

"Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one" (30).

"Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the [Fathers] domain. For you have come from it, and will return there again....If they say to you, Where have you come from? say to them, We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image. If they say to you, Is it you? say, We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father. If they ask you, What is the evidence of your Father in you? say to them, It is motion and rest" (4950:13).

"I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there" (77:13).

"How miserable is the body that depends on a body, and how miserable is the soul that depends on these two" (87).

"Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him" (108).

"Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh" (112).

The thorough influence of Gnostic concepts is found throughout these passages. Yet, despite this, the Jesus Seminar is willing only to say that Thomas reflects an "incipient gnosticism." Admitting how thoroughly the work is soaked in Gnostic thought would place Thomas far into the second century and would show to the unbiased observer that the canonical Gospels are far superior to Thomas on any meaningful historical basis.

In addition to the plain influence of a developed Gnostic world view, the Gospel of Thomas also shows deep familiarity with the canonical Gospels, freely drawing from them. These two factors together obviously make Thomas a late and secondary work.

So why has the Jesus Seminar made such an issue of Thomas? The answer goes to the very heart of what the Jesus Seminar is all about: the re-creation of the Christian faith in a mold more pleasing to the leaders of the group (Robert Funk in particular). Funks dislike of confessional, historical Christian belief is easily documented in his writings. Dedicating The Five Gospels to Galileo, Thomas Jefferson ("who took scissors and paste to the gospels"), and David Strauss hardly leaves one in doubt of the viewpoint of the editors.

But to reconstruct Christianity, they need to get rid of the main thing standing in their way: the church, replete with its doctrines and creeds, including, above all, an orthodox view of Christ. Hence, no matter how little notice is given by the media, the Jesus Seminar is on a crusade to undercut, in the name of selfdefined scholarship, the authority of Scripture and the historicity of the very founder of the faith, Jesus Christ. The results of their "research" are all determined from the start. The Jesus proclaimed by Christians around the world never existed. There is no risen Christ, no resurrection, no coming kingdom. This is the "gospel" of the Jesus Seminar, and any piece of information usable, including a secondcentury Gnostic "Gospel" attributed to Thomas, is fair game.

What should the believer do when faced with a person who finds in the Jesus Seminar the epitome of "serious biblical scholarship" (the very phrase used by none other than the atheist magazine, Free Inquiry)? We dare not treat them as they treat us. That is, since the Jesus Seminar simply defines conservative scholarship out of existence, do we just return the favor? Or do we arm ourselves with the facts and engage their outrageous claims and conclusions on the battlefield of meaningful debate? It is plain they will not engage us in full public view, for they already have the media on their side, and they know they cannot win such an engagement anyway. But this does not relieve us from the duty of "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15). We need to instruct our young people concerning the methods and errors of such "scholarship" and assure them that they are not wrong in their faith despite being told they are "out of step" with such "developments." They need to know they can respond in a meaningful way to the claims of these groups and truly "give the reason" (1 Pet. 3:15) for the hope that is within them.



NOTES

1Thomas 114:13, cited from The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, ed. Robert W. Funk and Roy W. Hoover (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1993). The translation provided is modestly and characteristically named The Scholars Version. All citations of Thomas in this article are from the S.V. The reason for the variation in how the citations are listed in this review is that some of the sections have verse breaks, but most do not.
2For a discussion of the Jesus Seminar and the scholars involved, see Craig L. Blomberg, "The Seventy-Four Scholars: Who Does the Jesus Seminar Really Speak For?" Christian Research Journal, Fall 1994, 32-38. For a more recent response, see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1996).
3This fascinating interview, which included Dr. Funks insistence that "fundamentalists" are on a "witch hunt" and wish to reinstate the "Inquisition" so that they can "kill" true scholars, ended with Dr. Funk telling the hosts and the guests (including myself) to "go to hell" and hanging up on us. This tape (#419) is available from Alpha and Omega Ministries through our web page at http://www.aomin.org, or at P.O. Box 37106, Phoenix, AZ 85069.