Blog

17 Mar, 2024

Blog

Happy St. Paddy’s Day

How Christians Define Faith

A critique of B. Kyle Keltz’s definition of faith

 

Renown atheist Dan Barker says,

Faith would be unnecessary, they remind us, if God’s existence were proved to be a blunt fact of reality. But this is a huge cop out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are admitting that the assertion can’t be taken on its own merits. If something is true, we don’t invoke Faith. Instead, we use reason to prove it. Faith is intellectual bankruptcy. With faith, you don’t have to put any work into proving your case or overcoming objections. You can “just believe.”

Keltz replies

Barker is abusing the definition of “faith” because in each one of these cases, “faith” is defined without any mention of how Christians define faith. Barker is defining faith as he experienced it during his days as a Christian evangelist and not as it is understood by Christian theologians. I will emphasize that Barker is free to reject what he is defining as “faith,” but this is not a rejection of faith as understood in the classical Christian tradition.

In this blog, we’ll see just how correct Barker’s statement really is, and if Keltz can prove his case for the existence of God based on how theologians view faith.

According to Keltz, Barker’s definition of faith is not how christian theologians understand faith. Which begs the obvious question. How do christians define faith? One would think that Keltz would supply the answer to that question rather early in his article. But that was not to be! It took some careful reading and word mining before I was finally able to find it, (much like the small print in a pharmaceutical advertisement).

He spent nearly 5,000 of his 6,900 words discussing his view of what is meant by “classical understanding of faith and reason”, and quoting Thomas Aquinas ad nauseam. Finally, 5,656 words later, I was able to find the “christian faith” needle in Keltz’s verbose and amphigoric hay stack. Here’s what he says about how christians define faith.

The act of faith, in theology, is the will commanding the intellect to assent to the truth of a proposition based on the authority of God.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Having faith in some proposition of theology means that your will overrides your intellect and tells it to believe in something that is not factual and for which there is no proof, all because we are told that the proposition is “based on the authority of God”, (which also is without proof).

Let’s be perfectly clear.

Before we continue, I feel it is necessary to clarify some issues. If you are a secularist or an atheist, or better yet, a former evangelical turned atheist (like me) you will see immediately the fallacious errors in Geltz’s argument and won’t need my critique. If you’re an evangelical, like Geltz, you never will see the errors and are probably already starting to compose your 7,000-word reply to correct me.

If, however, you’re on a journey to discover the truth of christianity and are beginning to question what you are being told from the pulpit, this blog’s for you. (Sounds like a beer commercial, huh?) What I want you to pay attention to is how Geltz uses many fallacious arguments in his attempt to discredit Barker’s understanding of faith. This is bad form and Keltz should know better.

Geltz incorporates christian doctrines into his arguments that he says are “the truth” but cannot be proven. Much of what he says can only be taken on faith alone. However, that’s not how he presents it. He offers christian doctrines in his argument as if they are given and accepted truths. I have underlined such fallacies.

What is Christian Faith?

Geltz arguments are based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas which, as we mentioned before, he quotes ad nauseum.

Aquinas’s understanding of faith shows how Barker was able to give up Christianity so easily, intellectually speaking. Barker took all the truths of Christianity on faith. He never considered arguments for God’s existence or the historical evidence for the life and death of Jesus Christ.

First off, what exactly are the “truths” of christianity? And how do we know they are actually true? The obvious answer is “we don’t know they are true” they can only be taken “by faith”. Can anything in the previous paragraph be taken as truths or are they issues of faith? I’ll let you answer that.

I doubt that Keltz has actually read Barker’s book godless where Barker addresses the issues that Keltz claims “he never considered”. (Chapter 6: Refuting God, Chapter 15: Did Jesus Exist? Chapter 16: Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?) It’s clear from reading godless that Barker gave these beliefs careful consideration before he came to the conclusion that “Christianity was not true”, and therefore decided to leave.

Beliefs can count as knowledge.

Keltz continues…

Here we see Aquinas referring to assent as knowledge. This means that, for Aquinas, beliefs can count as knowledge. So, as long as someone knows the truth, he has knowledge. Thus, the objects of faith can be knowledge.

“Beliefs can count a knowledge”? That’s a new one to me. If I’m understanding this correctly, all those years I spent in Sunday school classes gave me knowledge and that accumulated knowledge can now be an object of faith. Geltz avoids the obvious question here. Is the knowledge anyone gains in years of Sunday school actually true? Maybe you’ve never stopped to answer that question. I didn’t until I was in my 30s. Just because someone has biblical knowledge and knows a lot about christian doctrines, does not make any of it true?

Geltz writes “as long as someone knows the truth” but he hasn’t told us yet what “truth” he’s referring to. But we’re coming to that. And it will be up to you to decide if what he calls the truth, actually IS the truth.

God is the Object of Faith.

Geltz continues…

Aquinas establishes several things regarding the object of faith. He determines that the object of faith must be God: unseen, not fully known, yet partly known through propositions.

If you are trying to prove the existence of God, it’s bad form to start with the proposition that God’s existence is a given. It’s the hypothesis, not the proof.

In discussing that the object of faith is God, Aquinas says, “Now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason. Because all theological truths are about God it follows that God is the object of faith.

Once again, we must ask if “all theological truths” are actually true.

As the object of faith, God cannot be fully known or seen. Wherefore it is evident that neither faith nor opinion can be of things seen either by the senses or by the intellect.  Anything that is seen or fully known with certainty cannot be an object of faith because the truth of a proposition that is experienced with the senses or reached as the conclusion of a logical demonstration is certain.

At last, Geltz has given us a semblance of valid reasoning, but then he attempts to show that the “truth of any proposition about God” can be gained by faith and reasoning. Let’s see how solid his argument really is. He continues…

Thus, something that is seen or fully known through logical demonstration cannot be an object of faith. However, God is partly known through propositions based in reasoning and in God’s revelation to humanity. God’s authority as Creator and Sustainer of the universe provides the basis for assenting to the truths of faith.

The phrase “God is partly known” starts with the assumption that God actually exists. It’s fallacious to start an argument for the existence of God with the assumption that God does exists. Atheists like Barker and others are simply waiting for the proof. Where’s the proof?

“God’s revelation to humanity”, and “God’s authority as Creator and Sustainer of the universe” are both statements that must in fact also be taken entirely by faith. Once again, it’s fallacious to start with those two propositions as “givens” and then claim that they are the basis for the truths of faith.

Didn’t we just come full circle? Let’s see if I understand this correctly. We can prove God’s existence through reason, as long as we start with the proposition that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. It’s kind of like saying that we can reasonably believe that Santa Clause lives at the north pole as long as we start with the proposition that Santa Clause truly exists.

Now it gets rather jumbled. I will break this up into smaller parts so we can digest it better. Remember anything I have underlined is something that Keltz takes for granted as a truth which atheists must reject until there is sufficient proof.

Keltz continues,

Returning to Aquinas’s preferred definition of “faith” as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not, it is now evident why he thinks that this is a sufficient definition. Aquinas explains that “the substance of things hoped for” is a reference to the object of faith, which is God. God as the object of faith is “hoped for” because the believer does not yet have full knowledge of God, which can only be obtained through the beatific vision in heaven.

Full knowledge of God can only be obtained by going to heaven? Clearly that is a proposition that must be taken entirely on faith.

The “evidence of things that appear not” refers to the act of faith. Assent is given by the intellect on command of the will based on the available evidence in considering the truth of Scripture.

Once again, the believer is being asked to override his/her intellect in order to accept the “truth of scripture” which is based on available evidence. Huh? What evidence?

This is belief because the truths of faith are not certain in that they are beyond the reach of natural theology. They cannot be demonstrated or experienced through the senses, and their truth must be assented to on the authority of their source, which is God.

Okay, let’s see if I understand this logic. Although the “truths of faith” are not certain and cannot be demonstrated, they must be accepted on the basis that God is in authority? As long as believers START with the proposition that God exists, they can concede (through reason) that God exists. Once again this is fallacious reasoning.

Faith and Reason

Geltz continues,

There are truths that are only known through reason (i.e. scientific proof with no faith required), such as the number of planets in the solar system, the atomic mass of oxygen, the lifecycles of butterflies. There are truths that are known through both faith and reason, such as… the existence of God, the existence of the soul, and the resurrection of Jesus. Finally, there are truths of faith that are known only on the authority of God, such as God’s triunity, Jesus’s death on the cross the atonement for the sins of humanity, the resurrection, judgment of the dead at the end of days.

Wow!! So, it doesn’t matter about proof or a lack of proof? Once again, we seem to have come full circle. There’s still no proof for any of the “truths” Geltz mentions, but that doesn’t seem to matter. As long as christians can use “philosophical reasoning” as their justification, then anything they “want” to be true, can be declared as actually true. Do I need to point out again that this is fallacious reasoning?

How True are Geltz’s Truths?

Atheist Barker defines faith as “believing something without any evidence or with evidence to the contrary.” Theist Keltz takes issue with that and says that christians define faith differently and have done so for centuries. Here is an incomplete list of beliefs that Keltz says are true based on HIS definition of faith. Ask yourself, does Geltz offer any real evidence for any these beliefs?

The following are truths for Geltz.

  • God has revealed himself to humanity.
  • God is the creator (in six days) and sustainer of the universe.
  • Scripture is true.
  • The existence of God.
  • The existence of the soul.
  • The resurrection of Jesus.
  • God’s triunity.
  • Jesus’s death on the cross.
  • The atonement for the sins of humanity.
  • The resurrection.
  • Full knowledge of God can only be obtained in heaven.
  • The judgment of the dead at the end of days.

Only for the intellectual elite

An interesting thing about Keltz’s argument is that this higher understanding of faith and truth are not available to just anyone. One must be a trained theologian to understand it. He writes…

Aquinas is saying that… much of this knowledge is beyond the reach of unaided reason. (and that) not everyone has the means, time, ability, or motivation to learn natural theology, (and that) only the intellectual elite can have knowledge of God’s existence, attributes, etc., (and that) only a few have the opportunity to study and understand the truths of natural theology. Some truths can only be known through faith. Yet it allows for many truths of Christianity to be known through human reasoning. Knowledge of God and the truths of christianity can be attained by rigorous philosophy, and it can also be attained by laypeople through…

wait for it…
wait for it…
wait for it…

…faith.

Side note: Added 3/26/2024.

Keltz writes, only the intellectual elite can have knowledge of God’s existence, attributes, etc., (and that) only a few have the opportunity to study and understand the truths of natural theology.

After doing some extra research about “natural theology” I found this on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website.

The question of whether natural theology is a viable project is at the root of some of the deepest religious divisions: Shi’ite thinkers are optimistic about reason’s ability to prove various theological and ethical truths, for instance, while Sunnis are not; Roman Catholic theologians typically think that reason provides demonstrations of the existence of God, while many Protestant theologians do not. Unlike most of the topics discussed in an encyclopedia of philosophy, this is one over which wars have been fought and throats have been cut.

It’s disturbing that the one thing a religious elite like Geltz points to (other than faith) that can prove the existence of God is something “over which wars have been fought and throats have been cut”. If this is his proof of God, then I, without hesitation, choose to remain a secularist.

Conclusion

So here we are, back at square one. Keltz took issues with Barker’s definition of faith and argued that the combination of faith and reason can confirm the truths of christianity. But after 6,900 words he admits that only a few can have knowledge of God and everyone else is left to rely on “faith” alone. So, let’s go back to Barker’s words about the usefulness of faith.

“If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are admitting that the assertion can’t be taken on its own merits. If something is true, we don’t invoke Faith.”

When all is said and done, Keltz has failed in both of his objectives. He did not prove that Barker’s definition of faith is inaccurate, and he did not prove that the christian definition of faith has any validity. He then ends his argument by admitting that only intellectual elites (like himself) can gain this higher understanding of faith and reason, while everyone else has to take it entirely on faith alone.

It would have been so much easier, more honest and less verbose if Keltz had just accepted Barker’s definition of faith and then added the “real” truth, which might have gone something like this.

“As christians we have traditions and beliefs that we can’t prove but choose to believe anyway. Our religion depends on these beliefs which we elevate to “truths”. We love and need our religion. That is why we fiercely defend it even though many of us deep down suspect that our beliefs are indeed not true, (but we would never dare say this out loud.) In addition, we just don’t want Barker to be right because he is living proof that even “without Christ” all things are possible. He embarrasses us and that is why we must oppose him.”

(Could have been done in less than 100 words.)

Coming next:

Many of the authors of Answering the Music Man use arguments based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas. We’ll explore the validity of defending christianity based on 900-year-old philosophy.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

11 Mar, 2024

Blog

Are Faith and Reason Compatible?

B. Kyle Keltz

Keltz, earned a PhD in Philosophy of Religion and a MA in Apologetics. He also has ties to the C.S. Lewis Institute, whose mission is to develop wholehearted disciples of Jesus Christ who articulate, defend, share, and live their faith in personal and public life.

“It is in the nature of faith that one is capable of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so.” Richard Dawkins

“Religious faith is not adjustable. It remains strong in spite of a lack of evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence” Dan Barker

_______________________________________

Like the lonely heart who keeps waiting for the phone to ring, I kept trusting that God would someday come through. He never did. The only proposed answer was faith, and I gradually grew to dislike the smell of that word. I finally realized that faith is a cop-out, a defeat—an admission that the truths of religion are unknowable through evidence and reason. – Dan Barker

“What theists lack in logic they make up for in length.”

Dan Barker’s statement about faith contains 66 words. Keltz’s reply, on the other hand, reached a whopping 6,900 words. Once again Keltz’s reply, like Ferrer’s, is not only unnecessarily lengthy but also lacking any evidence for the existence of God.

One would think that the best way for a theist to discredit an atheist would be to logically prove beyond all doubt that their god actually does exist, but that’s not what Keltz does. Instead, he spends the bulk of his article arguing against Barker’s definition of the word “faith”, which according to Keltz, is not how christians define it.

Needless to say, I cannot critique all of Keltz’s 6,900-word reply, so I will summarize most of it and focus only on certain highlights that seem most important. Keltz spent nearly 5,000 words attempting to explain the philosophical connection between faith and reason and then preceded to explain why the combination of faith and reason can actually prove the existence of God… at least for christians. Let’s see how valid his argument really is.

Keltz begins his critique like this… (underlining is mine)

OF ALL THE CONCEPTS associated with Christianity, faith is probably the one that is most abused by atheist proselytizers. Often it is claimed that “faith” is “believing something without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary,” and faith and reason are incompatible. Atheists are abusing the definition of “faith” because, “faith” is defined without any mention of how Christians define “faith.” These comments are misleading because they can lead people to think they represent the only definition of “faith” or that they are referring to what Christians believe.

There’s another definition of “faith”? Isn’t that kind of like, “alternative facts”? It was a revelation to me that (according to Geltz) christians define faith differently than everyone else. Okay, this is interesting already. We’ll take a deeper dive into how christians define “faith” later, but for now, let’s see how the dictionary and the bible define “faith”.

Faith

Dictionary: noun, “a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”

Bible: Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV)

The bible says that faith is… evidence of things not seen. So, having faith in something is evidence that it exists?  How can that be? We’ll get back to that but first let’s look at the dictionary definition.

If you’re like me, you’re not quite sure what is meant by the term “spiritual apprehension”. I googled it and found an enlightening article which explained what that term means. The article goes like this…

  • Science is a way of finding truth. The Latin root of this word, scientia, means “knowledge.” We formulate hypotheses, perform experiments, gather and analyze data, and make conclusions based on statistical tests.
  • Faith is another way of finding truth. In this case, a “spiritual apprehension” is an awareness or understanding that comes through the Spirit, not through the scientific method.

Okay, that makes a little bit of sense, the author continues…

  • In a revelation given through Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery, who was seeking knowledge, the Lord said, “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart” (Doctrine and Covenants 8:2). I might add that the promptings of the Spirit come after we have done our part to study things out, and that faith is not to have a perfect knowledge. We don’t have meters that can measure these promptings, but that doesn’t mean we don’t get promptings and learn to trust them.

So according to the author of this article published by BYU the teachings of Joseph Smith can be realized as truth only when the Holy Ghost dwells in a person’s heart. (What would evangelicals think about that?) If the doctrines of Mormonism can be believed as true on the basis of an understanding that “comes through the spirit rather than proof” couldn’t all other religious doctrines be believed by the same measurement? Do Muslims have faith? Do Hindus? Do Buddhists? Does their faith prove that their religion is true?

Truth is truth, right?

So, if all religions are using the same measuring stick (i.e. faith) to validate their beliefs why do they end up coming to different conclusions? If that’s the case, is faith really an accurate way to find “truth”? Every religion would affirm that for their religion and their religion alone the answer to that question is an unequivocal “yes”. Let’s see what an atheist might say.

Barker writes…

If faith is valid, then anything goes. Muslims believe in Allah by faith, so they must be right. The Hindus are right. The Greeks and Romans were right. More people claim to have seen or been healed by Elvis Presley than ever claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. With faith, everybody is right.

Keltz seems to agree:

If it is okay to believe something without any evidence, this means that it is okay to believe in anything and suggests that all religions are right, although most religions make opposing claims regarding the nature of reality and the purpose of humanity. Barker mentions that even atheism could be taken on faith according to this definition.

It’s interesting that Keltz makes this last claim that (according to Barker) atheism can be taken on faith. He (not surprisingly) failed to include the rest of Barker’s quote in his article, but we were able to find it in Barker’s book, godless. If you actually read Barker’s own words you will realize that he is being facetious. See for yourself.

Barker writes…

“With faith, everybody is right. Suppose an atheist, refusing to look at any religious claims, were to say, “You must have faith that there is no God. If you believe in your heart that nothing transcends nature and that humanity is the highest judge of morality, then you will know that atheism is true. That will make you a better person.”

Any atheist or secularist would read this and chuckle at the satirical humor. The idea that an atheist would use faith to reinforce their non-belief in gods, is a rather silly idea, which was Barker’s intent. However, this level of satire seems to be lost on the likes of Keltz.

Keltz continues by laying out his plan to discredit Barker.

Next, I will explain the classical Christian position regarding faith and reason as presented by Thomas Aquinas (born 1225 CE). After this, I will contrast Barker’s understanding of faith with Aquinas’s understanding. I will conclude that Barker is defining “faith” as he experienced it during his days as a Christian evangelist and not as it is understood by Christian theologians in the classical Christian tradition.

So, let’s take a quick look at how Barker views faith as it relates to belief in gods and then next week, we’ll take a deeper dive into how “christian theologians” define faith. Hmm, that should be interesting!

Dan Barker on Faith and Reason

“Do I want God, or do I want truth? You can’t have both.”

Barker says,

“Faith would be unnecessary, they remind us, if God’s existence were proved to be a blunt fact of reality. But this is a huge cop out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are admitting that the assertion can’t be taken on its own merits. If something is true, we don’t invoke faith.”

As a secularist this certainly makes sense to me. I wonder if Keltz has ever asked any of his atheistic friends what they think of Barker’s statement. Oh, wait, Keltz spent his entire educational career in the protective bubble of evangelical institutions. I seriously doubt he has ever actually spoken face to face with anyone who identifies as an atheist, except perhaps in a debate. What he would find, is that many atheists actually spent years practicing christianity before they abandoned their faith. They therefore have a better understanding of the inner workings of christianity. Theists, on the other hand, seem to have very little understanding of the nature of atheism. This is not surprising, and we will explore this idea more in future blogs.

I lost faith in faith.

Barker writes,

“Finally, at the far end of my theological migration, I was forced to admit that there is no basis for believing that a god exists, except faith, and faith was not satisfactory to me. I did not lose my faith—I gave it up purposely. The motivation that drove me into the ministry—to know and speak the truth—is the same that drove me out. I lost faith in faith. When I learned that Christianity is not true, I had to decide: ‘Do I want God, or do I want truth?’ You can’t have both.”

Coming next:

A Classical Christian Understanding of Faith and Reason

Keltz employs the writings of Thomas Aquinas in an attempt to demonstrate that the combination of faith and reason actually can prove the existence of God. We’ll see how successful he is.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

29 Feb, 2024

Blog

February 29 – A quadrennial event

Answering the Man Who Answered the Music Man

Theist John Ferrer Ph.D. -vs- Atheist Dan Barker

Who has the higher intellectual ground?

In the previous blog we examined Ferrer’s critique of renown atheist Dan Barker. Although we know what (and why) Dan Barker believes (or doesn’t believe), we have no idea what Ferrer believes, because in his 7,300-word critique of Barker’s definition of atheism, he chose not to enlighten us about his personal believes. With that in mine, let’s see if we can discover what he believes based on his association with his alma maters. We know that Ferrer earned a Master of Divinity in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary and a Master of Theology and a PhD in Philosophy of Religion from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. So, let’s see what those institutions believe (based on their mission statements), because what they believe is most likely what Ferrer believes.

What Ferrer believes

Southern Evangelical Seminary

We believe the sixty–six books of the Old and New Testament Scripture alone to be verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original text, and that they alone are of supreme and final authority in faith and life.

We have seen this claim that the bible is inerrant “in the original text” in a number of evangelical mission statements. Perhaps it’s due in part to Dr. Bart Ehrman’s book Forged in which he sheds an undeniable light on the fallacy of biblical inerrancy. Evangelicals can no longer say that the bible (as we know it today) is inerrant. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary. We know without a doubt that scribes made mistakes while copying manuscripts, that mistakes were made in translation, and that at times scribes even added their own ideas to some biblical texts. Being forced to face this truth evangelicals have reluctantly added the line “in the original text” to their mission statements. But how many people have actually ever read the NT in the original Greek? Has Ferrer? Is the bible that most people are carrying with them to church on Sundays really inerrant?

Attributes of God

In the following section Southern Evangelical Seminary details what they believe to be the attributes of God. Since Ferrer demands that Dan Barker prove that there is no God, let’s turn the table and request that Ferrer “prove” each one of these is an attribute of his god. What do you think? How many of these are verifiable? If you’re an evangelical, you might say that all of them are because the bible tells you so.  If like me, you said that none of them are verifiable, you would be correct.

(In their mission statement this is one long sentence, but I have made it into a list for easier reading.)

Ferrer believes in one God who is…

  • creator of heaven and earth,
  • a spirit
  • infinite
  • light
  • love
  • truth
  • eternal
  • almighty
  • infallible in all things, including His foreknowledge of all future events
  • unchangeable
  • all wise
  • just
  • holy
  • triune in one essence and three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We can see now why Ferrer chose to omit his personal beliefs in his critique of Dan Barker. There is no way he can defend this. But it gets even better.

The historicity of Genesis.

  • We believe in the special creation of the entire space–time universe and of every basic form of life in the six historic days of the Genesis creation record.
  • We also believe in the historicity of the biblical record, including the special creation of Adam and Eve as the literal progenitors of all people,
  • the literal fall and resultant divine curse on the creation,
  • the worldwide flood,
  • and the origin of nations and diverse languages at the tower of Babel.

I still don’t understand how someone could earn a master’s and a doctorate degree and still believe in the myths of the book of Genesis such as a six-day creation, or Adam and Eve, or the flood or the tower of Babel. Higher education is supposed to expand your world view. If it doesn’t then it’s not being done right. I would propose that Ferrer has surrendered his intellectual high ground by believing in the historicity of Genesis.

 

 

My wife and I recently visited Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. The geological formations in those two national parks are absolutely stunning. We continually were in awe of the beauty of the earth, and we mockingly commented that it’s amazing what God could do in just six days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To maintain the belief in a six-day creation story is reprehensible and to be honest also downright embarrassing.

 

 

 

It’s amazing what God can do in six days!

 

In his critique of Dan Barker, Ferrer claims that atheists fail to demonstrate intellectual superiority over theists. He writes,

Modern atheists can presume intellectual superiority over any theist, without any significant intellectual work on their part. This recipe smells rotten. Barker, (and other atheists) would do well to remember that abstaining from God-belief is nothing meritorious in itself. And neither does active questioning prove any special intelligence.

If Dan Barker wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability, he is going to have to earn it just like anyone else.

My questions: Does a master’s degree and a Ph.D. from a christian seminary qualify Ferrer as having done his intellectual work? Does Ferrer maintain that a god-belief is meritorious in itself? Wouldn’t failing to question be considered a lack of intelligence?

Ferrer’s failure to question the bible’s accuracy concerning even the most basic knowledge or our world, even after years of education, (albeit in a safe evangelical bubble) proves that he has not done the intellectual work and has not earned the intellectual respectability he claims to have. In his words, his claim to intellectual superiority “smells rotten”. But there’s more!

The Devil made me do it!

We believe that there is a personal devil, a being of great cunning and power, who is “the prince and the power of the air,” “the prince of this world,” and “the god of this age.” We believe that he can exert vast power but only as far as God permits him to do so; that he shall ultimately be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and shall be tormented day and night forever.

A personal devil? I love the phrase, “We believe that he can exert vast power but only as far as God permits him to do so.” So, did God allow the devil to ruin the Garden of Eden? Did God allow the devil to tempt the mythical Adam and Eve which resulted in the damnation of the entire human race? The devil gets the blame for a multitude of offenses these days. Can Ferrer prove that the devil actually exists? Of course not! He would prefer that secularists be required to prove that the devil doesn’t exist.

Now let’s turn to where Ferrer earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Their mission statement is pretty much the same (as you might imagine) but it has some additional intriguing points.

Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.

The “supreme standard” by which all human contact should be tried? It’s not enough, for the likes of Ferrer, to believe the myths found in the bible, they also feel compelled to force their beliefs onto everyone else. Including me and including you! I don’t believe the stories of Genesis. Am I allowed to have my own religious opinions, or will the thought police be there to enforce their supreme standard on me? What if my opinion is that religion (all religion) is a farce? It’s a good thing we’re living in the 21st century. Having this opinion several hundred years ago would have gotten me a center seat at the town barbeque.

God

God is all powerful and all knowing; and God’s perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures.

This one is classic. God knows the future. I might have free choice, but God already knows what choices I am going to make. God not only knows what I’ll have for breakfast tomorrow, but also, what I’ll have for breakfast every day for the rest of my life. Multiply that by 7 billion and that must be exhausting for God. Maybe I’m over thinking this, but if God really is all powerful and all-knowing wouldn’t it be a better use of God’s time and energy to make sure that everyone on this planet has something to eat for breakfast, or lunch or dinner? If God is so powerful, why are people still starving to death every day? The belief that God is “all powerful and all knowing” can only held by someone with a full belly. Try telling someone who is slowly starving to death that God is all powerful but chooses not to intervene to help them.

Here’s one that defies reasoning.

Christianity is the faith of enlightenment and intelligence. In Jesus Christ abide all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. All sound learning is, therefore a part of our Christian heritage. The new birth opens all human faculties and creates a thirst for knowledge.

I don’t know about you, but it has not been my experience that Christianity is the “faith of enlightenment and intelligence”, nor that becoming a Christian “creates a thirst for knowledge”. It certainly seems to have the opposite effect. Knowledge, i.e. “acceptable knowledge”, must be subjected to the teaching of the bible while non-biblical knowledge must be avoided. Does Ferrer actually believe that all “sound learning” is a part of Christian heritage?

The will of Christ?

All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love.

This is the bottom line for Christians. Their version of the truth must become supreme in all human society. They are called by their god to force Christ’s will (i.e. their will) on everyone else. This is why we need Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Our democracy needs to be protected from christians who feel “obligated” to force their religious beliefs on all “human society”. No wonder Dan Barker’s version of atheism makes Ferrer uncomfortable.

Don’t be fooled by the “brotherly love part. Read Romans 1 if you want to know how Christians really view non-believers. And for that matter, what is “truth”? For Ferrer the book of Genesis is the truth. I don’t believe in Ferrer’s “truth”, and I certainly don’t want him or any other christian deciding my truth for me.

It’s very clear now why Ferrer didn’t use any of his seven-thousand-plus words to defend his theism… because he can’t. His education took place in a safe fundamentalist bubble where he never had to question his beliefs. Questioning is not encouraged in evangelical circles; in fact, it’s not allowed.

In conclusion:

Ferrer’s post-graduate degrees do not automatically award him with the higher intellectual ground. If he wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability, he is going to have to earn it just like anyone else, and that means he must boldly seek the truth and, like Dan Barker, follow it wherever it leads.

Coming Next:

Another theist takes his turn critiquing atheist Dan Barker. This time he takes issue with Barker’s definition of “faith”. We’ll see how this goes for him. Plus, will this theist, (unlike Ferrer) use any of his 7,000 words to actually prove the existence of his god? And if not, why not?

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

19 Feb, 2024

Blog

ANSWERING THE MUSIC MAN

Atheism New and Old by John D. Ferrer

A Critique of Dan Barker’s Brand of Atheism

In case you are not familiar with the reference to the “Music Man” here’s a link to Dan Barker’s story of going from a teenage evangelist and christian music composer to becoming an atheist.

Dan Barker: Since I do not believe in a god, I am by default described as an atheist. Theists do not have a god: they have a belief. Atheism is the lack of theism, the lack of belief in god(s).

Before we get started with Ferrer’s critique, let me say that Dan Barker does not need my help defending himself from the likes of the authors of Answering the Music Man. None of them would do well in a one-on-one debate with Barker. Perhaps that’s why they wrote a book.

In his book “godless” Dan Barker says this about theists who are attempting to discredit him and other atheists.

“What they lack in logic they make up for in length.”

This is certainly the case with John D. Ferrer. Barker’s rather simple definition of Atheism contains just 40 words. Ferrer’s response, on the other hand, exceeds 7,300 words.

One would think that the best way for a theist to discredit an atheist would be to logically prove beyond all doubt that their god actually does exist. I expected that somewhere in Ferrer’s 7,300 words he would be able to produce at least some semblance of a defense for his theism. But that’s not what he does. Instead he spends the bulk of his 7,300 words arguing against Barker’s definition of the word “atheism”. With that said, let’s look at what Ferrer says about renown atheist Dan Barker.

Here’s how he begins he defense… (underline is mine)

Words evolve over time, growing, losing, and changing definitions, all depending on fickle social fashions. The word “atheism” is no exception. In the last ten to fifteen years, a new definition of “atheism has grown in popularity, threatening to replace the classic sense of the word. And people like Dan Barker are benefactors.

He spends the rest of his wordy diatribe attempting to prove that Barker’s definition of the word “atheism” is dishonest. He also spends some of his 7,300 words belittling Barker on a personal level. I guess this is what you do (ad hominem) when you are unable to produce a defense of theism.

Ferrer: Is Barker just an intellectual hipster who can’t stomach “old-fashioned” classics without a spritz of irony? He’s in his seventies now, so “hipster” probably isn’t the right term for him. Although, I’m sure he has rocked the tweed jacket and craft beer from time to time. Barker, however, is firmly entrenched in a new socio-culture of atheism known, ironically, as New Atheism.

Ferrer attempts of discredit Barker’s definition of “atheism” and also to attack Barker’s Freedom From Religion Foundation. Ferrer not only doesn’t like Barker’s definition of atheism he doesn’t like Barker’s brand of atheism. He wants Barker to play nice. This coming from a man who is a “teaching fellow” for a pro-life organization that I’m sure, would have no issue taking away a woman’s right to control her own body.

Here’s what Ferrer says about what he calls Barker’s “new atheism”

Ferrer: New Atheists like Dan Barker would have to dull their blade a bit and learn to play nice with others. Dan Barker and his Freedom From Religion Foundation will likely persist as militant as ever, competing for territory, and promoting nontheism, secularism, and irreligion with all the fervor of an evangelistic crusade.

Here’s what Barker says about his evangelistic crusade.

“Once a preacher always a preacher (in my case, at least), so the question now was, “Should I preach atheism?” When all is said and done, we can’t help being who we are. I had developed certain habits and skills in the ministry and still wanted to change the world for the better. I am very concerned about our species’ preoccupation with superstition and irrationality and confident that if someone like me can be healed of such delusions so can others“

I have personally experienced “being healed of such delusions” and for me it was very freeing. Others (like Ferrer) are still stuck in their delusions. In my next blog we’ll explore the reasons why.

Ferrer continues…

He is not… the quiet, respectful, public atheist who flies under the radar rather than drawing attention to himself. Nor is he the outlandish academic atheist squirreled away in his office in the biology department at some college in the 1970s. New Atheism replaces peacemaking policies with verbal conquest; humble nonbelief becomes cocky secularism; timidity switches into boldness; and the pluralistic se la vie shifts to intolerant chants of “Stop that, or you’re sued!” It’s clear that he is not the peacemaker.

Love this paragraph. Ferrer wants atheists, like Barker, to be humble, timid and not in the public view, while at the same time the likes of Ferrer are attempting to push their religious beliefs on the public. Based on Ferrer’s credentials (which we’ll explore in the next blog) it could be assumed that he has no qualms about blurring the lines of separation of church and state. And when he attempts to overstep his bounds (as evangelicals often tend to do) and push his religious beliefs on the general public, Barker’s foundation is there to protect the constitutional rights of the other citizens. So in that sense, I guess Barker is not a peacemaker. But then again, is Ferrer?

Barker writes, “It turns out that atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism. It is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. Basic atheism is not a belief.”

I kept waiting for Ferrer to begin his presentation for the defense of the existence of his god, but he never does. He spends his next 5,000 words attempting to prove that Barker’s definition of atheism is “new” and “fickle” (making it trendy, and thus invalid). Ferrer contends that Barker’s definition does not conform to ancient Greek etymology of the word Atheos and thus is not valid in today’s world. Really? This is where he wants to go with his argument… to ancient Greek?

Ferrer would prefer that rather than atheists saying, “we don’t believe in gods” they must say unequivocally that “there are no gods”. Rather than theists shouldering the burden of proof that their god exists, Ferrer would prefer to shift the burden of proof to atheists. That way Barker and other atheists would be forced to prove that no gods exist.

Why would that be important for Ferrer? It’s simple! Since he can’t prove his god exists, (which he demonstrates in his 7,300-word diatribe) he wants Barker to prove that gods “do not” exist.

Ferrer’s desire to switch the burden of proof that “no gods exist” reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s theory of the Celestial teapot. Russell’s teapot theory is “an analogy” designed to discount the need for a burden of proof regarding the non-existence of something (i.e. a God).

Russell wrote: “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Ferrer responds to Russell’s teapot theory by saying that the question of God’s existence is a little more pressing than… “the trivial dismissal of an orbiting teapot”. Ferrer goes on to say that “there is a substantial case supporting the notion of the sensus divinitatis” (the sense that a divinity exists) although he fails to give any supporting evidence other than his “senses”. What if I were to say that “there is a substantial case supporting the notion of the sensus teapotis”? Would that be enough proof that the celestial teapot actually exists? Certainly not! Let’s be clear here; a “sense” of the divine is not actual proof of the divine.

Ferrer also doesn’t like Barker’s definition of agnosticism.

Barker: People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don’t have a knowledge that God exists. “The atheist says, “I don’t have a belief that God exists.” Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic. Agnosticism is the refusal to take as a fact any statement for which there is insufficient evidence.”

If Ferrer were being honest with himself (and with us), he might admit that he himself is an agnostic. Ferrer has a strong belief in his god but there is insufficient evidence to prove its existence, and therefore his belief (no matter how strong) cannot be taken as fact. He is indeed a theistic agnostic while I am an atheistic agnostic. He believes in his god (teapot), but he can’t prove his god exists. I don’t believe in his god, but I cannot prove that his god doesn’t exist. In that light, Barker’s use of agnosticism is perfectly valid. We’ll expand more on this in next week’s blog as we take a deeper dive into Ferrer’s own believes.

SO, WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? Ferrer continues,

It can be true even if God exists

Ferrer: Perhaps the weirdest result with Barker’s brand of atheism is that it doesn’t say anything about whether God exists. Even if God exists, Barker’s atheism could be true. That’s a strange brand of atheism, aligning just fine with God’s existence.

On this one point, I have to agree with Ferrer (except for the part about a strange brand of atheism). I understand that my disbelief in gods does not mean that they absolutely don’t exist. And I will continue in my non-belief until there is evidence to the contrary. However, here’s what Ferrer proposes it would take to convince atheists that god actually does exist.

Ferrer: This means that even if God exists, even if God came down to Los Angeles, California, dictated the Bible on live TV, ended the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet (wine), and personally moonwalked across the set of God ’s Not Dead III—Barker’s atheism would still be true so long as his atheism refers only to his lack of theism.

How about rather than ending “the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet”, God ended world hunger or human trafficking, or the suffering caused by wars? Wouldn’t godly kindness toward all mankind be more convincing to atheists like Barker and me than God doing the moonwalk on American TV? Get serious, Ferrer!

Intellectual laziness

Ferrer: (Barker’s definition of atheism) fosters intellectual laziness. The only way to reach the intellectual high ground is to earn it. My point is that the “default atheism” view is self-serving for atheists. It can deceive atheists into thinking that they don’t have to earn their academic high ground but can presume it while theists do all the work.

Does earning a master’s in Apologetics and a PhD in Philosophy of Religion automatically award Ferrer with the “intellectual high ground”? (I think not, but more about that in my next blog.) Barker admits that he doesn’t have the education of a theologian, saying that it wasn’t that important to him.

Barker: “Looking back, I can see that most of the religion courses (with a couple of notable exceptions) were simply glorified Sunday School classes and I don’t remember that we delved very deeply into the evidences or arguments for or against Christianity. I believed that my education was secondary to my calling.”

Ferrer continues,

“What can we make of Barker’s Atheism? In the final evaluation, Barker’s definition of atheism offers a strategic advantage for him. He never has a burden of proof in defending his nonbelief. If Dan Barker wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability, he is going to have to earn it just like anyone else. His definition of “atheism,” fits the profile of a pseudo-intellectual skeptic.“

The pot and the kettle.

I take issue with Ferrer’s claim that he has earned “intellectual respectability”. Let’s say, for an example, that we were to ask Ferrer if he believes in Astrology. My guess, (based on his religious beliefs) would be that he does not. Would he say that he “doesn’t believe in astrology”? By his own argument that would be invalid. According to his own standards, he must say unequivocally that astrology is false and then accept the burden of proving that it is false. If he simply were to say that he “doesn’t believe” in astrology without offering any evidence debunking it, wouldn’t that make him “a pseudo-intellectual skeptic” of astrology? Let’s see how Ferrer’s own words reveal him to be the pot.

A reversal of Ferrer’s own words

“The only way to reach the intellectual high ground is to earn it. It can deceive atheists (and theists) into thinking that they don’t have to earn their academic high ground. If anyone wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability (on any topic), they are going to have to earn it just like anyone else.”

It might surprise you to learn that there are a number of universities that offer a master’s degree in Astrology. Would Ferrer’s limited knowledge of astrology make him a pseudo-intellectual skeptic? Is Ferrer implying that his master’s in apologetics has earned him the intellectual high ground over someone who has earned a master’s in astrology? Perhaps for Ferrer it does, but for me a master’s in astrology carries the same weight as a master’s in apologetics.

From where I stand

It’s clear from Ferrer’s writings that he is convinced he has earned intellectual respectability. However, as we shall see in the next blog, he forfeits his intellectual respectability.  It is curious that nowhere in Ferrer’s seven thousand plus words does he ever say what he personally believes. We know what Dan Barker believes (or doesn’t believe). He’s been very clear about that. So, why doesn’t Ferrer tell us what he believes?

Coming next:

We’ll take a deeper dive into Ferrer’s personal beliefs and as a result, perhaps come to understand why he has chosen not to reveal them in his critique of The Music Man.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

13 Feb, 2024

Blog

Happy Marti Gras!

Not that this blog has anything to do with Marti Gras, but I wish you a happy one none the less!

__________________________________

The Full Armor of God – Conclusion

The battle in the twenty-first century is a spiritual and cultural battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation! It is a war of ideas and requires spiritual weapons with which to wage it! Dr. Elizabeth Youmans

In the two previous blogs we examined an article from bibleinfo.com about the full armor of God (as found in Ephesians 6). In part one we discussed the belt of truth and the breastplate of righteousness. In part two we discussed the shoes of the gospel of peace, and the shield of faith. In this blog we’ll take a closer look at the remaining two articles of the armor: the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit (i.e. the bible) plus some added instructions that (according to the bibleinfo.com article) are needed to make the armor fully functional so it can actually protect as advertised. But we’ll get to that in a bit.

But, before we get into that, let’s take a side trip. This week I serendipitously stumbled on a blog that Dr. Bart Ehrman wrote about ten years ago called “The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old.” Ehrman writes,

The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old.

Isn’t it very strange indeed that so many people of faith… think that even though they are supposed to grow, and mature, and develop new ideas, and chart new territories, and acquire new knowledge, and change their understandings as they get older in every other aspect of their lives, they are supposed to hold on to pretty much the SAME religious views that were satisfying to them as a sixteen-year-old? That is one of the things that I find most puzzling and dissatisfying and frustrating about many evangelical Christians is that the views they put forth, are at the intellectual and spiritual level of sophistication of a 16-year-old. There’s something wrong about that.

I was 16 years old when I became a christian, so Ehrman’s article is particularly relevant for me. In a previous blog I talked about how and why I ended up walking away from christianity. I realize now that perhaps it was the result of me maturing intellectually and refusing to unquestionably hold on to the religion that I was introduced to in 1972.

Maybe you are beginning to question what you are being told from the pulpit, like I was back then. If so, let me say that it’s okay to question, it’s not only okay, it’s the right thing to do. Just realize, if you begin to question, you might lose some friends. Do it anyway.

So, let’s see what bibleinfo.com has to say about the last two articles of the Full Armor of God.

Helmet of salvation

The helmet protects the head—perhaps the most vital part of the body since it is the seat of thought and the mind. When we have a sure knowledge of our salvation, we will not be moved by Satan’s deceptions. When we are certain that we are in Christ with our sins forgiven, we will have a peace that nothing can disturb.

What’s important to remember here, is that the concept of “sin” is made up by religions. I’m not a religious studies expert but I’m pretty sure that every religion in the history of mankind has had some concept of sin. There’s always some way that humans are displeasing to their gods. And when the gods became angry, they retaliated by causing drought, floods, earthquakes or even war and (as an act of kicking them when they’re down), the famine that always seems to follow such events. Religion is the process of appeasing the gods. “What have we done to displease the gods and how can we make it right.?” There are many stories of how different civilizations have worked to appease their gods, for example, by offering up grains or “first fruits” as payment for a bountiful harvest, or, as in Hebrew tradition, offering animal sacrifices. Whatever it takes.

Christianity, however, has taken this concept to a whole new level. It’s not something we have done to displease the Abrahamic god, it’s something the first man and woman did, and as their descendants, we displease this god simply by being born. Because of something the mythical Adam and Eve supposedly did in the Garden of Eden; the entire human race is condemned to an eternity in hell.  The only way to escape this dismal fate is to join the Jesus Club. Even when I was active in church, I never really bought into that theology. How about you? Is that what you believe?

Now let’s return to the last article of the Armor of God.

Sword of the spirit

The sword of the spirit is the only weapon of offense listed in the armor of God. All the other parts are defensive in nature. God’s Word—the Bible—is described as “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword”. God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). That is why it is so powerful. That is why it is so important that we study the Bible and become familiar with its truths and its power. The sword of God’s Word both protects us and destroys our enemy—the devil and his temptations.

Notice that the reasoning bibleinfo.com gives for the proposition that the bible is true, is that the bible says it’s true. That’s not how it works. Is there no other way to show that the bible is true other than it saying it is? Apparently not. I have yet to encounter a christian (even a trained apologists) who is able to provide a list of credible non-Christian sources that confirm the historicity of the main tenants of the bible. Yet, for evangelicals, it’s all true… “for the bible tells me so”. Another topic we’ll explore further in an upcoming blog.

The bible verse “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword” comes from the book of Hebrews 4:12. Here is the verse in its entirety.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper then any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of thoughts and intents of the heart.

I have three issues of concern about this verse. First, evangelicals believe that the letter to the Hebrews was written by the apostle Paul, but biblical scholars pretty much agree that it was not. This is a problem for evangelicals because it brings into question the inerrancy of the bible, and that can’t be allowed. So, as we have seen before, they will continue to believe it was written by Paul despite evidence to the contrary.

Second, experts believe that the book of Hebrews was penned somewhere around the year 65 CE. The New Testament did not even exist yet, three of the four gospels had not even been written yet. So, what exactly is he referring to when he says the “word of God”. I read one commentary on this verse that refers to John 1:1 saying that Jesus is the word of God. Funny that the gospel of John wouldn’t be written for another 30 years. So that can’t be it. Is it referring to the ancient Hebrew texts? Possibly, but even if it was, what percentage of people in the first century actually had access to, and were literate enough to read them? Easily less than 10%. It would be like saying that it’s more accurate to read the NT in the original Greek. How many people can do that? It can’t cut to the quick if you don’t have access to it.

And lastly, read the verse again. The intent of this sword is not only to “destroy our enemy” but also to dismember him, as in “piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow”. I don’t give much credence to the bible at this stage of my life, but I do believe that modern day christians who use this verse to say that all scripture (even the NT) is “a powerful weapon” are greatly misrepresenting it, as does Dr. Elizabeth Youmans. I wish they all would stop weaponizing the bible.

The bibleinfo.com article adds a couple more thoughts about the articles of the armor. Apparently, it’s not enough to just put on the armor of God, it’s useless without this essential addition.

Prayer

Although prayer is not one of the pieces of the whole armor of God… you need to bathe it all in prayer. Prayer brings you into communion and fellowship with God so that His armor can protect you.

So, do I understand this right?  It’s not enough to be wearing all the articles of armor, they won’t work unless they are “bathed” in prayer? After all this exhortation to “put on the armor of God” it doesn’t protect anything unless you follow the directions to the very end. But bibleinfo.com isn’t done yet. There’s one more surprise regarding the armor.

How do you put on the whole armor of God?

It isn’t as difficult as you might think. All the pieces of the armor are found in a relationship with Jesus. When you give yourself to Jesus and “put on” His righteousness, you are clothed in the whole armor of God.

Let me see if I have this right, the complete ensemble of the armor of God is included free of charge with a membership to the Jesus club. How convenient! Don’t worry about it or waste your time putting on the full armor of God because it’s already part of the Jesus club uniform.

In conclusion, the bibleinfo.com article is very simplistic and seems to have been written for “a 16-year-old” (of any age) whose understanding of what’s actually in their bible is limited.  If that kind of simplistic explanation is no longer acceptable to you, you’re headed in the right direction. Keep seeking the truth and you will find it.  Keep questioning what you are being told from the pulpit. Do your homework, and don’t let someone else decide what’s right for you.  A great place to start would be by reading Dr. Ehrman’s book Forged.

Ehrman tells the story of when he dedicated himself to following the actual truth of the New Testament, no matter where it led him, he was no longer welcomed in evangelical circles. This might happen to you too. But I can tell you that it’s worth it. You’ll find yourself on a solid ground that you never knew existed. As Dr. Ehrman discovered, being outside the evangelical camp… “is a lush paradise compared with the barren camp of fundamentalism.”

Learn to question everything!

and

Prepare yourself for the opposition you’ll encounter as a result.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

6 Feb, 2024

Blog

The battle in the twenty-first century is a spiritual and cultural battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation! It is a war of ideas and requires spiritual weapons with which to wage it! Dr. Elizabeth Youmans

Shoes and a Shield

As we discussed in the previous blog the armor of God is mentioned is in the sixth chapter of the book of Ephesians. I found a christian website (bibleinfo.com) that detailed each of the six items of the spiritual armor and explained how each one can be used by modern day christians. Last week we examined the first two articles of armor: the belt of truth and the breastplate of righteousness. This week we’ll look at the shoes and the shield and see if they adequately protect christians who are doing spiritual battle.

Shoes of the gospel

Soldiers marching into battle must have comfortable shoes. As soldiers of Christ, we must put on “gospel shoes” that will allow us to march wherever our Lord leads. Satan will try to place obstacles in our path, but in Jesus’ strength we can walk forward, following our Lord, obeying Him, and advancing the gospel.

 

 

This is the actual photo used in the article. Look at those shoes! Do they look comfortable to you? Would you march into battle wearing these?

But on a serious note, the author says that christians must put on their “gospel shoes” but he left out a word from the Ephesians passage. If you are familiar with the passage, perhaps you know what’s missing. If so, say it out loud.

If you said “peace”, you’re right. The verse says, “and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.” Have to wonder why the author left out that word. Perhaps because it just didn’t fit his narrative. Here’s how his narration  would be if we included the word “peace”.

Soldiers marching into battle must have comfortable shoes of peace. As soldiers of Christ, we must put on “gospel of peace shoes” that will allow us to march wherever our Lord leads. Satan will try to place obstacles in our path, but in Jesus’ strength we can walk forward, following our Lord, obeying Him, and advancing the “gospel of peace”.

It really doesn’t make sense to say that you are marching into battle wearing shoes of peace, does it? Perhaps that’s why he left the word out. Also, it should be noted here that Ephesians 6 is the only place in the entire bible that references a “gospel of peace”. It’s not mentioned in any of the four gospels.  In fact, the author of the book of Matthew recorded that Jesus himself said, “Don’t think that I came to bring peace on the earth, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” There is no such “gospel of peace”.

So now what? No gospel of peace, no shoes… no marching off to war? One could only hope!

Shield of faith

The next article of the full armor of god is a shield of faith. Bibleinfo.com says this about it:

In listing the different pieces of the armor of God, Paul Ephesians says, “Above all, . . . [take] the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one”. When Satan attacks with doubts, the shield of faith turns aside the blow. When temptations come, faith keeps us steadfast in following Jesus. This faith is not something that comes from within us. It is God’s gift to us.  You use the shield of faith to turn aside everything Satan hurls at you.

For the sake of this argument let’s replace the supernatural phrase “when satan attacks with doubts” with a more accurate one, “when science proves the bible wrong”. When we make that replacement we have a more viable and accurate statement as in, “When science proves the bible wrong the shield of faith turns aside the blow”. You’ll notice that satan is always getting the blame for temptations and doubt. And why not? It’s easier to blame an invisible (i.e. fictitious) enemy than to face the truths that science gives us. Let’s see how faith turns aside the “blows of doubt” created by science.

When science proves the bible wrong the shield of faith turns aside the blow.

  • Fact: The world was not created in six days. Christian reply: But I have faith that God’s word is true, so a six-day creation story must be true. Attack blocked.
  • Fact: The world is around  4 billion years old. Christian reply: But I have faith that God’s word is true and since the earth was created in six days the obvious (biblical) conclusion is that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. Attack blocked.
  • Fact: There was never a Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve. Christian reply: I have faith that God’s word is true, so a story about the Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden must be true. Besides, without the fall of man there would be no need for a savior and our whole theology is based on that. Attack blocked.
  • Fact: There never was a worldwide flood. Christian reply: I have faith that God’s word is true, so the story of Noah and the flood must be true. Why do you think we have rainbows? Attack Blocked.
  • Fact: The bible is nowhere near inerrant. Christian reply: I have faith that the bible is 100% true, because it says it is. Attack blocked.

You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free

Earlier in the bibleinfo.com article the Author wrote about the “great truths of the bible”. So, let’s take a look at those “great truths” and see if they are objective truths (i.e. true for everyone, everywhere) or if they must be taken by faith.

The great truths of the Bible?

  1. The love of God. Must be taken by Faith only.
  2. Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Must be taken by Faith only.
  3. The Second Coming. Jesus was supposed to return in the lifetime of his disciples. It’s been 2,000 years. He’s not coming. This must absolutely be taken by Faith only.
  4. Forgiveness of sin. Must be taken by Faith only.
  5. Grace and power to live for Jesus. Must be taken by Faith only.
  6. These truths set us free from Satan’s lies. None of these “great truths” are actual truths and therefore cannot set us free from anything.

The great irony of the shield of faith is that it does more damage to believers than it does to protect them. When christians hold on to and defend an ancient document that was written in the infancy of humanity  they lose credibility.

Think about it! Would you respect someone who as adult is still living their live based on the nursery rhymes they learned in their childhood? For them, Mother Goose, Humpty Dumpty and Little Bo-Peep would be real and to not believe in Mother Goose would be heresy. By defending the Genesis stories and other made up stories in the bible, christians are forcing their god into a tiny box and expecting others to do the same. It’s time for christians to grow up, put away their childish beliefs and let their god out of the box.

It’s the first step to knowing the truth and allowing it to set you free.

Coming next:

Next week we will examine the last two articles of the Full Armor of God; the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit (i.e. the bible.). In addition, we’ll learn that simply putting on the full armor is not sufficient to protect the believer. Something more is required. Wouldn’t ya know!

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

29 Jan, 2024

Blog

What is the Full Armor of God?

The battle in the twenty-first century is a spiritual and cultural battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation! It is a war of ideas and requires spiritual weapons with which to wage it! Dr. Elizabeth Youmans

For the past several weeks we have been examining the writings of Dr. Elizabeth Youmans; a christian writer whose life mission is to restore God’s word to public education. As we saw in the previous blog, Youmans is at war. She writes often about spiritual weapons of warfare. So, for this blog we’ll take a look into what kinds of spiritual weapons she might be referring to.

The Full Armor of God

The only place the armor of God is mentioned is in the sixth chapter of the book of Ephesians. I found a christian website (bibleinfo.com) that detailed each of the six items of the spiritual armor and explained how each one can be used by modern day christians.

 

 

On a cringe worthy note, this is the actual graphic used on the bibleinfo.com site showing a creepy looking christian soldier pillaging and plundering his way through an unsaved world in an obvious attempt to share the good news of Jesus. Is this really the image they want their readers to take away from this article?

I certainly hope not!

 

 

 

So, let’s see what bibleinfo.com has to say about the full armor of God.

1. Belt of Truth

“Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth,” Paul says.

First off according to New Testament Scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman, there are compelling reasons to believe that Ephesians was most likely NOT written by Paul. It is a forgery at best and for the author of this “bibleinfo.com” article to say “Paul says” is either ignorance on his part or a flat out lie. The result is the same either way. If “truth” is needed to protect our loin, then bibleinfo.com is off to a bad start.

Also, if someone believes in the stories of Genesis, such as the 6-day creation story, the myth of Adam and Eve, the flood story or if one believes that the bible is the inerrant word of God, then their spiritual loins are indeed exposed and vulnerable. And it doesn’t sound like a good idea not to protect your loins.

 “Truth is the belt that holds all the other pieces of the armor in place.”

The belt is the piece that holds all the other parts in place? I found this idea in several articles on this topic. I’m trying to picture how my belt holds my shoes in place, or my hat or a shield. It seems to me that it would be quite awkward if my shoes actually were attached to my belt, or my hat. The visual that comes to mind would make a good Charlie Chaplin routine; such as him pulling up his belt and inadvertently kicking another gentleman in the seat of the pants, or by tipping his hat to a young lady his drawers fall embarrassingly to his ankles. It might make a good piece of physical comedy… but it’s definitely not the truth. Why do christians say such ridiculous stuff, and why do other christians accept it without question? As a former evangelical I know the answer to both of those questions, but I just thought I’d point it out.

“There are two ways in which truth is a part of the armor of God. First, it refers to the truths of Scripture as opposed to the lies of Satan. Satan is the father of lies. Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”.  The great truths of the Bible… set us free from Satan’s lies. Satan would have us believe that we are sinful, lost, and without hope.”

We will examine the author’s “great truths of the bible” in a later blog, but for now, let’s focus on the last phrase of that paragraph. “Satan would have us believe that we are sinful, lost, and without hope”. Recently I posted a blog about how evangelical congregations rarely use the word “love” in their mission statements. Next, I did another search of evangelical mission statements looking for the word “sin”. Eureka!! I’d stuck gold. The word “sin or sinner” appeared four times more than “love”. All of the following declarations come directly from evangelical mission statements.

This is just a small sampling.

  • Mankind is sinful and under justified condemnation.
  • Without exception every man and woman is totally depraved.
  • Humanity sinned and consequently experienced spiritual death.
  • All human beings are born with a sinful and depraved nature.
  • Sin then spread like a virus to all humans, separating us from God.
  • We believe that man is lost and destined to spend eternity in hell.
  • Sin plunged man into a hopeless state.
  • Mankind is totally depraved.
  • We believe that all people are deserving of eternal punishment in hell.
  • There is no way for us to make things right with God.
  • Humanity is utterly evil, and made opposite to all good.

It would seem that rather than satan, it’s actually evangelicals who would have us believe that we are sinful, lost, and without hope. No surprise actually because for them it is a prerequisite for becoming a christian. If evangelicals can convince you that you are a lost and hopeless sinner, then they have a chance to convince you to join their Jesus club. If you do that and only if you do that; you can be called a child of God and are no longer lost and destined for an eternity in hell.

But there is a better option. What if, instead of believing the lies that we are sinful, lost and without hope, you believed in a benevolent, loving god that doesn’t require a transaction to become a child of god? What if you already are? Would that change your theology?

I’m sure that any evangelical reading this would have some strong objections. Of course they would, they can’t sell you their solution (i.e. membership in the Jesus Club) if you don’t first accept the lie that you are depraved. It’s the principle on which all advertising is based; create a need then present the solution. We see it every day on TV. (More on that later.)

The following is an excerpt from the mission statement of a progressive christian congregation.

“We believe that we belong to God long before, or even if we never believe in God. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.  As a faith community, our call is to accept that we are already accepted by God, and to live a life imitating God’s love by doing justice, loving kindness, and walking in humility with God.”

For more about this progressive congregation see my previous blogs about their mission statement compared with that of an evangelical congregation. Now, back to bibleinfo.com.

“The second way that truth serves as a belt, is our personal commitment to truth—to living a life that is upright, transparent, and without deceit. Integrity and honesty are vital to your Christian life. People should know that they can depend on you to be a person of truth and principle.”

The author of the article seems to have confused the quality of truth, with the quality of righteousness. The first part of this paragraph deals with being committed to the truth. There should be a period after that comment for reasons that we will discuss shortly.

“The second way that truth serves as a belt, is our personal commitment to truth.”

The rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with “truth” but deals more with what me might call righteousness, which, coincidently enough, is the next article of armor.

Breastplate of righteousness

The breastplate covers the heart and shields it and the other vital organs. Christ’s righteousness… protects you against all of Satan’s accusations and charges. This righteousness is not made up of the good deeds you do. The Bible is clear that none of us are righteous in ourselves. The breastplate of righteousness is entirely the righteousness of Jesus which He gives us freely when we accept Him as our Savior. It is Christ’s righteousness—not our own righteousness—that covers and protects us.

First off let’s be clear about what we mean by the word “righteous”. For some reason it has (unjustly) come to be associated with religion. However, for me being righteous means knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do the right thing, for the right reasons. Righteousness isn’t something that can be acquired magically or instantly. Righteousness requires being thoughtful, reflective and disciplined in our actions. Anyone can be righteous, not just the religious.

The last statement in the first paragraph is exactly what we’ve been talking about. “The Bible is clear that none of us are righteous in ourselves”. This particular lie implies three things.

  1. Humans are too depraved and defiled to do the right thing on their own.
  2. Once someone joins the Jesus club, they are given a set of values that is not theirs and therefore they abdicate their personal responsibility to develop their own moral sense of right and wrong.
  3. If righteousness comes only from Jesus, then non-believers have no way of ever being righteous.

Back to bibleinfo.com

It is Christ’s righteousness—not our own righteousness—that covers and protects us.

Christians love and embrace this idea. Jesus gets the credit for everything. If you have ever spent time in christian circles, finish this phrase “Without Jesus I can do __________.” If you filled in the blank with the word “nothing” then you have been (or currently are) a part of a christian community. The message is that humans have no abilities in themselves. Everything comes from Jesus and we can do nothing on our own. This is another untruth.

Imagine, if you will, an evangelical home shopping network. It might sound something like this.

“Are you feeling sinful, lost, and without hope? We have good news for you.  With one quick prayer you… yes you… can join the Jesus Club and have all your sins instantly washed away. And as an added bonus we’ll throw in a coat of righteousness at no extra cost. Angels are standing by to take your prayer… so pray now.”

I’m not buying it. You design, make and wear your own righteousness. No one can do that for you. We’ll they can, but it will always be disingenuous. If you have ever been a part of an evangelical congregation, you will know that there are plenty of people who will tell you what is required of you to be righteous.

Let’s go back to what the author said earlier about truth, which actually has nothing to do with truth but has a lot to do about being righteous.

“Living a life that is upright, transparent, and without deceit. Integrity and honesty are vital to your Christian life. People should know that they can depend on you to be a person of truth and principle.”

So, there you have it… the real truth. These are the qualities of a righteous person; being upright, transparent and without deceit, having integrity and honesty, and being a person of principle.

As I’ve said before, being righteous means knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do the right thing, for the right reasons as a matter of principle. Righteousness isn’t something that can be acquired magically or instantly. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, believer or non-believer, can be righteous and to say otherwise is simply not the truth and if it’s not the truth then your “loins” are unprotected, and that ain’t a good thing.

See Phil Zuckerman’s article “What it means to be moral” for more on this topic.

Coming next:

We will continue our examination of the remaining pieces of the full armor of God; which includes shoes, a shield, a helmet and a sword.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 Jan, 2024

Blog

A Theology of War

In the past several blogs we have been exploring the writings of Dr. Elizabeth Youmans who believes that the devil is busy at work changing the definition of words. As a secularist there is much in Youmans’ writings that I find objectionable, but none more than this; she is clearly at war and she sees herself as a warrior. So, let’s see just how warlike Youmans really is. She writes…

“Words have great power for creating or destroying. God’s Word is both an offensive and a defensive weapon.”

Drop the adjectives and you have the simple truth of Youmans’ world view: God’s word is a weapon and she certainly uses it that way. She continues on her warpath.

“If we are to raise a generation of youth who are spiritually and academically equipped in the 21st century, we have need to arm ourselves with the spiritual weapons of warfare to bring down (i.e. conquer) the centuries-old strongholds in the education of youth. We have need for an educational system that restores God’s Word to the heart of education and return to being “people of the Word.” The battle in the twenty-first century is a spiritual and cultural battle  for the hearts and minds of the next generation waged in the classroom and in the media with words! It is a war of ideas and requires spiritual weapons with which to wage it! Christian leaders, teachers and parents must be alert and take action to be armed with effective weapons of warfare.”

As history has shown, in times of war there needs to be a clear distinction between US and THEM. There must be enemies and there must be allies. Youmans has allied herself with a rather small, tightly formed circle of (most likely white) evangelical nationalists. Thankfully, not all christians are motivated by Youmans’ theology of war.

Recently I discovered a book simply titled If God is Love by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. Both authors grew up in fundamental christianity, but have since reshaped their christianity to a kinder more loving version of what they learned in their youth. Mulholland’s story goes like this…

(In the church I grew up in) “…rather than teaching us about peace and reconciliation, we were recruited for the Lord’s army. Even the bible became a weapon, a sword to wield against our enemies. No one questioned hatred as an attribute of God. I grew up with a theology that defended both the violence of God and the intolerance of God’s people. Hatred, when directed at those we have judged as wicked, becomes a sign of religious devotion rather than a grievous sin. The enemy is not to be loved, but destroyed, not prayed for, but preyed upon.”

For many, religion is how we decide who to love and who to hate.

 

One would suppose that Youmans’ righteous angst would be aimed solely against secularists and non-believers, but that is not the case. From her own words it is clear that it’s not enough to just call yourself a christian, one must be the right kind of christian. She writes,

“There are many immature Christians on the planet! Many who say they are Christians, are not! Many are carnal Christians, operating in the flesh, not the spirit.”

Mulholland writes that in the church he grew up in “the saved were those Christians who shared his doctrinal creed. It wasn’t enough to claim you were a Christian. You had to be the “right” kind of Christian.”

For Youmans the line in the sand has been drawn, and some who call themselves christians are on the wrong side of that line. In spiritual warfare there can be no middle ground, nor neutrality. Battles must be fought and the enemy, (albeit an invisible one) must be defeated.

Choose your battles well

We’ve all heard that phrase.  So what exactly is the battle Youmans has chosen? Is it to relieve the suffering of the poor? Or to battle against social injustice? Or is it to relieve human suffering at home or abroad? No, No, and No!

Unfortunately for Youmans all of the above actions are commanded in her bible.

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to undo the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter– when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?” Isaiah 58;6-7

“And the King will answer and say to them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it (kindness) to one of these my brothers of mine, even to the least of them, you did it to me.” Matt. 25:40

“The righteous cares about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.” Proverbs 29:7

Youmans’ battle of choice.

So why is Youmans at war?

Youmans: If we are to raise a generation of youth who are spiritually and academically equipped in the 21st century, we have need to arm ourselves with the spiritual weapons of warfare to bring down (i.e. conquer) the centuries-old strongholds in the education of youth. We have need for an educational system that restores God’s Word to the heart of education and return to being “people of the Word.”

 I sent Youmans an email and asked her if she was actually suggesting that we restore “God’s word” to public education and also what exactly does she mean by spiritual “weapons of warfare”. Was she referring to the armor of God as listed in Ephesians 6? She responded by telling me that she was praying for me, but did not have time in 2024 to answer my questions.

However, in her writings Youmans mentions Dr. Benjamin Rush who as a signer of the Declaration of Independence, believed that the Bible should be the primary textbook in the schools of the new United States of America. Never mind that it was as unconstitutional then as it is now, Youmans holds up Benjamin Rush as a hero.

Any actions Youmans might take to restore “God’s word” to public education will obviously and rightfully be opposed in court by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and also by the likes of constitutional attorney Andrew Seidel. She might not have the constitution or the law on her side, but she will surely be armed with “effective spiritual weapons of warfare”.

In addition to being unconstitutional, it’s simply just wrong for Youmans and other evangelicals to impose their religious beliefs on others. For Youmans it’s undoubtedly a righteous battle, one that she must wage in order to prove her devotion and her loyalty to her god and her religion. Nevertheless, unlike God’s repeated command to provide relief to the oppressed, I could find no command in scripture to battle an invisible enemy who is dumbing down (the English) language. Perhaps we could revise Isaiah to meet Youmans’ devotion to her battle.

Isaiah 58;6-7 Revised

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to undo the chains of bad vocabulary and untie the cords of secular dictionaries, to set the oppressed free from secular education and break every spirit of those who questions the stories in Genesis? Is it not to share your religious beliefs with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with a bible and an American flag — when you see the naked, to tell him to get a job, and not to turn away from your evangelical brothers and sisters? (because no one else really matters)” Isaiah 58;6-7 Revised

I ended my email to Youmans with this thought. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to everyone if she focused less on weapons of warfare as found Ephesians 6 and focused more on relieving human suffering as found in the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25. I can pretty much guarantee that the Freedom of Religion Foundation would never challenge her actions if her agenda was simply to show compassion to “the least of these”. But this, as we’ve have seen, is not Youmans’ brand of christianity. She wants a fight, and it’s more noble (for her) to battle non-believers and force her religion on them than it is to feed the hungry.

I’ll end with this thought. Wouldn’t it be nice if more and more christians rejected Youmans’ theology of hate and warfare and replace it with a theology of love and compassion?

In the words of John Pavlovitz  “if God is love don’t be a jerk”!

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

14 Jan, 2024

Blog

Meaningful Communication?

In my previous blog, we examined the writings of christian author Dr. Elizabeth Youmans. She believes that our English vocabulary is being robbed and pillaged by none other than the devil himself. She also advocates for restoring “God’s word” to our educational system, so we can once again call ourselves “people of the Word.”

In one of her articles there is a sentence that caught my attention. In her ranting about how the devil was hijacking our language, she wrote this… “Language reveals the character and love of God to us as He communicates with us and makes it possible for us to enjoy meaningful communication with our fellow man.”

I was intrigued by this because it has not been my experience with people who say that they are communicating with their god. Usually when someone claims to be in close communications with their god, it’s usually a bad thing for the rest of us. I wanted to find out if Youmans actually was able to experience meaningful communication with her fellow man (i.e. me).

Biblical definitions?

As a secularist, I don’t believe in supernatural explanations for naturalistic occurrences. So, what if my definition of “meaningful communications” is different from Dr. Youmans? She writes, “When words are defined biblically, they help us think and reason with the revelation of God’s Word, freeing us from secularism”. With that in mind, I decided to see how the bible defines “meaningful communication”. So, I referenced the Strong’s Concordance and searched for “meaningful” and “communication” in the bible. No results for either! What a surprise! Our first glitch! So now what? (Do we blame Satan?)

My next, and really only, choice was to check a secular dictionary to see how these words are defined.

  • meaningful: adj. full of meaning (duh!), significance, purpose or value.
  • Communication: noun, a giving or exchanging of information, signals or messages as by talk, gestures or writing.

So much for being freed from secularism. Sorry Dr. Youmans.

Dr. Youmans’ writings are full of contradictions like this, (much like the bible). At first, I originally planned to critique all three of her online articles, but soon realized that doing so would be quite a daunting undertaking, and besides, it would make for some very lengthy blogs. Almost every sentence of hers contains supernatural ideas that can neither be proven nor supported and therefore requires a secularistic rebuttal.

So instead of critiquing all of her writings, sentence by sentence, I decided to strikethrough everything that referred to the supernatural. Hopefully that would make the job easier and maybe after removing any supernatural references, we’ll be able to see if anything remains that might provide a semblance of “meaningful communication”.

Just the facts, Ma’am.

This is her original online article with supernatural references struck through.

“Therefore, is it surprising that the enemy would target language to dumb it down and rob and pillage us of a biblical vocabulary? Language reveals the character and love of God to us as He communicates with us and makes it possible for us to enjoy meaningful communication with our fellow man. When words are defined biblically, they help us think and reason with the revelation of God’s Word, freeing us from secularism. This enables us to “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” and appropriate “the mind of Christ” in teaching and learning.” (96 words only 14 non-supernatural)

I sent Youmans an email and asked her what she meant in this brief article. (This was her reply with all supernatural references struck through.) 

Dear Dale,

Thank you for your inquiry. There is a series about the power of words and their effect that I wrote that will answer your questions. If you read through all three of these articles (short) you will find answers to your questions. 1) Words make a difference, 2) Who controls language controls culture, 3) God’s word creates virtuous nations

The Christian’s enemy is and always has been since the dawn of time a spiritual enemy, Satan, who used words in the garden of Eden with Eve to persuade her to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. From the Bible, Genesis, chapter 3: The Fall of Man

[She then goes on to quote the entire biblical story of Adam and Eve (700 words) all of which would have obviously been entirely struck through. I’ll save the space and not include it here.]

If you have further questions (and your interest in understanding is legitimate) I will try and assist you. Respectfully, Dr. Youmans

I wrote her back and thanked her for her response and shared my concern with her that some christians considered me an enemy because I am an apostate and a secularist. This was her reply to my enquiry.

Dear Dale,

 I’m interested in what kind of project you are writing and how my responses will be used. I’m also interested in your worldview/perspective for this topic. Is that information you can share with me? I don’t have time to type out long answers without knowing who you are and understanding what you’re doing. There are so many “weirdos out there” today, as your google searches prove. (Did she just imply that I was a weirdo?) Truth for the true Christian is found in the Bible, God’s written Word. Any Bible-believing Christian understands there is a spiritual world, that spiritual warfare is a reality, and that Satan/the devil is our enemy. Whom or what he uses to assault Christ and God’s gospel purposes is another discussion. Our battle is not “against flesh and blood,” but from the writing of the apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians (chapter 6:10-20): Non-believers are not the enemy! Every human being is created in the image of God. There are many immature Christians on the planet! Many who say they are Christians, are not! Many are carnal Christians, operating in the flesh, not the spirit. Ideas (which are expressed by words with specific definitions and intentions) inform the individual’s decisions and actions which can be harmful/sinful. The Christian is to love the sinner and hate the sin. He wages warfare in the spirit against demons, principalities, powers of darkness, spiritual forces of wickedness! Elizabeth

 After striking through all references to supernatural elements, only 151 words out of 1,285 remained. It was certainly not enough “communication” to be called “meaningful”. As the Myth Busters might say. That myth has been busted.

Love the Sinner and Hate the Sin?

But that’s not to say that she didn’t try to make other points. Another sentence which caught my attention was the well-known refrain, “The Christian is to love the sinner and hate the sin”.  I’m sure we’ve all heard (or said) this at one time or another. As an ex-evangelical, I used this phrase while talking about my then “non-believing” friends and family members. And now, I’m sure my old church friends are probably saying this about me.

It also seems to be used a lot in reference to members of the LGBTQ community. It’s as if christians are saying, “We really like [insert any name you want], he is so kind and nice to everyone. We just wish he could stop sinning and stop being homosexual, then he would be more like us; hetero and free from sin. It’s too bad he can’t be a part of our community, but we will continue to love him and pray for him to repent, because we are called to do so by Jesus!”

[For the record, I don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I certainly don’t believe it’s something that needs to be fixed. By excluding those christians who name themselves as being gay, many church communities are denying themselves the company of some truly remarkable human beings.]

I’m not the only person who has been puzzled by the sanctimonious piety behind that phrase. Lately I discovered a christian writer named John Pavlovitz. In his book, If God is Love, Don’t Be a Jerk he says this about christians who used that phrase.

“If someone is uttering the phrase Love the sinner, hate the sin – they’re doing it while being abjectly horrible to another human being and trying to make themselves appear far less horrible in the process. Those six words are responsible for more loveless christianity than any other combination in recorded history – and not surprisingly they exist nowhere in the teachings of Jesus. In some ways, it’s a master stroke of sanctified mass delusion.”

“Moral superiority and believing your particular mess is somehow superior to someone else’s is a nice delusion if you can manage it:” John Pavlovitz

 Amen, John, Amen!

Coming next: 

Dr. Youmans is at war and her writings contain all the traits of someone who is doing battle with an enemy, albeit an invisible one. As is always the case in war, Youmans’ battle with supernatural forces will ultimately result in real human casualties, and collateral damage.  Anyone who doesn’t believe as she does is fair game. In addition, another byproduct of war is that righteous hate will increase while “love your enemy” will be ignored.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

7 Jan, 2024

Blog

It’s the Work of the Devil

In my previous blog, we examined the writings of christian author Dr. Elizabeth Youmans. She believes that our English vocabulary is being “robbed and pillaged” by none other than the devil himself. She also thinks that education should be based solely on the bible. I contacted her to ask about what she had written, and to my great surprise she actually responded. Here is her reply…

Dear Dale,

Thank you for your inquiry. There is a series about the power of words and their effect that I wrote that will answer your questions. If you read through all three of these articles (short) you will find answers to your questions.

  1. Words make a difference.
  2. Who controls language controls culture.
  3. God’s word creates virtuous nations.

For the record, I read all three of these articles and rather than finding answers to my questions, I have even more questions. I will be addressing each one of these articles in future blogs. Can’t wait to address the one entitled “God’s Word Creates Virtuous Nations”. That should be really interesting.

Dr. Youmans did however answer my first question. Who exactly is the enemy? It’s the only one of my three questions that she chose to answer directly. Her articles didn’t actually address those questions either, and like before were so laced with christianese that it was difficult for me to decipher what she was actually saying. As a result, I have even more questions. But, for now, let’s look at her reply about who exactly is the enemy?

  • Dr. Youmans: The Christian’s enemy is and always has been since the dawn of time a spiritual enemy, Satan, who used words in the garden of Eden with Eve to persuade her to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. From the Bible, Genesis, chapter 3: The Fall of Man: “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’…” 

She goes on to quote the entire passage from Genesis 3 to prove that the devil is, and always has been, the real enemy. On a side note, it continues to surprise me how someone with a doctorate degree can still believe the biblical myth of Adam and Eve and treat it as a historically accurate event as Dr. Youmans obviously does. She closes her email like this…

  • If you have further questions (and your interest in understanding is legitimate) I will try and assist you. Respectfully, Dr. Youmans Ed.D.

If my interest in understanding is legitimate? What this really means is, if I don’t ask too many questions that challenge her beliefs, she might continue the conversation. She doesn’t want to be challenged, no one does. Her articles are written to an audience of evangelical christians who accept her views without question. We’ll see just how willing she is to answer questions from a non-believer.

“When your God shrinks, your demons tend to multiply; which is a good way to spot people with an undersized deity.” John Pavlovitz

As a secularist, I don’t believe in the supernatural. I agree with Youmans that language is being dumbed down for a myriad of reasons, but unlike her, I don’t believe that it is the work of the devil. Perhaps the dumbing down of language is a result of the internet or even more so, the abbreviated language of texting. But it’s certainly not the work of the devil. Let’s get back to the topic of who is the enemy.

Satan is the enemy

Okay, Satan is the enemy and not me. Whew, that’s good! But, as most non-believers can corroborate, this has not been my personal experience with Evangelicals. It seems that most Evangelicals believe that as a non-believer I AM the enemy. It didn’t take a lot of searching on the internet to find an article, on a christian website, that explained just who could be considered an enemy of Christianity.

Who is an enemy of God?

  • Nothing more terrible can be said of a person than to suggest that he is an enemy of the Son of God.

Oh my! Even worse than being a serial killer, or a rapist, or a child molester or even worse, a human trafficker?

  • There are those who, with eyes wide open and jaw set, are confessed Christ-haters.

I know quite a few non-believers but I wouldn’t call any of them “confessed haters of Christ”. The opposite of love is not hatred. The opposite of love is indifference. With that in mind, I do know people whose “eyes are wide open” and thus are simply indifferent to the “anointed one” as found in the gospels. In the words of a very popular singer, “It isn’t love, it isn’t hate, it’s just indifference.”

  • Certain sensualists, who have made lust their god, have also declared their enmity for Christ.

Lust is their god? This is simply made up, right?

  • Modern advocates of homosexuality, live-in sexual relationships, “open” marriages, etc., have made no secret of their hatred for the Son of God and His lofty system of ethics.

This one made me both laugh and cry. Religious “lofty system of ethics”? OMG, isn’t that an oxymoron? Are they getting their “lofty ethics” from the same book that promotes genocide, misogyny, slavery, homophobia and all manner of intolerance all endorsed by a “loving god”? That one made me laugh.

On the sad side, saying that homosexuals (or anyone who affirms the inclusion of the LGBTQ community) hate the Son of God is simply not true and also a very harmful thing to claim. I have gay friends who devoutly love God and profess to a personal relationship with God, even though other (so called) followers of God hate them. (see my blog “A Conversation with Pastor Jenny”.)

Also, to say that anyone who has a sexual relationship outside a marriage makes no secret of their “hatred of the Son of God” is simply ridiculous. This guy needs to get out more and mingle with real people rather than judging from afar.

  • Those who have simply decided that they have no personal obligation to submit to His authority.

I must admit that I feel no personal obligation to submit to the authority of Jesus.

  • The Bible classifies as an enemy any person who refuses to yield to the Lordship of Christ.

Guilty again.

  • All are enemies of Christ who seek to emasculate the Bible of its supernatural elements. For example, some would relegate the Genesis account of man’s origin to the realm of mythology in an obvious attempt to accommodate the Mosaic record to the evolutionary scheme. Jesus charged that any such subversive procedure was in reality an attack upon Him.

So, if I don’t believe in the 6-day creation story, the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the Noah flood story, or any of the numerous myths that can be found in the bible, I’m an enemy of Christ? Guilty, again.

  • Those who are apostates from the faith have become enemies of the Lord Jesus.

Guilty again. Personally, I don’t see how a god, who supposedly created the entire universe, could be threatened by people who are questioning what they are being told by religion. Many of the apostates I personally know left the church in search of the truth. And when they actually found the truth, they were shunned and no longer welcomed by the church. The only ones who are threatened by apostates are those christians who believe that they already have the truth.

  • Lukewarm Christians are pathetic souls who, though they have not severed formal fellowship ties with a local church, nonetheless are so spiritually apathetic as to be practical enemies of the Lord.

At least I’m not a lukewarm Christian.

  • The choice is ours. We can be a friend of Jesus Christ, or we can be the enemy.

Those who say they are friends with Jesus Christ are lying to themselves and to others. I know of no scripture that calls for followers of Jesus to be his friend. Doesn’t the article say that having a relationship with Jesus is to be his slave and to yield to his Lordship? Slaves usually aren’t friends with their masters. So, if I refuse to surrender myself to be a slave, I’m an enemy. I can live with that.

Friend of Jesus

I googled the expression “Friend of Jesus” and found an article on a christian website entitled What It Means to be a Friend of Jesus. Let’s see what they have to say a about this.

Jesus said in the gospel of John, “You are my friends if you do what I command you. That’s interesting. It certainly would be easier to have friends who don’t question anything you ask of them. The article continues by saying…

  • In the entire Old Testament, only two men were ever referred to as a friend of God: Abraham and Moses. They enjoyed a close relationship with the Lord, and he revealed himself to them in unique and special ways. The children of Israel feared that kind of revelation.

The children of Israel had good reason to fear that kind of revelation. When someone in the scriptures claimed to have a close relationship with God, people started dying. So, what did Abraham and Moses do that caused them to be called friends of God? Remember, you’re a friend of God if you do what he commands. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his child to a god who demanded it of him. Some friend! Was it Abraham’s willingness to kill his son that made him a friend of God?

Moses committed mass genocide at the bidding of his god. Did that make him a friend of God?

If that’s what it takes to be friend of this god, then I respectfully decline.

Coming up next:

We will return to my correspondence with Dr. Youmans. I responded to her with my concerns that evangelicals consider me an enemy of God. Will her response finally answer some of my questions? Will my interest in understanding be legitimate enough for her? We’ll see.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum