Author: Christopher

By Christopher on Bible Difficulties, Biblical Criticism / Higher Criticism, Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Genre Criticism & Historical Criticism, ICBI, Mike Licona

A Response to Christianity Today’s Article in Defense of Mike Licona

A Response to Christianity Today’s Article in Defense of Mike Licona

By Norman L. Geisler

November 8, 2011

In a letter to the editor of Christianity Today (CT), I gave a brief response to their November (2011) article on the Mike Licona inerrancy issue.  It reads as follows: “Your article on the Mike Licona was biased, shallow, and uninformed.  Your writer did not even know that he was dismissed from teaching at Southern Evangelical Seminary for his denial of inerrancy.  Nor did he know that Licona’s view was condemned by the International Society of Christian Apologetics (ISCA) to which he once belonged.  Nor did he mention that someone was asked to resign from the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in 1983 for holding the same kind of view.  Nor was he aware that ETS adopted the ICBI view on inerrancy which condemns this kind of “dehistoricizing” of the Gospels.  Better research could have given a more ‘fair and balanced’ view.”

Since, based on past experience, I was skeptical that CT would print even that short response, I offer  a more extended one here.  I will respond to each particular point they made in order to show how shallow and distorted their article really was.

First, the question is broader than “whether Matthew’s reference to many saints rising from their graves after Jesus’ resurrection might not be literal history,” as CT claims.  As we showed in our web site article (www.normangeisler.net) titled “Mike Licona on Inerrancy: It’s Worse than We Originally Thought,” Licona’s unorthodox theological method led him to several unorthodox conclusions: (1) He denied the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27; (2) He doubts the historicity of the story of the “angels” at the tomb (Mk 15:5-7; Mt 28:2-7; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:11-13, The Resurrection of Jesus[RJ], 185-186), thus involving event recorded in all four Gospels; (3) He doubts the historicity the mob falling backward when Jesus claimed “I am He” (Jn. 18:4-6, RJ, 306); (4) He undermines the general reliability of the historicity of the Gospels by claiming that “there is somewhat of a consensus among contemporary scholars that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios).”  Then he goes on to say that “Bioi offered the ancient biographers great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches,…and they often included legend.  Because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins” (34, emphasis added).  This makes the issue far broader and more serious than CT represents it, thus making the picture they paint a distorted one.

It should be clear why Licona has gotten himself into trouble.  A bad methodology leads to a bad bibliology and to bad theology.  At root, then, Licona’s basic problem is methodological.  Like Robert Gundry before him, who was asked to resign by The Evangelical Theology Society (in 1983), Licona’s view is a form of methodological unorthodoxy (see “Tenth” point below and my article in JETS titled “Methodological Unorthodoxy” vol.  26, No. 1 March 1983).

Second, CT refers to the Licona debate as a “war of words,” but as we have already shown, it is far deeper and more serious than this misleading phrase reveals. It is, in fact, one of the most fundamental issues of our day.  What constitutes the total truthfulness of Scripture has been for centuries, and still remains, one of the most crucial theological issues of the Christian Church. The late Francis Schaeffer rightly called it a “watershed” issue.  Since the Bible is the fundamental of the Faith from which the other fundamentals are derived, it could be called the fundamental of the fundamentals.  And if the fundamental of the fundamentals is not fundamental, then what is fundamental?  The answer is: fundamentally nothing.

Third, CT claims that “Licona voluntarily resigned from the [Southern Evangelical] seminary on October 4 after the print version of this article went to press.”  This too distorts the full facts of the matter.  The truth is that SES was concerned about Licona’s view, and after the faculty interrogated him they voted to not retain him on the faculty.  In the words of an SES faculty member, “SES formulated a statement formally dismissing him from any faculty appointment or position at SES, and that we believe he denies inerrancy as we understand it” (Letter, Oct 7, 2011).  His position was then eliminated and his picture taken from the web catalog.  Regardless of public statement to the contrary (which are often used to avoid litigation), normally, the term for what happened would be he was “fired.”

Fourth, Licona’s attempts to soften his position fail.  For example, he claims that “At present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative … as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol.”  However, first of all, this falls short of recanting the view that Matthew 27:52-53 and other texts  are “poetical,” a “legend,” an “embellishment,” and literary “special effects” (see RJ, 306, 548, 552, 553).  Further, it does not address the other issues of considering the “angels” at the tomb, the mob falling backward after Jesus claimed, “I am he” which he also places in the poetical or legend category.  What is more, it does not respond to Licona’s claim that “the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios)” which “offered the ancient biographers great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches,…and they often included legend.”

In the interest of full disclosure, we must point out that Licona said nothing of his request for a hearing with a top Southern Baptist leader whom he failed to convince of his orthodoxy.  It was only after Licona realized that his view would not fly with Southern Baptist leaders, pastors, and church members that he decided to garner support from a handful of scholars, many of whom were not Southern Baptist, and who sided withChristianity Today who happily accommodated him.  When I learned the deck was being stacked by borderline inerrantist and others who were not full inerrantist, and that CT was publishing an article on it, I engaged unsuccessfully with a number of Emails with the CT editorial leaders who refused to print contrary views on the issue.  This is just another example of  their unfair, unbalanced, and biased journalism.

Fifth, CT painted our case against Licona as objecting to his “characterizing the passage as a ‘strange little text.’”  However, this was not at the heart of our criticism at all, as was clearly indicated in our “First” point above. It was the denial of the historicity of part of the Gospel—one at that which was directly connected to the resurrection of Christ.  And it was our objection to his upfront use of a genre decision and the use of extra-biblical stories as hermeneutically determinative of the meaning of a biblical text that were our chief concern.  Here again CT gives both a shallow and distorted picture of the real situation.

Sixth, CT hides its view behind a hand-picked professor who is cited as saying, “I know a good number of professors who have privately expressed support for Mike Licona but cannot do so publicly for fear of punitive measures.”  This completely distorts the picture by making it look like untold numbers of professors are afraid to speak up for Licona for fear of losing their jobs.  This shifts the focus from an honest scholarly debate to one of positing alleged bad motives of people.  In fact, it makes Licona’s critics look like theological bullies which is about as ad hominem as these kinds of allegations get.

Seventh, CT also employs another ad hominem comment of a professor (which it does not challenge) who calls an honest and reasoned challenge of the orthodoxy of a view (see our “Ten Reasons for the Historicity of Matthew 27” at www.normangeisler.net) a “witch hunt.”  This adds only heat, not light, to the dialogue.  It would have been much more profitable had CT printed the opposing view and spent time answering the many objections given against Licona’s postion (which I sent to them but they refused to print).  Instead, CT appears to agree with the view that honest, scholarly criticism of Licona’s views are “counterproductive to the important issues of the Kingdom.”  We respectfully disagree, pointing out that the inerrancy of Scripture is not unimportant.  On the contrary, if we cannot completely trust the full truthfulness of the Scriptures, then all of the essential doctrines of our Faith based on it are thereby undermined.  Such is not “counterproductive to the important issues of the Kingdom.”  It is in fact, basic to the work of the kingdom.  For as the psalmist put it, “If the foundation be destroyed, what shall the righteous do” (Psa. 11:3).

Eighth, CT appears to support the view that we should give slack to a person who is otherwise known for his orthodoxy, saying, he “surely should not be tossed aside based on his interpretation of one passage in a massive volume.”  Well, first of all, it is not just one passage, as we have shown above (in the “First” point).

Further, cutting slack on unorthodox views is a sure path to doctrinal disaster.  It is akin to claiming that the early church should have cut slack on Arius, who was otherwise orthodox, when he claimed that Jesus was of a “similar” nature to the Father but not the “same” nature.  After all, the difference is only one little iota difference in Greek between the two words.  Regardless of orthodoxy on other issues, each doctrine must be judged on its own merits.  There is no excess of orthodoxy on one doctrine that leaks over and helps keep another unorthodox doctrine afloat.  Sure, one can agree that the deity of Christ is more important than inerrancy—at least as far as being saved is concerned.  However, it is also true, as noted above, that inerrancy is a “watershed” issue that undergirds all other basic Christian doctrines.  So, it is not an unimportant issue, nor one to which “slack” should be granted

Finally, Licona’s underlying problem is the adoption of  an interpretive method that undermines the historicity of the Gospel record and even that of the resurrection of Christ.  As noted Southern Baptist leader Dr. Al Mohler aptly put it, “Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon — the concession that some of the material reported by Matthew in the very chapter in which he reports the resurrection of Christ simply did not happen and should be understood as merely ‘poetic device’ and ‘special effects’….  He needs to rethink the question he asked himself in his book — ‘If some or all of the phenomena reported at Jesus’ death are poetic devices, we may rightly ask whether Jesus’ resurrection is not more of the same?’…. He asked precisely the right question, but then he gave the wrong answer….”  Mohler added, “It is not enough to affirm biblical inerrancy in principle. The devil, as they say, is in the details. That is what makes The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy so indispensable and this controversy over Licona’s book so urgent. It is not enough to affirm biblical inerrancy in general terms. The integrity of this affirmation depends upon the affirmation of inerrancy in every detailed sense” (www.AlbertMohler.com, emphasis added).

Ninth, CT lets stand without criticism the statement of a hand-picked scholar that claims “If we view our own interpretation to be just as inerrant as the Scriptures,” he said, “this could ironically elevate tradition and erode biblical authority.”   However, this is a straw man criticism by Licona’s critics since I never affirmed such a position.  Just because someone disagrees with Licona’s views and gives his biblical and rational reasons for doing so, it is no ground for unfairly charging him with the claim of infallibility for his position.

Furthermore, the charge has only been that Licona’s view is contrary to the ICBI stand on inerrancy which the ETS had adopted for interpreting its statement on inerrancy, not on some private view of inerrancy one wishes to adopt to accommodate his forages into contemporary genre criticism.  Our contention is only that Licona’s view is contrary to the historic doctrine of inerrancy adopted by the ETS and ICBI framers.  We have expressed the many reasons for this in our article on “Ten Reasons…” article cited above.  One would do well to give a biblical and rational response to these arguments rather than making ad hominem comments about the scholars holding them.

Tenth, the root issue with Licona’s view is methodological.  His view is in fact a form of methodological unorthodoxy.  For it adopts a method of interpretation that undermined the complete truthfulness of Scripture.  This comes out very clearly when Licona is asked  whether one’s methodology is totally separate from the doctrine of inerrancy, as the CT article implies.  His answer is Yes.  This means that even if more of the Gospel record, including the resurrection, turned out to be legend, it still would not affect the doctrine of inerrancy.  Our response is: “Whose doctrine of inerrancy?”  Certainly not the historic, ETS, ICBI doctrine of the full inerrancy of Scripture.  Such a bifurcation of methodology from bibliology leaves one with an empty, vacuous, contentless claim that “The Bible is wholly true no matter whether what it affirms corresponds to reality of not.”  This was considered “unbelievable” at Southern Evangelical Seminary who dismissed him from their faculty.

Licona’s vacuous methodological claim is self-defeating since they claim that their view corresponds to reality when they claim that truth is not what corresponds to reality.  ICBI affirmed that   “By biblical standards truth and error is meant the view used both in the Bible and in everyday life, viz., a correspondence view of truth.  This part of the article is directed toward who would redefine truth to relate merely to redemptive intent, the purely personal, or the like, rather than to mean that which corresponds with reality” (Sproul,Explaining Inerrancy,  43-44).

Further, Licona’s view is clearly contrary to what ICBI, adopted by ETS, affirms about “dehistoriciszing” the Gospel record.  For ICBI clearly declared that “We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching…” (“Chicago Statement on Inerrancy,” Article XVIII), and “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightfully be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (“Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics,” Article XIII).

What is more, in an official commentary of  ICBI on its famous “Chicago Statement on Inerrancy” (1978), it clearly defines truth as “what corresponds to reality,” affirming that “When we say that the truthfulness of Scripture ought to be evaluated according to its own standards that means that … all the claims of the Bible must correspond with reality, whether that reality is historical, factual or spiritual” (R. C. Sproul, Explaining Inerrancy, 41. Or Sproul-Geisler, Explaining Biblical Inerrancy)  So, to claim a biblical reference is true means that it corresponds to reality which is contrary to Licona’s “dehistoricizing” of the Gospel record.   For to claim a narrative in a historic context is true, means it corresponds to a historical reality.  As the ICBI Explaining Hermeneutics Article XIII put it, “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.”  But this is precisely what Licona does.  So, Licona’s view on inerrancy is clearly contrary to the ICBI framers meaning of the term.

Eleventh, CT’s distortions of the facts are not always in what it said,  but sometimes are in what it did not say.  As we pointed out in our letter to the CT editor, “Your writer did not even know  he was dismissed from teaching at Southern Evangelical Seminary for his denial of inerrancy.  Nor did he know that Licona’s view was condemned by the International Society of Christian Apologetics [ISCA] to which he once belonged.  Nor did he mention that someone was asked to resign from the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in 1983 for holding the same kind of view.  Nor was he aware that ETS adopted the ICBI view on inerrancy which condemns this kind of ‘dehistoricizing’ of the Gospels.”

Further, why were no scholars picked by CT who disagreed with Licona’s claim that his view did not deny inerrancy.  Does this not indicate a journalistic bias?  As noted earlier, Licona’s view is contrary to the historic view on the full inerrancy of Scripture.  It is also contrary to the “grammatical-historical” method which the ICBI demands Article XVIII adds, “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatical-historical exegesis” which it describes as “Scripture is to interpret Scripture,” not Scripture being interpreted by extra-biblical Jewish or Greco-Roman sources as Licona does (see the “First” point above) .

Conclusion

By failing to mention all of these important points,  CT paints a distorted picture which, according to them, only a few “witch hunting” discontents oppose.  However, just the opposite is the case.  It was 70% of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) who asked a member to resign (in 1983) for holding a similar view that “dehistoricized” sections of the Gospels.  It was 80% of ETS who voted to adopt the ICBI interpretation of inerrancy—which interpretation speaks directly against views like Licona’s.  And the view of the full inerrancy of the Bible as held by the ETS and ICBI framers has been demonstrated to be the historic view of the Christian Church (see John Hannah, Inerrancy and the Church).  In a well documented book, H. D. McDonald demonstrated that “Prior to the year 1860, the idea of an infallibly inerrant Scripture was the prevailing view” (Theories of Revelation, 196).  So, the truth is that views like Licona’s that deny the full inerrancy of the Bible are: (a) contrary to the view held by orthodox Christians down  through the centuries, (b) contrary to the affirmation of the decision of the largest group of evangelical scholars in the world (ETS), and (c) contrary to the conclusions of the ICBI framers.  Having been one of them, I can speak directly and authoritatively on the matter:  Licona’s view, regardless of whoever may agree with it, is not in accord with the ICBI framer’s understanding of inerrancy.

Copyright © 2012 NormanGeisler.net – All rights reserved

 

By Christopher on Bible Difficulties, Biblical Criticism / Higher Criticism, Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, ICBI, Mike Licona

Ten Reasons for the Historicity of the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27

Ten Reasons for the Historicity of the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27

Norman L. Geisler 2011

      The text in question reads: “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (Matt 27:50-53).

In The Resurrection of Jesus, Mike Licona denies the historicity of what he calls this “strange little text” (548), claiming that it is not to be “taken literally” (527) but is “legend” (34) or a “poetical device” (553) in “eschatological Jewish” (552) language, providing “special effects” (552) for His death and the “impending judgment” (553).

    However, there are many good reasons to reject this “dehistoricizing” of the text:

1. This passage is part of a historical narrative in a historical record—the Gospel of Matthew. Both the larger setting (the Gospel of Matthew) and the specific context (the crucifixion and resurrection narrative) demand the presumption of historicity, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary in the text, its context, or in other Scripture—which there is not.

2. This text manifests no literary signs of being poetic or legendary, such as those found in parables,  poems, or  symbolic  presentations.*  Hence, it should be taken in the sense in which it presents itself, namely, as factual history.

3. This passage gives no indication of being a legendary embellishment, but it is a short, simple,  straight-forward account in the exact style one expects in a brief historical narrative.

4. This event occurs in the context of other important historical events—the death and resurrection of Christ—and there is no indication that it is an insertion foreign to the text. To the contrary, the repeated use of “and” shows its integral connection to the other historical events surrounding the report.

5.  The resurrection of these saints is presented as the result of the physical historical resurrection of Christ.  For these saints were resurrected only “after” Jesus was resurrected and as a result of it (Matt 27:53) since Jesus is the “firstfruits” of the dead (1Cor 15:20).  It makes no sense to claim that a legend emerged as the immediate result of Jesus’ physical resurrection.  Nor would it have been helpful to the cause of early Christians in defending the literal resurrection of Christ for them to incorporate legends, myths, or apocalyptic events alongside His actual resurrection in the inspired text of Scripture.

6. Early Fathers of the Christian Church, who were closer to this event, took it as historical, sometimes even including it as an apologetic argument for the resurrection of Christ (e.g., Irenaeus, Fragments, XXVIII; Origen,Against Celsus,  Book II, Article XXXIII; Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, Chap. XIII).

7. The record has the same pattern as the historical records of Jesus’ physical and historical resurrection: (a) there were dead bodies; (b) they were buried in a tomb; (c) they were raised to life again; (d) they came out of the tomb and left it empty; (e) they appeared to many witnesses.

8. An overwhelming  consensus of the great orthodox teachers of the Church for the past nearly two thousand years supports the view that this account should be read as a historical record, and, consequently, as reporting historical truth.

9. Modern objections to a straight-forward acceptance of this passage as a true historical narrative are based on a faulty hermeneutic, violating sound principles of interpretation. For example, they (a) make a presumptive identification of its genre, based on extra-biblical sources, rather than analyzing the text for its style, grammar, and content in its context; or, (b) they use events reported outside of the Bible to pass judgment on whether or not the biblical event is historical.

10. The faulty hermeneutic principles used in point 9 could be used, without any further justification,  to deny other events in the gospels as historical.  Since there is no hermeneutical criterion of “magnitude,” the same principles could also be used to relegate events such as the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection of Christ to the realm of legend.

   Six Reasons Why Denying the Historicity of this Text is Contrary to the Doctrine of Inerrancy

1.  The historic doctrine of Inerrancy affirms the complete truthfulness of all of Scripture “in all matters upon which it touches” including “the events of world history.”  Thus, the Gospel narratives (of which Matthew 27:50-53 is one) should not be “dehistoricized” (see ICBI “Chicago Statement on Inerrancy,” Article XVIII and “A Short Statement” nos. 2 and 4).

2.  Affirming the historical truth of this text in Matthew 27 has been the overwhelming consensus of the great orthodox teachers of the Christian Church for the past nearly 2000 years.  So, any denial of its historicity has virtually the whole weight of Christian history against it.

3. The largest organization of scholars in the world who affirm inerrancy (The Evangelical Theological Society) declared that views like this that dehistoricize the Gospel record are incompatible with inerrancy, and, hence, they asked a member (Robert Gundry) to resign by an overwhelming vote (in 1983) because he had denied the historicity of sections in Matthew.  The only real difference to Licona’s approach in Matthew 27 is one of the type of extra-biblical literature used— apocalyptic vs. midrash.

4. The official statements of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), the largest group of international scholars to formulate an extended statement on inerrancy, explicitly exclude views like this that “dehistoricize” Gospel narratives.  As a member of the ICBI drafting committee, I know for certain that views like Robert Gundry’s were a specific target when it declared:  “We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching…” (“Chicago Statement on Inerrancy,” Article XVIII), and “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightfully be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics, XIII).

5. The ETS has adopted the ICBI understanding of inerrancy as their guide in determining its meaning.  And the ETS excluded a member who dehistoricized sections of the Gospel like this. And it was because of instances like this, where members redefine doctrinal statements to suit their own beliefs, that the International Society of Christian Apologetics (www.isca–apologetics.org) added this sentence: “This doctrine is understood as the one expressed by the Framers of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in its ‘Chicago Statement’ and as interpreted by the official ICBI Commentary on it.”

6.  Neither the Evangelical Theological Society nor ICBI, in their official statements and actions, have allowed divorcing hermeneutics from inerrancy by making the vacuous claim that one could hold to inerrancy regardless of the hermeneutical method he employed and the conclusions to which it leads, even if it dehistoricized the creation story, the death of Christ, or His resurrection.  If they did, then they would no longer be an “Evangelical” theological society.

*One figure of speech, “asleep,” is used which means literal death (John 11:11, 14; 1 Thess. 4:15, 16).

Copyright © 2012 NormanGeisler.net – All rights reserved

By Christopher on Bible Difficulties, Biblical Criticism / Higher Criticism, Biblical Studies, Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Genre Criticism & Historical Criticism, ICBI, Mike Licona

A Response to Mike Licona’s Defense of Dehistoricizing the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27

A Response to Mike Licona’s Defense of Dehistoricizing the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27

Norman L. Geisler

I wish to express my appreciation to Mike Licona for his belated response to some of the issues I raised about his view over two months ago.  While this response was no doubt prompted by the superb treatment of the matter by Dr. Al Mohler that was just placed on his web site, Licona’s response is better late than never. Before addressing Licona’s defense of this view, it is noteworthy that he acknowledges that it is a denial of the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 and says clearly, “which is my position.”  Indeed, he has still not retracted his in-print view that this event is a “legend.” As for Licona’s defense of his view, he offers several arguments.  Let me address them briefly.

First, he claims that his view is in accord with the doctrine of inerrancy. However, the Evangelical Theological Society, which is the largest group of scholars in the world based on inerrancy, pronounced the same kind of dehistoricizing of the Gospel record as incompatible with its view on inerrancy. Indeed, they requested that Robert Gundry resign (by an overwhelming vote) for holding a similar view which dehistoricized sections of the Gospel of Matthew.  Licona makes no mention of this crucial fact, but insists on redefining inerrancy to fit his errant view. However, in the light of the Gundry decision, Licona has no grounds on which to stand to claim his view is consistent with the historic view of inerrancy, which was embraced by the founders of ETS.

Second, Licona appeals to the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) statements on inerrancy to support his view of “deshistoricizing” Matthew’s account.  However, the ICBI statements on this matter specifically refer to this process as being contrary to inerrancy.  Indeed, as one of the framers of the ICBI statements, I can verify that we explicitly had Gundry’s views in mind when we condemned dehistoricizing the Gospel record. An official ICBI statement declared, “All the claims of the Bible must correspond with reality, whether that reality is historical, factual or spiritual” (Sproul,Explaining Inerrancy (EI), 43-44).  Also, “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis…and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture,” not extra-biblical texts used to determine the meaning of the biblical text.  Further, the ICBI framers said: “We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing,dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship” (Article XVIII). Also, “Though the Bible is indeed redemptive history, it is also redemptive history, and this means that the acts of salvation wrought by God actually occurred in the space-time world” (Sproul, EI, 37). Again, “When the quest for sources produces a dehistoricizing of the Bible, a rejection of its teaching or a rejection of the Bible’s own claims of authorship [then] it has trespassed beyond its proper limits (Sproul, EI, 55). Also, “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Explaining Hermeneutics (EH), XIII). “We deny that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated” (EH XIV bold added in all above citations). Clearly, Licona’s views are not exonerated, but condemned, by the framers and commentaries of the ICBI statements.

Third, Licona begs the question by assuming that we should approach the Gospel record by not prejudging whether it is historical or not.  However, it is not a bias to consider the Gospel records as historical for several reasons: (1) They present themselvesto be giving history (cf. Matt 1:1, 18; 2:1). Luke, for example, claims explicitly that he is recording accurate history (Luke 1:1-4), and Matthew records the same basic historical events as Luke; (2) Luke also provides historical crosshairs with eight historical figures (Luke 3:1-2), all known to have lived at that time; (3) All the main events of Matthew are taken to be historical, even by Licona, including the birth, life, works, words, death and resurrection of Jesus. Why then should not the rest of the book be considered historical as well? Thus, the burden of proof rest on anyone who denies the historicity of a section of the Gospel.  And to comb through contemporary extra-biblical sources, as Licona does, to find legendary material that seems similar to something in the Gospels and then use it as hermeneutical determinative of what the Gospel writer meant is a completely misdirected way of interpreting Scripture. What is more, the presumption of the historical nature of the Gospel is supported by the weight of nearly two thousand years of the Christian Church.  Furthermore, as I mentioned in a previous Open Letter, there are crucial differences between this type of extra-biblical literature and the biblical text?

Fourth, Licona refers to using “authorial intent” to determine the meaning of a statement, but he refuses to take the “authorial intent” of the meaning of ETS and ICBI statements on inerrancy seriously.  If authorial intent is definitive in the meaning of a text, then as an ICBI framer, I can verify that Licona’s Gundry-like views of dehistoricizing Matthew 27 are not compatible with the ICBI statements.  In fact, we had the very thing in mind when we spoke against “dehistoricizing” the biblical narrative by that very name.

Fifth, what is more, Licona violates another standard hermeneutical principle by taking ICBI texts out of contexts.  The ICBI statements only allow the use of extra-biblical data to “clarify” the meaning of words in the biblical text and “prompt” a reexamination of the biblical text itself, which is the final authority.  ICBI never allowed extra-biblical data to be hermeneutical determinative of the meaning, nor of the historicity of the text. As Dr. Mohler correctly noted, they cannot be used to “invalidate” the teaching of a biblical text.  In fact, ICBI explicitly condemns this extra-biblical practice used by Licona and affirms that “Scripture is to interpret Scripture” and that by the “grammatico-historical” method alone. Nowhere did ICBI claim that extra-biblical writings were to be used to override the meaning of biblical writings as understood in their context and by other Scriptures.  In fact, it stated just the opposite (see above).

Sixth, not only does Licona violate sound interpretive principles, but he draws a false analogy between using symbolic language and dehistoricizing a text.  For example, simply because the Bible speak of Satan under the figure of a “dragon” (an example Licona gives) does not mean there is no literal Satan, nor a literal fall of Satan and a third of the angels (Rev. 12).  In fact, the book of Revelation even interprets these symbols as referring to literal persons and event (cf. Rev. 12:9).  Therefore, the use of symbolic language and figures of speech in the Bible in no way justifies taking the individuals and events as non-historical and legendary, as Licona does with the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27. The ICBI statements make this very clear.  What is more, no such language is used in the simple unembellished accounts of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27, which Licona denies as historical.

Seventh, Licona ignores virtually all the arguments we presented for the historicity of the resurrection of these saints in Matthew 27 and then claims that we beg the question in favor of the historicity of the event in question. To state just a few of these arguments given in favor of historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27: (1) It occurs in a book that present itself as historical (cf. Matt 1:1,18); (2) Numerous events in this book have been confirmed as historical (e.g., the birth, life, deeds, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ); (3) It is presented in the immediate context of other historical events, namely, the death and resurrection of Christ; (4) The resurrection of these saints is also presented as an event occurring as a result of the literal death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Matt. 27:52-53); (5) It has all the same essential earmarks of the literal resurrection of Christ, including: (a) empty tombs, (b) dead bodies coming to life, and (c) these resurrected bodies appearing to many witnesses.  In view of all of this, there is simply no reasonably way one can dehistoricize the resurrection of these saints, particularly based on alleged similarities with extra-biblical stories and expressions.  Indeed, to dehistoricize the resurrection of these saints is to dehistoricize the resurrection of Christ which is said to be the cause of it.

Eighth, Licona claims the extra-biblical literature containing phenomena similar to the raised saints in Matthew 27 may provide insights pertaining to how Matthew intended for us to interpret his raised saints. However, in support Licona offers more false analogies such as the use of figures of speech of events today.  But no one claims that the “earth-shaking” events of 9/11 were non-historical or poetic devices used to describe what every eye-witnesses knows to have taken place in the actual space-time continuum. We validate the historicity of this event by the eyewitnesses who experienced the event  and who recorded it as actual history. If someone 2,000 years from now interprets the events from 9/11 as apocalyptic or legendary, then they will be in error.

Ninth, it is understandable that Licona would be “grateful to the Southeastern Theological Review for their invitation to participate in a round table discussion on the meaning of this text and the solution” that he proposed.  However, we must be careful not to place too much weight on such a meeting, particularly because some of those involved have already placed approval on his view in a recent Open Letter released by Licona. Hence, it may be a case of the fox guarding the hen house!  There are far bigger and better scholarly circles than this, such as, the nearly 300 international scholars who formed the ICBI statement on inerrancy and its statements which declare that views like Licona’s were incompatible with the view of full inerrancy which declared that the Bible is wholly and completely without error and denied all dehistoricizing of the Gospel record.

Tenth, Licona claims that to reject a view like his is to “stifle scholarship.”  In response, we do not wish to stifle scholarship but only to reject bad scholarship.  Further, as Evangelicals we must beware of desiring a seat at the table of contemporary scholarship, which is riddled with presuppositions that are antagonistic to Evangelical Christianity. Indeed, when necessary, we must place Lordship over scholarship (2 Cor. 10:5). We do not oppose scholarship, but only scholarship whose presuppositions and methodological procedures are opposed to the Faith once for all committed to the saints.

Unfortunately, Mike Licona refers to Dr. Mohler and me as “detractors.”  In response, I would like to repeat that I have both love for Mike as a brother in Christ and respect for him as a scholar.  However, I have a higher respect for the truth of God’s inerrant Word and for my duty to defend it.  And I am firmly convinced that the Gospel record is seriously undermined by this kind of Second-Temple, pro-legendary interpretation that denies the sufficiency of the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture and flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Christian consensus on the historicity of the Gospel record. Hence, while I am not a detractor, I do believe that Dr. Licona needs to be a retractor of this serious challenge to the complete historicity and full inerrancy of the Bible.  Since he has expressed some doubt about his own view in his previous Open Letter, I would hope that his doubt about his own hermeneutics would not decrease and that his certainly about the inerrancy of the whole Gospel record, including this text, would increase.  I am praying to that end.

 

Copyright © 2012 NormanGeisler.net – All rights reserved

By Christopher on Bible Difficulties, Biblical Criticism / Higher Criticism, Book Review, Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Genre Criticism & Historical Criticism, ICBI, Matthew 27's Raised Saints, Mike Licona

A Response to Mike Licona’s Open Letter

A Response to Mike Licona’s Open Letter

Norman Geisler (Sept 8, 2011)

                On July 3, 2011 I wrote Mike Licona expressing my deep concern about his denial of the historicity of the saints in Matthew 27.  I waited in vain for a whole month for a response to my questions about this denial of the full inerrancy of Scripture.

On August 3, 2011, I wrote again, saying, “Mike: I wrote you a month ago.  I am very disappointed that I have not heard back from you yet—even a brief response.  This is a serious issue.  It is the same thing Gundry was asked to resign from  ETS over.  Please respond.  In all fairness, I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond.  I did not want to go public with my critique of this until I heard from you.  I hope you will change your view.  I like you and respect you, but you owe me a quicker response than this.  Sincerely, Norm. ”

On August 4, 2011 Lincona replied that he did not have time to respond, saying that when He “revisit[ed] the passage” he would consider my points.  And he indicated that it might still be a longer time before he responded, saying, “my investigation will be a lengthy process.”  I responded that in the meantime, since his view was in print, that it was open to scholarly critique, and he agreed in writing that this was so.  Only then did I release my “Open Letter to Mike Licona.”

Finally, two full months after my first letter (of July 3) on September 8, 2011 I received “An Open Response to Norman Geisler” (dated “August 31, 2011).  His response is disappointing for several reasons:

First, Licona has not recante his denial of the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27.  At best, he is no longer as certain of the view as he once was.  Further, whatever his final thoughts, he is convinced that this published view is compatible with inerrancy.  Yet this kind of “dehistoricizing” of the Gospels is the same reason that Robert Gundry was asked by an overwhelming majority to resign from the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), of which Licona is a member.

Second, even in his belated “Open Letter” to me Licona has not yet responded to any of the arguments I gave for the historicity of Matthew 27 resurrection saints. Nor has he responded to any of the reasons I gave as to why his view is incompatible with the ETS and ICBI view on inerrancy.  In short, after two months, I still have a mere reply but not a real response to the issues I raised.  And this reply is something that could easily have been written two months ago.  Apparently, the pressure from Southern Baptist sources that preceded his resignation from his position at their North American Mission Board helped convinced him to resign and reconsider writing a reply.

Third, Licona claims, “I still hold to biblical inerrancy,” yet his “dehistoricizing” this part of the Gospel of Matthew is exactly the issue that prompted ETS to ask Gundry to resign over, namely, because it was inconsistent with the ETS inerrancy statement.  But Licona is also a member of ETS. Why is his view any less inconsistent with the ETS view of inerrancy?  Just saying a view is consistent with the historic view on inerrancy does not make it so.

Fourth, in 2003 ETS adopted the ICBI (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy) view on inerrancy as their guide in understanding what inerrancy means for ETS.  Yet, as I showed in my “Open Letter,” the ICBI framers clearly denied that views like Licona’s are compatible with inerrancy.

Fifth, Licona has not yet recanted his published view denying the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 but, rather, he has attempted to restate it, saying, “one could have articulated a matter more appropriately.”  Furthermore, presenting other possible options, as he does in his “Open Letter,” is not a denial of what he said in his book, namely, the resurrection of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 is not historical.

Sixth, listing some scholars who agree with him misses the point.  First, as he admits, most of them do not agree with his unrecanted in-print view.  Further, the fact that they say they are “in firm agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy” misses the point entirely.  For it does not answer the question of with whose view of inerrancy it is in agreement?  As we all know, the term “inerrancy” can be twisted to mean many things to many people.  In my “Open Letter” I affirmed only that Licona’s view was not in agreement with the ETS (of which Licona is a member) view of inerrancy as expressed in the Gundry case.  Of course, one can always find a number of people with whose views on inerrancy it is in agreement.  But that is not the point.

Nor is Licona’s view in accord with the ICBI view on inerrancy (which ETS has adopted as a guideline in understanding the topic), as I showed in my “Open Letter.”  In fact, as one of the framers of the ICBI statement, I can testify to the fact that it was Gundry’s view (and others like it) which we were specifically condemning when we spoke against “dehistoricizing” the Gospel record as Licona has done.

Seventh, this is not, as Licona asserts, merely a hermeneutical issue on which any one can take his own views.  As was pointed out in our debate with Gundry (in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society), one’s hermeneutics or methodology cannot be totally separated from his view on inerrancy.  If it were, then people like Karl Barth could be said to be consistent with inerrancy, even if they believed the Bible was not without error in certain facts of history or science.  Indeed, as Gundry was forced to admit, even Mary Baker Eddy could consistently sign an inerrancy statement (on Licona’s argument), while she was allegorizing away, not just the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 but also allegorizing away all the stories in the Bible, including the resurrection of Christ!

Indeed, contrary to Licona’s claim that this Matthew 27 issue “was outside the primary thesis of the book,” for the resurrection of these saints was directly connected to the resurrection of Christ and listed as a result of it (see Matthew 27:50-53).  So, the two events are interwoven.  Hence, to deny the literal historical nature of the saints who were resurrected as a result of Christ’s resurrection, is also to deny the literal historical nature of the cause of their resurrection, namely, Christ’s resurrection itself.

Eighth, Licona reveals the basis of his own problem when he admits that his view on Matthew 27 “is based upon my [his] analysis of the genre of the text” and that this was based on a comparison with “similar phenomena in the Greco-Roman literature in general.”  But this is clearly not the way to interpret a biblical text which should be understood by the “historical-grammatical” method (as ICBI held) of (a) looking at a text in its context and (b) by comparing other biblical texts, affirming that  “Scripture is to interpret Scripture” (as ICBI mandated).  The proper meaning is certainly not found by superimposing some external pagan idea on the text in order to determine what the text means.  By this same kind of fallacious hermeneutic one can also conclude that other biblical stories, like the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ, are just legends too, along with the creation record in Genesis 1-2.

So, it matters not how many scholars one can line up in support of the consistency of their personal view on inerrancy (and many more than this can be lined up on the other side).  What matters is whether Licona’s view is consistent with the view of full inerrancy held down though the ages (see John Hannah, Inerrancy and the Church) and as expressed by the ETS and ICBI framers and as expressed and confirmed in the official ICBI commentaries on the matter.  For once we begin to neglect the “authorial intent” (to use a phrase from Licona’s “Open Letter”) of the ETS and ICBI statements, and replace it with what we think it should mean, then “inerrancy” is a wax nose that can be formed into almost anything we want it to mean.  Sadly, many names on Licona’s list of scholars are members of ETS (some of whom are on the faculties of evangelical seminaries that require their faculty to sign the ICBI view of inerrancy).  What is more, their approval of Licona’s view reveals they are not signing the doctrinal statement in good conscience according to intention expressed by the framers.  The ETS and ICBI framers have drawn a line in the sand, and Licona has clearly stepped over it.  Only a clear recantation will reverse the matter and, unfortunately, Licona has not done this. Let’s pray that he does. 

Sincerely disappointed,

Norman Geisler

Copyright © 2011 NormanGeisler.net – All rights reserved

 

By Christopher on Bible Difficulties, Biblical Criticism / Higher Criticism, Book Review, Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Genre Criticism & Historical Criticism, ICBI, Matthew 27's Raised Saints, Mike Licona

A Second Open Letter to Mike Licona on the Resurrection of the Saints of Matthew 27

A Second Open Letter to Mike Licona

on the Resurrection of the Saints of Matthew 27

Professor Norman L Geisler, Ph.D.

August 21, 2011

 

Almost two months ago, I wrote Mike Licona a private letter expressing my concerns about his published view in The Resurrection of Jesus (RJ) that the story of saints resurrected after His resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 was not historical.  He spoke of it as a “strange little text” (548 cf. 556).  Indeed, he called it “poetic” or a “legend” (185-186).  He appears to include the angels at the tomb (Mk. 16:5-7) in the same category (186).  He speaks of it as similar to Roman legends with “phenomenal language used in a symbolic manner” (552).  He adds, “…it seems to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as ‘special effects’ with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible” (552).  He says that by this legend “Matthew may simply be emphasizing that a great king has died” (552).  He adds, “If he has one or more of the Jewish texts in mind [that contain similar legends], he may be proclaiming that the day of the Lord has come” (552).  He concludes that “It seems best to regard this difficult text in Matthew as a poetic device added to communicate that the Son of God had died and that impending judgment awaited Israel” (553).

In my Open Letter to Mike Licona a few weeks ago (see www.normangeisler.com) I spoke of how this dehistoricizing of Matthew’s inspired account was contrary to the stand of The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) which asked Robert Gundry to resign by an overwhelming vote of the membership in 1983 for the same basic reason.  I also pointed out that this kind of “dehistoricizing” of the Gospel record is contrary to the statements of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) whose statement was accepted by the ETS (of which Mike Licona is a member) in 2003 as a guide in understanding of what their inerrancy statement meant.

 

Unfortunately, since Mike has chosen not to respond publically to my Open Letter, or to me privately, I wish to appeal again for him to reconsider his view.  There are two major points I wish to express.  First, there is no good grounds for taking Matthew 27:15-53 as not historical.  Second, this dehistoricizing of sections of a Gospel inconsistent with the standard view on inerrancy as held by the Evangelical Theological Society and the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.

On The Inconsistency of Licona’s View with the Text of Matthew 27:50-53

            This text at issue is in Matthew 27 which affirms that when he died “Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and  yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (vv. 50-53 ESV).  Now there are many reasons this text in this context should be taken as historical and not as a legend.

 

First of all, in this very text the resurrection of these saints occurs in direct connection with two other historical events—the death and resurrection of Jesus (vv. 50, 53).  There is no reason here to take the resurrection of Jesus as historical and the resurrection of the saints as a legend. Hence, to borrow the subtitle from Licona’s book, it appears that this “New Historical Approach” which employs extra-biblical sources to determine the meaning of this text has led him astray.  Indeed, there are many reasons in the text itself to take these resurrections as a literal events, including the terms like “earth,” “quake,” “temple,” “veil,” “rocks,” “tombs,” “bodies,” “asleep” (dead), “raised,” and “appeared”—all of which speak of a physical event elsewhere in the New Testament.  Indeed, the crucial word associated directly with the resurrection of these saints resurrection (viz., “raised”—egiro) is also used of Jesus’ resurrection in the 1Corinthians  when Paul speaks of Jesus dying for our sins and being “raised” (egiro) again (1 Cor.15:3-4).  And the word for “appeared” (Mt. 27:53) after his resurrection is an even stronger word than usual,meaning”become visible, appear…make known, make clear, explain, inform, make a report esp. of an official report to the authorities” (Arndt and Gingrich, A Geek-English Lexicon of the NT, p. 257, emphasis added).

 

Second, there is a direct connection between the resurrection of these saints and Jesus’ resurrection.  For the text is careful to mention that they did not come out of the tombs until “after” Jesus’ resurrection (v. 53).  Indeed, Paul calls Jesus’ resurrection “the firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15:23), so, it is only proper that He should emerge from the dead first.  Thus, speaking of the resurrection of these saints after Jesus’ resurrection and as a result of it makes no sense, if their resurrection, unlike Jesus’ resurrection, is a mere legend.

 

Third, this text lists the same kind of evidence for the resurrection of these saints as is listed elsewhere for Jesus’ resurrection: [1] the tombs were opened; [2] the tombs were empty; [3] the dead were raised; [4] there were physical appearances; [5] many people saw these resurrected saints (cf. Mt.27; 1 Cor. 15).  In brief, if this is not a physical resurrection, then neither was Jesus’ resurrection (that preceded and prompted it) a physical resurrection.  Or, conversely, if Jesus’ resurrection was physical, then so was the resurrection of these saints in Matthew 27 a physical resurrection. Thus, denying the physical resurrection of these saints undermines belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus.

 

Fourth, as Ellicott’s Commentary puts it, “the brevity, and in some sense, simplicity, of the statement differences [sic] it very widely from such legends, more or less analogous in  character… and so far excludes the mythical elements which, as a rule, delights to shows itself in luxuriant expansion” (vol. VI, p. 178).  In brief, the typical characteristics of a myth as found in apocryphal and other literature of that time is not found in this text.

Fifth, some of the elements of this story are confirmed by two other Gospels.  For both Mark (15:38) and Luke (23:45) mention the renting of the veil in the temple (Mat. 27: 51) as a result of Jesus’ death as well.  But Luke’s writings in particular have been historically confirmed in nearly one hundred details (see Colin Hemer, Acts in the Setting of Hellenic History). There is no reason to believe he is less historically accurate in mentioning this detail.  And if this part of the story is factually confirmed, there is no good reason to reject the rest of it.

 

Finally, the cumulative evidence for the historic and non-legendary nature of this text is strong.  In fact, the story is interwoven with the historic evidence surrounding the death and resurrection of Christ in such as manner that the denial of the resurrection of the saints undermines the historicity of the resurrection of Christ in the same text.

 
 On the Inconsistency of Licona’s View with the ETS and ICBI View on Inerrancy

 

The Evangelical Theological Society is on record in the Robert Gundry case as rejecting this kind of dehistoricizing of the Gospel record as inconsistent with their view of the inerrancy of Scripture.  In 1983 by an overwhelming vote the ETS members Robert Gundry was asked to resign from the ETS for holding a similar view in which he dehistoricized sections of Matthew’s Gospel.  Since Mike Licona is a member of ETS, it follows that his view is inconsistent with the ETS stand on inerrancy.

Of course, Licona can argue that it is not inconsistent with his personal or private view on inerrancy, but that is not the point we made in our Open Letter, nor is it the point here.  The fact is that the society of scholars to which he belongs has already ruled against the view which he embraces.  Further,  Licona is on record affirming that a text should be interpreted in accord with the “author’s intent” (RJ, 85) or “authorial intent” (RJ, 195).  Thus, it would be inconsistent, if not dishonest, to reject the ETS and ICBI framer’s intent when interpreting its inerrancy statement.  Unfortunately, it is this kind of dishonesty that erodes the integrity of a doctrinal statement.  For example, in 1976 the ETS Executive Committee confessed that “Some of the members of the Society have expressed the feeling that a measure of intellectual dishonesty prevails among members who do not take the signing of the doctrinal statement seriously. Other members of the Society have come to the realization that they are not in agreement with the creedal statement and have voluntarily withdrawn. That is, in good consciencethey could not sign the statement” (1976 Minutes of the ETS Executive Committee, emphasis added).  If one cannot sign a statement in good conscience according to the intent of the framers, then, of course, resigning is the honest thing to do.

Furthermore, in 2003 the ETS accepted the ICBI interpretation as the guideline for interpreting what inerrancy means by an overwhelming 80% vote.  Thus, it too can be used as a test of whether Licona’s view is consistent with what the framers mean by inerrancy.  And an examination of the following citations from official ICBI statements and official commentaries on them make it clear that denying the historicity of sections of the Gospels is inconsistent with its view on inerrancy.

Consider the following ICBI statements (emphasis added):  “We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science” (Article XII).  And “By biblical standards of truth and error (in Article XIII) is meant the view used both in the Bible and in everyday life, viz., a correspondence view of truth.  This part of the article is directed toward those who would redefine truth to relate merely to redemptive intent, the purely personal, or the like, rather than to mean that which corresponds with reality” (Sproul, Explaining Inerrancy (EI), 43-44).  Thus, “… all the claims of the Bible must correspond with reality, whether that reality is historical, factual or spiritual” (Sproul, EI, 41).

 

ICBI added, “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.”  Hence, “We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship” (Article XVIII).  The official ICBI commentary adds, “Though the Bible is indeedredemptive history, it is also redemptive history, and this means that the acts of salvation wrought by God actually occurred in the space-time world” (Sproul, EI, 37).  “When the quest for sources produces adehistoricizing of the Bible, a rejection of its teaching or a rejection of the Bible’s own claims of authorship [then] it has trespassed beyond its proper limits” (Sproul, EI, 55).  Also, an official commentary titledExplaining Hermeneutics (EH). It reads: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (EH, XIII).  Further, “We deny that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated” (EH,  XIV).

 

As one of the framers of the ICBI statements, I can say with certainty that our expressed intentions of the ICBI framers is directly contrary to Licona’s dehistoricizing of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:51-53.  In fact, Robert Gundry, who was asked to resign for a similar view, came up by name to the framers when we penned our statements.

 

Objections Sometimes Raised Against the ETS and ICBI View of Inerrancy

 

Those who defend the Gundry-Licona type view of “dehistoricizing” parts of the Gospels have offered several objections to this kind of critique over the years.  These will be brief addressed here.

Objection One: ETS and ICBI are not the Final of Infallible Word on Inerrancy

 

Some have disowned the ETS and ICBI statements on inerrancy.  After all, as these objectors correctly point out, these statements are not infallible.  This is true, but then too no creedal statements are infallible, even The Apostle’s Creed is not infallible. Only the Bible is God’s infallible written Word of God.  Nonetheless, there are good reason to accept these early creeds as a guideline for Christian belief.  And, since there were no explicit early creedal statements on the Bible, there are several reasons to accept the ETS and ICBI statements as guides on this inerrancy issue.

 

First of all, it is the standard to which Licona and supporters refer when they claim his view is consistent with inerrancy.  After all, Licona is listed as a member of the ETS which has adopted the ICBI statement as a guide to understanding inerrancy.  So, he is being judged by his own standard.

 

Second, it has been well established that the total inerrancy view expressed by  the ICBI has been the historic view held by the great church teachers down through the centuries (see John Hannah, Inerrancy and the Church; John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: The Roger/McKim Proposal).

 

Third, ETS is the largest conservative scholarly society in the world (with some 4000 members).  Hence, it statement on inerrancy carries more weight than any private opinions on the matter, even among some of its members.

Fourth, since the ETS statement is short, its members decided to accepted the ICBI statement on inerrancy as a guide to its meaning in 2003 by an overwhelming 80% vote.

 

Fifth, the ICBI statement has been the standard view on the topic among American evangelicals for the last generation.  Hence, there is no need to reject it now, particularly for “a new historical approach” that is contrary to the historical-grammatical approach which has been at the basis of orthodoxy down through the centuries.

 

So, in view of the foregoing evidence, the burden of proof  falls on any individual who pit their private view of inerrancy against the historic view down through the centuries, as is expressed in the ICBI statements on the issue.  And, as we have shown, Licona position clearly contradict what the ETS (to which he belongs) and ICBI framers meant by inerrancy.

 

Objection Two: Matthew 27 is the Only Reference to this Event

 

It is objected that since the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 is based on a single text, its historicity is in doubt.   However, from an evangelical view of Scripture (which Licona claims to hold), this is a clearly an unjustified assertion.  How many times does an inspired record have to mention an event for it to be true?  Many historical events in the Gospels are mentioned only once, including Jesus talking to the woman at the Well (Jn. 4) and his speaking to Nicodemus (in Jn. 3) in which He used the famous words, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:3).  Also, the encounter with the Rich Young Ruler and the story about Zaccheaus are only mentioned once (Lk. 19), as are numerous other things.  Further, as noted above, there are some aspect of this story (namely, the death and resurrection of Jesus and even the renting of the temple veil which is confirmed by both Mark  (15:38) and Luke (23:45).

 

Furthermore, many events from the ancient world survive by only one record.  So, by the logic of this objection, we would have to eliminate much of ancient history, to say nothing of much of the Bible!

 

Objection Three: Open Genealogies Support a Non-Literal View of Matthew 27

 

Robert Gundry raised this objection when he was asked to resign from ETS in 1983. In short, it is argued that Matthew 1:8 leaves out three generations when it lists Jesus’ ancestry (cf. 1 Chron. 3:11-12).  Hence, it is argued that that there is no reason to take passages like Matthew 27:51-53) as historical.  However, as any student of logic can quickly determine, this conclusion does not follow from the premises. For there is a big difference between abbreviation in a literal genealogy and taking the persons listed in it as non-literal.  Summarization of historical factsand dehistoricizing of themare really different things.  Thus, this objection is based on a false comparison.

 

Objection  Four: Many Inerrantists take Sections of Prophecy as Non-literal

 

It is sometimes objected that if some prophetic events can be taken in a non-literal way without denying inerrancy, then why can’t some events in the Gospels (like Matt. 27:52-53) be taken as non-literal and this view still be considered consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy?  Here again, we have a misplaced analogy for several reasons.

 

First of all, there is a difference between history and prophecy.  The question in Matthew is about a historical book, not a prophetical book.  Even if apocalyptic language can sometimes be taken to refer to non-literal events, it would not necessarily follow that this is true of historical sections of the Bible—especially those directly connected with the resurrection of Christ.

 

Second, the use of figures of speech in apocalyptic discourse does not necessarily mean that it is not referring to literal events.  For example, speaking of the Devil as being “chained” (as a figure of speech) does not mean there is no literal Devil (Rev. 20:1), nor that he won’t be restrained in some manner.  Likewise, other figurative language need not be taken to mean it does not refer to literal events.

 

Third, consistent evangelical inerrantists (whether Pre- Post or A-millennial) do not deny the literal, historical nature of the Second Coming regardless of whatever figures of speech may be used to describe it.  But what Licona has done is to deny the very historical nature of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27.  And he has done so with a text that does not use figurative, apocalyptical language, but refers to literal events like Christ’s death, resurrection, and bodies being raised from tombs and appearing to many in the city of Jerusalem.  Thus, it makes a big difference when one denies the historicity of this kind of event, as Licona has done.

 

Objection Five: Taking Matthew 27 as Non-literal is no Different than Accepting an Old Earth View

 

It is argued that if one can take the “days” of Genesis in a non-literal way and yet be considered consistent with inerrancy, then why can’t they take a section of Matthew 27 non-literally also be considered consistent with inerrancy?  It is a known fact that many strict inerrantists from B.B. Warfield and A.A. Hodge to the modern ETS fathers and ICBI framers hold an “Old Earth” view which they believed was consistent with a strict view of inerrancy.  However, this too is an unjustified comparison.  For the Hebrew the term “day” (yom) is used of a literal but longer period of time than twenty four hours in many places in the Old Testament.  This is true of numbered series of days (cf. Hosea 6:1-2) and days with “evenings and mornings” (Daniel 8:14, 26) connected to them.  It is also used in the Genesis creation record (Gen. 2:4) of more than one twenty-four hour day, referring as it does to all six days of creation.

However, in none of these cases is “day” used of non-literal events.  Thus, ICBI inerrantists insist that denying the literal historicity of Genesis 1-3 and beyond is inconsistent with inerrancy.  Indeed, Article XII of the ICBI “Chicago Statement” reads: “We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.”  And Article XIII of the ICBI statement on Hermeneutics reads: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.”  Thus it rejects the view of “Some, for instance, [who] take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is presented as a real person.”  And indeed it should reject those views that deny the historicity of the Genesis record since many crucial New Testament teachings are based on it, including the Fall  (Rom. 5:12-17), and Christ’s called the “Last Adam” after His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:45).

 

So, while the age of the earth is not a test of inerrancy orthodoxy, the literal historicity of Genesis 1-3 and following is.  So, contrary to this objection, accepting the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 as legend is contrary to orthodoxy, but accepting the Genesis record as history (regardless of the age of the earth) is not.  Indeed, there are many orthodox ways to hold an “Old Earth” view and still believe that the “days” of Genesis are literal historic days, whether solar days or longer (see Geisler, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, Appendix 4).

Objection Six: Other Inerrantists Agree that This View is Orthodox

Sometimes others who claim to believe in inerrancy, even ETS and ICBI kind of inerrancy, are cited in support of Licona’s view.  Dr. William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas have been put in this category.  However, it is important to note that neither of these men—nor others like them—accept Licona’s view that the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 is a legend.  And as for believing that Licona’s view is consistency with inerrancy, as we have shown above, they cannot mean consistent with what the ETS and ICBI framers meant by inerrancy, and the ETS is the organization to which Licona belongs.  And, as Licona himself holds, the intent of the author is definite for the meaning of a text.  Further, as we have shown, the ETS rejected Gundry’s view and adopted the ICBI interpretation of inerrancy which explicitly rejects dehistoricizing the Gospel record such as Licona does. Indeed, there is no real grounds for claiming that Licona’s view is consistent with the framer’s intent of ETS or ICBI.

Concluding Comments

In conclusion, Licona has not publically recanted his published view denial of the historicity of  the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27.  Until he does so, his view on this matter should be considered unorthodox, non-evangelical, and a dangerous precedent for the rest of evangelicalism. And what is so sad is that his view is unnecessary.  Actually, his otherwise generally good treatment of the resurrection of Christ would be enhanced, not diminished, by holding to the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 which, indeed, is listed as one of the literal fruits of Christ’s own resurrection.  My prayer is for Mike to make this change, improve his tome on the resurrection, and make his view consistent with his claim to believe in inerrancy.  I like Mike as a person and love him as a brother in Christ, and it would be a shame to see him fall permanently from the ranks of consistent biblical inerrantists.

With over a half century of experience in the scholarly world, I would also add one last word to other young evangelical scholars: resist the desire to be an Athenian (Acts 17:21).  There is something more important than having a seat at the table of contemporary scholarship; it is putting Lordship over scholarship when necessary.  Further, there is something more important than “a new historiographical approach”;  it is the “old” historical approach which takes the Gospel record—all of it—as historical.  It has served the Church well for nearly 2000 years, and there is no good reason to change it now.

______________________________________

 

Copyright © 2011 NormanGeisler.net – All rights reserved

 

By Christopher on Biblical Criticism / Higher Criticism, Book Review, Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Genre Criticism & Historical Criticism, ICBI, Matthew 27's Raised Saints, Mike Licona

An Open Letter to Mike Licona on his View of the Resurrected Saints in Matthew 27:52-53

An Open Letter to Mike Licona on his View of the Resurrected Saints in Matthew 27:52-53

by Norman L. Geisler

2011

Dear Mike:

I have examined your work on the resurrection (The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (IVP, 2010).  Overall, it is a massive (718 pages), scholarly resource, and I commend you for your efforts and for your defense of the bodily resurrection of Christ.

There is, however, one thing I found in it that raises some serious questions.  You speak of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:52-53 after Jesus’ resurrection as a “strange little text” (548 cf. 556).  Indeed, you call it “poetic” or “legend” (185-186).  You appear to include the angels at the tomb (Mk. 16:5-7) in the same category (186).  You speak of it as similar to Roman legends that use “phenomenal language used in a symbolic manner” (552).  You add, “…it seems to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as ‘special effects’ with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible” (552).   You say that by this legend “Matthew may simply be emphasizing that a great king has died” (552).   You add, “If he has one or more of the Jewish texts in mind [that contain similar legends], he may be proclaiming that the day of the Lord has come” (552).  You conclude that “It seems best to regard this difficult text in Matthew as a poetic device added to communicate that the Son of God had died and that impending judgment awaited Israel” (553).

Then you address the obvious problem that “If some or all of the phenomena reported at Jesus’ death are poetic devices, we may rightly ask whether Jesus’ resurrection is not more of the same” (553, emphasis added).  This is a very good question.  However, your answer is disappointing.

First, you say that “There is no indication that the early Christian interpreted Jesus’ resurrection in a metaphorical or poetic sense to the exclusion of it being a literal event that had occurred to his corpse” (553).  But neither is there any indication in the text that a historical understanding of the resurrection of the saints should be excluded from this text.  Indeed, the reference to these saint’s “bodies” coming out of “tombs” and going into the “holy city” (Jerusalem) and “appeared” bodily to “many”—all as a result of Jesus’ literal death and physical resurrection—are too many physical details to take this as purely poetical.    And just because one event (Jesus’ resurrection) is a bigger event would not, by the same reasoning, make it any less a legend.   There is no less evidence in the text that the smaller event (the resurrection of the saints) is any more metaphorical, to the exclusion of life returning to their dead corpses as well than there was Christ’s resurrection which was the cause of it.

Your second reason is even less convincing.  You argue that Jesus’ resurrection must have been literal (and the resurrection of these saints was not) since “no known Christian opponent criticized the early Christians or their opponents for misunderstanding poetry as history” (553).  But this is a well-know fallacy of an argument from silence.  Further, why should the enemies of Christians focus on this relatively minor byproduct of Christ’s resurrection when the major issue was whether Christ had risen bodily from the grave.  Neither did they concentrate on attacking the resurrection (resuscitation) of Lazarus or others who came back from the dead by the hands of Jesus and the apostles.  After all, the essential truth of Christianity did not rest on these resurrections, as it did on the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:12-19).

Finally, the same mistake seems to be occurring in your interpretation of this text as is made by many current liberal scholars in dehistoricizing other biblical texts, namely, using extra biblical sources as determinative for understanding a biblical text.  So what if other Roman or Jewish legends are similar?  The context of biblical text and other biblical texts are the best way to understand what a given passage is teaching.  And both of these favor a literal interpretation of the resurrection of these saints as a “firstfruits” of Jesus’ resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20).  Using extra-biblical sources in this way is similar to the false analogies used to deny the Virgin Birth of Christ because there are similarities with other non-Christian “virgin birth” stories.  They both overlook crucial differences!  None of these legends involve   the Second Person of the Triune God  becoming incarnate in human flesh as the New Testament does.

In short, dehistoricizing a seemingly incidental event in the biblical record may seem to be a relatively minor issue , but it is in fact very important.  This is so for several reasons.

First of all, what is being done here is the same basic thing that Robert Gundry did in dehistoricizing sections of Matthew and for which he was asked to resign from the Evangelical  Theological Society in 1983.  How then can another evangelical interpretation of the same kind be overlooked as unimportant to orthodox Christianity?  In fact, being one of the ICBI framers, I can tell you that we had Gundry in mind when we framed Article XVIII of the famous “Chicago statement” (which speaks against “dehistoricizing” the Bible).  And even The Evangelical Theological Society has adopted the ICBI statement as its guideline for understanding inerrancy.

Second, the size and relative significance of the event that is being dehistoricized is not relevant to the importance of the hermeneutical issue, namely, the principle being used to undermine the historicity of biblical events.  Once upfront genre decisions are made based on extra-biblical legends, then one has adopted a hermeneutic that can undermine orthodox Christianity

In brief, I heartedly agree with the first part of your title (“The Resurrection of Jesus”) but cannot concur with the last part of it (“A New Historiographical Approach”).  We don’t need a “new” historical approach.  The “old” historical-grammatical approach is sufficient, as it has been down through the centuries.  Indeed, if the principles of your historical approach (of using extra-biblical material as determinative of the meaning of a biblical text) were used consistently on the Bible, then it would undermine orthodoxy by dehistoricizing many crucial passages of the Bible.

Sincerely,
Your brother in Christ,
Norm Geisler

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

*I sent a copy of the letter to Mike over a month ago.  He has not yet responded to its points but said he is still considering the matter, though he anticipated that it would take him some time.

 

Copyright © 2012 NormanGeisler.net – All rights reserved

 

By Christopher on Apostasy, Classical Apologetics, Education

Closing the Back Door: The Need for Christian Education

Closing the Back Door: The Need for Christian Education

 by Dr. Randy Douglass
October 21, 2009

 

 

Part One

About the Author

Randy Douglass is Adjunct Professor of Religion at Charleston Southern University as well as a Bible teacher at Palmetto Christian Academy in Mount Pleasant, SC.  He has a Doctor of Ministry degree and is currently working on the Doctor of Education degree at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC.  He is the coauthor of two books with Dr. Norman Geisler:  Bringing Your Faith to Work: Answers for Break-Room Skeptics (Baker Books, 2005) and Integrity at Work: Finding Your Ethical Compass in a Post-Enron World (Baker Books, 2007)

The Back Door is Open

In my World Religions class at a Christian university, I had an interesting cast of characters for students. About one-third of the students were solid in their Christians faith.  The next group was somewhere in-between, trying to decide if the Christian faith they were raised in was the faith they now wanted to live by.  The last group was definitely not Christian in thought and practice.  In fact, two of these students were Wiccans. 

After class one day, I was talking with Kathy, one of the Wiccans.  She told me that she was raised in a good Southern Baptist church.  However, she had many questions about the Bible that no one could answer.  Was it really the Word of God or just of man?  What about all of the errors she heard about?  Aren’t there other ways to God than just through Jesus?  On the outside she conformed, but on the inside she was full of doubts.  Her college roommate, who was a Wiccan, convinced her that Christianity was not true.  Eventually, Kathy walked away from Christianity and became a Wiccan convert.

I told Kathy that Christianity is the one credible faith and that no other religion could stand up to it in terms of logic and evidence.  I asked her to listen in class with an open mind, and let the evidence alone convince her.  She agreed to do that, and I committed to answer her questions in class.

Sadly, Kathy is not alone in her departure from the church.  The hard truth is that we are seeing a large number of our adolescents walk away from the church and abandon the faith by the time they leave college. Many of these will never return.  Why is this happening and what can we do to stop this mass exodus?  These articles have been written in answer to these questions. In the first article, we will examine the reality of adolescent church dropouts and look at why this is occurring.  In the second article, we will explore the more important question of when these adolescents are leaving, and conclude with some solutions to this problem.

Christian Adolescents are Going AWOL

Recent studies reveal the staggering number of young people who are dropping out of church. In a study done in 2006 by George Barna, he found that six out of ten 20-somethings who were involved in church during their teen years no longer attended church.  The survey showed that 20% who were churched as teens remained spiritually active at age 29.  19% who were never churched as teens remained unconnected to a church.  61% who were churched as teens became disengaged by the time they were 23.  Most of these 20-somethings who leave the church never return.  The Barna research showed that the religious activity of teenagers is not translating into spiritual commitment as adults in their 20s and 30s.

A 2007 USA Today article discussed a LifeWay Research survey, which showed that seven in ten Protestant teenagers stopped attending church for at least a year by age twenty-three.  This survey was conducted of 1,023 adults aged 18 to 30 who regularly attended church in high school.  34% had not returned by the age of thirty. “This is sobering news that the church needs to change the way it does ministry,” says Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

Why are Church Adolescents Dropping Out?

College:  Bias against Evangelical Students

There are at least five reasons that adolescents drop out of church. In a recent survey of 1,269 faculty members across 712 different secular colleges and universities, 53% of respondents admitted to harboring unfavorable feelings toward evangelical students.  This survey was conducted by Gary Tobin, president of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research.  The professors’ defense was that the anti-evangelical bias did not translate into acts of classroom discrimination.  Can that really be true?  The rule of thumb is this:  where there is smoke, there is usually fire.

Intellectual Skepticism:  Angry Tribe of Opinionated Educators

As a college professor in a secular university (University of Texas), J. Budziszewski sees firsthand the bias of secular professors against Christianity in the university classroom.  He labels them as the “angry tribe of opinionated educators.”  Budziszewski believes that college is a war zone for young believers who are not prepared for the battle of their faith.  He states,

Modern institutions of higher learning have changed dramatically in the last half-century, and from the moment students set foot on the contemporary campus, their Christian convictions and discipline are assaulted.  “Faith is just a crutch,” they hear from friends and teachers.  “The Bible is just mythology.” “Christianity is judgmental and intolerant.”  “Morality is different everywhere.”  “Everyone must find their own truth.”  “I can be good without God.”  “Jesus was just a man who died.”  No wonder so many lose their faith!

Sadly, Budziszewski is correct in his assessment.  The problem is that we are seeing an alarming number of young Christians walk away from the faith by the time they finish college.

Surface Answers: Lifestyle Changes

LifeWay Research wanted to know why young people were abandoning the church.  They found that 97% of the “dropouts” listed life-change issues as a reason they left the church.  With a shrug of their shoulders, their reasons were as follows:  “I wanted a break from church” (27%); “I moved to college and stopped attending church” (25%); “work responsibilities prevented me from attending” (23%); or “I moved too far away from church to continue attending” (22%).

 

Digging Deeper:  Doubts then Departure

1,000 Church Dropouts:

·         20-29

·         No longer attend church

·         Attended conservative churches

However, there must be something else going on. Secular college and lifestyle changes cannot explain away the large exodus of young people from the church.  Britt Beemer of America’s Research Group was commissioned to find out more about those who are leaving the church as the surveys of LifeWay Research and Barna discovered. Beemer felt that those answers were too shallow to explain the massive loss on our hands.  Not content with the surface answers, he decided to dig deeper.  He surveyed 1,000 people with three criteria:  ages 20 to 29; those who said that they attended church nearly every week when growing up, but never or seldom go today; and those who attended conservative and evangelical churches. 

Why did these young adults who regularly attended church growing up, seldom or never attend today? Beemer received the usual surface answers of “lifestyle changes,” so he dug deeper.  Is biblical belief at the root of the exodus from the church as it was for Kathy?  Interestingly enough, the majority of these dropouts held to a strong belief in God.  86% believed that God exists and created the world.  When he asked if they believed they were saved and would go to heaven upon death, 66% said yes, 14% said no, while 20% were not sure.

Why doubt the Bible:

·         Written by men (24%)

·         Not translated correctly (18%)

·         Contradicts itself (15%)

·         Evolution proves Bible is wrong (18%)

·         Bible has errors (11%)

·         If God, why suffering (7%)

·         Hypocrites (6%)

However, when it came to the Bible, the majority of them felt that it was not a credible document.  Consider the following questions about the veracity of the Bible:  When asked if they thought the Bible contained errors, 40% said yes, 30% did not know, while only 30% said no.  When asked what made them begin to doubt the Bible, the answers given were in the chart at the right: 

Now we are finally getting somewhere!  The primary reason adolescents are abandoning the church is not a matter of lifestyle changes.  Lifestyle changes simply provide them with theopportunity to walk away from church with few questions asked. The primary reason adolescents are going AWOL is because of a deep distrust in the Bible.  These adolescents had questions about the Bible that were not sufficiently answered.  But wait a minute? Didn’t the majority of these young people go to Sunday school? Would this not be the place for teaching doctrinal truth?

Sunday School—Taught but Not Caught

Beemer had assumed that Sunday school was effectively teaching these young people.  Of the 1,000 interviews, 606 of these 20-somethings were Sunday school students.  Three out of five attended Sunday school when they went to church.  That is very surprising when one considers the answers to the questions in the following chart. 

Sunday School Questions

Attend SS

No SS

1.  Regularly attend Sunday School?

Yes 61%

No 39%

2.  Good people do not need to go to church?

Yes (40%)

Yes (29%)

3.  Church relevant to you now?

No (46%)

No (40%)

4.  Become more anti-church now?

Yes (39%)

Yes (27%)

The numbers showed that attending Sunday school did not help these young people develop a Christian worldview.  One would think that those who regularly attended Sunday school would have deeper religious convictions than those who did not.  However, the survey found the opposite. The causes for the church teen dropouts are many, but one thing is certain: Sunday school is not solving the problem. 

Putting it All Together

We have seen the hard reality that between 60-70% of our churched teens are dropping out of church when they reach college.  When we asked why, we saw that college professors, the atmosphere of intellectual skepticism, as well as life changes were most commonly given as reasons.  However, in a survey of 1000 church dropouts, it was revealed that before the departure, there were doubts.  The primary predictor of departure was when an adolescent had doubts in the veracity of the Bible.  Now we understand that lifestyle changes simply provided these teens with the opportunity to leave the church. 

In the next article, we will discover the answer to the most important question of when are these teens truly departing from the faith?  We will conclude with giving some practical, doable suggestions for the church as well as for the parent.

 

 

Part Two:  When are Church Adolescents Dropping Out?

When are we losing this group of young people?  In our last article, we saw that Britt Beemer of America’s Research Group surveyed 1,000 young people aged 20-29, who regularly attended church while growing up but not today, and attended conservative or evangelical churches.  Beemer dug deep to ask them why they no longer went to church.  He discovered that the majority of these dropouts doubted the veracity of the Bible.  But when did these doubts develop?

Beemer’s study went on to reveal the answer.  He discovered not only why young people were leaving the church, but also when.  He discovered of all the 20 to 29-year-old evangelicals who attended church regularly but no longer do so:

·         95% attended church regularly during their elementary and middle school years

·         55% attended church regularly during high school

·         11% were still going to church during college

These findings are both revealing and startling.  Most people assume that we lose our young people in college.  However, this most recent survey shows that 89% have begun to walk away from the church by the time they entered college.  Why is this occurring?  He found that in the hearts and minds of these churched young people, there was a delayed reaction going on.  First came the doubts, then came the departure.  Many students did not begin doubting their faith in college; they just departed by the time they went to college. 

As we will see, high school was when we lost nearly half of this group.  A large group was lost even earlier in middle school due to doubts about the accounts and stories in the Bible being true.  Of those who doubted the veracity of Scripture, four in nine said they had their first doubts in high school.

Beemer wanted to ascertain where these young people went to school.  When asked what type of high school they attended, they answered public (86%), Christian (7%), home school (3%), and other (3.6%).   Therefore, the primary place of schooling for these dropouts was the public school system.

The next two questions were even more eye opening.  When asked at what age they began to question contents in Bible, the answers were early college (11%), high school (46%), and middle school (42%).  This number comes from a combination of grades 7-9 (29%) and grades 4-6 (13%).  When Beemer asked them if this questioning was beginning of their doubt in the Bible, 56% said yes, 31% said no, while 13% were not sure.

What this means is that by the time our adolescents get to college, most are already gone!  Their hearts are fertile soil to the seeds of doubt.  Make no mistake about it.  College professors are not the primary casters of the seeds of doubt.  They are simply the harvesters of the fruit of doubt that was placed deep in the hearts of these people when they were in high school and middle school.

Effective discipleship must address these doubts in the hearts of our young people before they go to college, not afterwards.  By then it is too late.  What can be done to stem the loss of our adolescents who are dropping out of church?

Solutions to Close the Back Door

Southern Baptist Convention researcher Ed Stetzer noted:

There is no easy way to say it, but it must be said. Parents and churches are not passing on a robust Christian faith and an accompanying commitment to the church. We can take some solace in the fact that many do eventually return. But, Christian parents and churches need to ask the hard question, “What is it about our faith commitment that does not find root in the lives of our children?”

Remember that belief in the Bible is a major predictor of whether a young person will leave the church and whether he or she will one day return.  However, let us not lull ourselves into complacency by thinking that most of these dropouts will one day return when they have children.  When asked if they expected to attend church regularly after they had children, only 38% said yes, while 32% said no, and 30% did not know.  These numbers do not provide a lot of “solace” for the majority will not return even after having children.

We have seen that a full 62% of these 1,000 absentees did not believe all the accounts and stories in the Bible.  What should the church do about this problem?  How can we begin to stop the flow of our adolescents who are dropping out of the church?  The answer is to recognize that the primary reason for their abandonment is distrust in the Bible and to answer those questions and show them that the Bible is credible.  We must answer their questions before they go to college while there is still time.  To accomplish this, we must do three things:

1.           Teach apologetics.

What is apologetics?  1 Peter 3:15 is the classic text for apologetics which says, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect….”   The phrase “give an answer” is from the Greek wordapologia from which comes our English word “apologetics.” 

Apologia was a Greek legal term, meaning among other things: an answer, or a verbal defense.  An apologetic is a defense, or a statement of a position one holds or wants to defend or prove. In this case, the cause is Christ and Christianity.  Apologetics does not mean an excuse or apologizing for what you believe. Rather, apologetics is the presenting of Christian evidence and logical arguments or reasons why a person ought to believe in Christ. 

Unbelievers have good questions, but we have good answers.  Rational people, including adolescents, want evidence for the claim that Jesus is the Son of God before they place their trust in Him.  Remember that these 1000 dropouts departed from church because they had many questions, especially about the Bible.  We must be prepared to answer such questions as:  where does the belief in a God come from?  Are all religions true?  How do you know God exists?  If there is a God, why is their evil and suffering in this world?  Is the Bible alone the Word of God?  What about all of the errors in the Bible?  Is Jesus really the Son of God?  Is there only one way to heaven?  These questions must be answered or our adolescents will one day walk out.  

“The objections that unbelievers raise are not trivial.  They often cut deep into the heart of the Christian faith and challenge its very foundations.  If miracles are not possible, then why should we believe Christ was God?  If God can’t control evil, is He really worthy of worship?  Face it:  if these objections cannot be answered, then we may as well believe in fairy tales.  These are reasonable questions which deserve reasonable answers.”

 We must prepare our children for the questions and objections to the Christian faith.  Too many Christians go out into battle ill equipped for the war.  The war zone for the Christian begins in middle school and into high school.  It continues on to the college campus, which even may include the Christian college campus.  For the disciple after college, the war zone moves into the workplace, which is filled with different worldviews and religions. 

“Most skeptics have only heard the questions and believed that there were no answers.  But we have some great answers to their questions.  Christianity is true.  That means that reality will always be on our side, and we just need to find the appropriate evidence to answer whatever question is asked” (Ibid, 11).

 2.          Apologetics in the Pulpit.

Back Door Solutions

1. Teach Apologetics

2. In the Pulpit

3. In Sunday School

What should the church do about this problem?  We must make apologetic & worldview training a core part of our discipleship process, all the way from Sunday school to the pulpit.  The pulpit is the primary means of teaching God’s Word to the gathered congregation.  All week long, those who attend the church are bombarded in the school, workplace and media by messages that undermine the authority of God’s Word.  Apologetics is one of the most life-giving things that a pastor can inject into the veins of his church.  Believers need to hear not just sermons from the Bible but also on the Bible.  Is it credible and relevant to our lives and world?  We must defend the Word in this post-Christian world.  We must make the connection between fact and faith so that the Bible again becomes authoritative and relevant in the church.

There is also an opportunity of which we must be aware.  When Beemer asked those who are no longer attending church if they plan to come to church during the Easter and Christmas holidays, 49% said no, but 51% said yes.  The church is always full on these most important Christian celebrations.  Many of these absentee adolescents will be in church on these two days.  Since this is true, the pastor must become intentional and preach apologetically to those who come to church on Christmas and Easter.  Instead of having a Christmas play with children in bathrobes on Sunday morning, preach about how we know that God really did become a man.  Instead of having a choir cantata on Easter Sunday morning, preach about how we know that a man named Jesus actually lived, died on the cross, and three days later, His tomb was empty!  Use this opportunity to speak to the questions of these dropouts on the credibility of Christianity and the Bible.

 

 

3.           Reeducate Sunday school.

Churches need to evaluate the teachers who are teaching Sunday school and ensure they know how to answer the skeptical questions about their topic.  Students are not being taught how to defend their faith, and how to answer skeptical questions.  Many teachers have not been trained in apologetics themselves.  It is possible that some teachers may even harbor some doubts themselves.  Every church should provide apologetic training for their teachers from at least middle school and up.  Our teachers must not teach Bible stories as moral “tales” but as historic fact…and then be able to give the evidence to back it up.

Sunday school curriculum from middle school through adults needs to include a steady diet of apologetics. Our entire culture (including secular schools) is aggressively teaching the apologetics of evolution and secular humanism.  They indoctrinate our students in the humanistic worldview, and they model that worldview.  At the same time, our churches and Sunday schools are teaching Bible stories that may seem nothing more than fairy tales to these young people.  They are not connecting the Bible to the real world.  Our young people are not being taught how to defend their faith—and we wonder why we are losing them. 

4.           Restructure Youth Ministry

Many youth ministries seem to be nothing more than entertainment systems.  As long as we keep our teenagers busy, the youth minister must be doing his job.  Instead of evaluating the effectiveness of a youth ministry by the number of events and all-nighters it had, maybe we should rather evaluate how many of the high school graduates stayed the course for Christ one, two and more years after high school. 

Youth ministers must become passionate about learning and teaching apologetics.  Teens are about to step out the door, and approximately 60-70% of them will not come back after they leave the youth ministry. Teenagers will be more likely to ask the youth pastor a question about their faith than their parents.  The youth minister has one hour every Sunday with his flock while the school, friends and media have the rest of the time. A godly youth pastor will make the most of his time. 

Back Door Solutions

1. Teach Apologetics

2. In the Pulpit

3. In Sunday School

4. In Youth Ministry

5. In the Home

5.           Apologetics in the Home

Parents must commit themselves to the study of apologetics as well.  It is normal that teenagers will ask questions about their faith as they begin to develop their own personal worldview.  When the parent is asked one of these apologetic questions, the response could very well set the tone for the child’s future spiritual development.  Many teenagers hear their parent reply, “That’s a good question (meaning=I don’t know).  Go and ask the pastor (meaning=I don’t care to find out).”  Many adolescents will conclude that either there is no answer to their question, or it is not important enough to find out.  The seeds of doubt have now been sown in the mind of the adolescent, but not by an atheistic college professor but by the Christian parent!  In reality, the college professor is the one harvesting the crops of doubt, not the one casting the seeds of doubt.  No, the seeds of doubt were sown in the mind of the teenager years earlier.

 

 

6.           Walk away from the Public School

This is a hard recommendation for me to make, for I have long been an advocate of remaining in the public school system to keep a Christian presence there.  However, the data is now overwhelming.  Yes, there are many fine Christian teachers in the public school system, but I find that many of them send their own children to a Christian school to be educated rather than in the one in which they teach.  What do they know that we don’t know? 

In the public school system, the Christian worldview is not taught, not allowed to be taught, and will actually be taught against.  For example, the average public school is pro evolution, pro abortion, and pro homosexuality.  The effect of this anti-Christian worldview has left its mark on our church adolescents.  I used to think that the war zone for the Christian young person began on the secular college campus; the hard facts now tell us that the war zone begins in the middle school and high school.  Remember that 86% of these church dropouts attended a public high school.  We can no longer ignore this negative impact of the public school system on our children.  If possible, the parent should do everything possible to remove their child from this atmosphere of poison. 

Back Door Solutions

1. Teach Apologetics

2. In the Pulpit

3. In Sunday School

4. In Youth Ministry

5. In the Home

6. No to Public school

7. Yes to Christian school

To the parent who chooses or must keep their child in the public school, the onus is on you.  You have been warned.  Your job in raising your child is now much more difficult and you must be up to the task.  My suggestion is that every night you “debrief” your child from their training at school.  Ask your child what was taught in their various classes, and then teach the Christian worldview to these ideas.  This must become your sacred task for the spiritual health of your child.

7.           Choose a Christian School with a Proper Worldview

It falls upon the Christian school to provide the student with an education that is not only excellent, but Christ-centered and apologetically focused.  Christian schools offer a Christian environment unlike that found in the public school system.  They also offer committed Christians who are trained teachers and experts in their field. 

Beyond this, we must choose a Christian school that has a Christian worldview and teaches it.  Having teachers who are born-again and pray at the beginning of class is good, but that is not enough.  These teachers must bathe their subject in a Christian worldview.  For example, the science teacher should be teaching evidence against evolution and for creationism.  The English teacher should be training the students how to identify the worldview of the literature they are reading.  The math teacher must teach the math courses from a Christian perspective…yes, that is important.  The history teacher should be unveiling the work of God in the history of the world.  Sadly, just because a school has the name “Christian” in front of it does not mean that they are teaching from a Christian worldview.

The Christian school should also train these teachers how to answers questions about their faith.  Many questions are asked questions about and have comments made in class that pertain to spiritual things.  Once these teachers are trained in apologetics, they will be more confident in their faith, understand what questions their students are asking, and look for opportunities to share these answers. 

A strong Christian school will also provide a curriculum that includes classes on apologetic subjects, such as Bible study classes, world religions and cults, and Christian evidences.  If a Christian school can produce a curriculum and faculty that are grounded in apologetics, this will provide the parent with an opportunity to ensure that their child will at least be taught the Christian worldview, if not develop it as well.  My own experience in teaching apologetics at both the college and high school level for the past three years substantiates this concept. 

The parent should place the child in the Christian school as early as possible, at least by the middle school years.  This will ensure a smoother transition for the adolescent into the Christian high school and help to develop a more substantial Christian peer group, which is essential for the teen years.  There is another reason for placing the child in the Christian school as early as middle school.  Remember we have learned that it is in the middle school where 42% of the church dropouts began to have doubts about their faith.  View the chart on the right that was shared earlier.  When asked at what age the 1,000 church dropouts began to question contents in Bible, the answers were early college (11%), high school (46%), and middle school (42%).  When Beemer asked them if this questioning was beginning of their doubt in the Bible, 56% said yes, 31% said no, while 13% were not sure.  The Christian school must be aggressive about apologetics not just in high school, but beginning in middle school as well.

While it is true that a Christian school is expensive, there is a cost to the public school as well.  A parent once told me, “Why should I pay to send my child to a Christian school?  The public school is free.”  The evidence now shows us that the public school is not free, for there is a cost.  The cost is the spiritual life of our children. The reality is that we will pay for it now (Christian school) or we will pay for it later (church dropout).   For those parents who desire to send their children to a Christian school, but cannot afford it, there may be other options.  Make it a matter of deep prayer and talk to the Christian school administrators.  There may be other avenues available, such as scholarships.  It is possible that after reading these articles, God will lay it on the heart of a wealthy Christian who wants to help to stop the church adolescent dropout rate.  Giving a donation or setting up a scholarship at a Christian school such as PCA will help many who would love to attend but cannot because of finances.

We need to make hard decisions and we need to make them now.  Our children and the future of the church are at stake.  We must declare war and reclaim our children whom we have voluntarily handed over to many who do not have our worldview, our attitudes, our faith or our Christ.  This solution is not only doable; it is also available.  We do not have to start a Christian school where one does not exist.  Good Christian schools already exist which offer an excellent education, a Christian environment, and committed Christian teachers.  A few Christian schools even have an apologetic worldview in its curriculum.  What are you waiting for?

8.            Teach apologetics in a way the adolescent can comprehend.

Many Christians have the perspective that apologetics is only accessible to the highly intelligent.  Who can understand all the issues that are involved in apologetics?  How could an average Christian debate subjects such as evolution versus creationism or Jesus versus Muhammad?  I have had people tell me that they have read some books on apologetics but were now more confused than before!  No, only those geniuses with Ph.D.’s are equipped to handle such deep subjects that apologetics deals with.

We are blessed in our time to have some great evangelical minds in the field of Christian apologetics who have written many books on the subject.  Contemporary examples would include such men as Norman Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, and Lee Strobel.  With all of the material available both in book form and on the internet, one has to wonder what else needs to be done.  If a teenager has a serious question about God, Jesus or the Bible, then just read a book on it.  Nevertheless, all of this wealth of information on apologetics has not made a dent on the church adolescent dropout rate.  Is it simply a matter of “you can bring a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink?” 

Back Door Solutions

1. Teach Apologetics

2. In the Pulpit

3. In Sunday School

4. In Youth Ministry

5. In the Home

6. No to Public school

7. Yes to Christian school

8.  Teach Apologetics to Mind of Adolescent

The problem is that there seems to be a fundamental flaw in our apologetic teaching materials.  These materials are written at a level beyond the reading ability of the average adolescent.  For example, what happens when a teenager asks the question, “How do we know there is a God?”  The standard apologetic answer is the cosmological, teleological, and anthropological arguments for God’s existence.  I tested the readability level of different articles written by well-known apologists on the “Teleological Argument” for the existence of God.  The readability score of one of these articles according to the Flesch-Kincaid was 12.27, or well above a 12th grade reading level.  In fact, it was at the beginning a college level.  Consider that the 1040EZ tax code is at 10.50 readability level.  Therefore, this article is more difficult to read than the tax code!  My examination of the other apologetic articles revealed that the readability level of these writings to be consistently high. 

These apologetic materials, while well written, are far beyond an adolescent’s scope in reading and comprehension.  Consider that the Flesch reading ease number for the average American is 65.  The one article in question that I tested had a reading ease number of 47.  The SMOG readability test graded this article at an even higher level, being 14.95. 

National literacy surveys have shown that the average adult in the U.S. reads at the 8th-grade level. Many students read “below grade level”. For example, it is well known that many college graduates read at the 10th-grade level, many high-school graduates read at the 8th-grade level, and many eight graders read at the sixth-grade level (DuBay 2006, National Assessment of Adult Literacy).  Nearly all of today’s blockbuster writers write at the 7th-grade level, including John Grisham, Stephen King, J. K. Rowling, and Dan Brown.  Experts today recommend writing legal and health information at the 7th-grade level.

We must examine our apologetic material from the reading and comprehension level of an adolescent. This material then must be rewritten at a level that the adolescent can comprehend.  At the same time, this apologetic material must not be watered down or diluted from its biblical wisdom.  When that happens, we will have ammunition in this battle for the hearts and minds of our church adolescents.  Writing apologetic material at a level the adolescent can comprehend will be the focus of my Ed.D. dissertation.

These articles began by examining the large number of adolescents who are dropping out of church, many of whom will never return.  It revealed that the primary reason was a distrust of the Bible.  The seeds of doubt in the Bible and Christianity began in middle school and grew in high school and bore fruit in the college years. It was stated that apologetics must be brought to the forefront of the disciple-making ministry of the church, and suggestions were offered in how to do this.  Finally, it was clearly seen that our apologetic material must now be written on a level that the adolescent can comprehend.  It is my belief and prayer that when these suggestions are put into practice, we will begin to see our discipleship efforts rewarded with the most important group of all…our children!

 

“I’m Back”

It was Monday, the day after Thanksgiving break and I was in my classroom setting up for class.  Kathy, the girl mentioned at the beginning of the first article, came up and said, “Hi, Dr. Douglass.  I’m back!”  I looked up and smiled, and said, “I see that.  Welcome back.  Did you have a good Thanksgiving?”  “Yes, I did,” replied Kathy.  “But that is not what I mean.  I’m back.”  I was puzzled.  “I don’t think I understand what you mean, Kathy,” I said.  With a smile, she replied, “On Thanksgiving evening, I had a long talk with my parents.  On Friday, afternoon, I had a good talk with my pastor.  And yesterday, on Sunday morning, I went forward and rededicated my life to the Lord.”  I was thrilled!.  “That’s great!” I exclaimed.  “What happened?”  With tears running down her cheeks, she said, “You know how you so often say that unbelievers have good questions, but we have good answers?  I had good questions but I didn’t know the answers.  Now I do know the answers and they’re my answers.  I’m back!”

In high school, many parents are passionate about getting their child into college.  These parents must now become just as passionate about helping their child to spiritually survive college.  Remember…unbelievers have good questions, but we have good answers.  We must know them and share them with our children, before it is too late.

 

Bibliography

Barna, G. (2006, September 11).  “Teenagers Embrace Religion but Are Not Excited   About Christianity”.Barna Research Online. Retrieved on September 12, 2009, from

www.barna.org/…teensnext…/147-most-twentysomethings-put-christianity-on-the-shelf-following-spiritually-active-teen-years .

Barna, G. (2001). Growing True Disciples. Colorado Springs: WaterBrook Press.

Bergin, M. (2007, August). Tenured Bigots. Free Republic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1880406/posts

Budziszewski, J. (2008). Ask Me Anything 2. Colorado Springs: NavPress.

Budziszewski, J. (2004). How to Stay Christian in College. Colorado Springs: Think, NavPress.

Geisler, N. (1990). When Skeptics Ask. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

Grossman, Cathy Lynn. (2007). Young Adults aren’t Sticking with Church, USA Today.Retrieved on September 20, 2009, fromhttp://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20070807/d_churchdropout07.art.htm.

Ham, K. (2009). Already Gone. Green Forest: Master Books.

MacArthur, J. (1989). The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 24-28. Chicago: Moody Press.

Railsback, G. (1994, 2001). An Exploratory Survey of the Religiosity and Related Outcomes Among College Students. Doctoral dissertation , University of Cailifornia at Los Angeles, Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 03A.

Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler. (2003). Who Made God? Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Stetzer, E. (2007). LifeWay Research Uncovers Reasons 18-To 22-Year-Olds Drop Out of Church. Retrieved on September 22, 2009, from

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D165951%2526M%253D201117,00.html

Zacharias, R., Geisler, N. (2003). Is Your Church Ready? Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

 

*Randy Douglass is Adjunct Professor of Religion at Charleston Southern University as well as a Bible teacher at Palmetto Christian Academy in Mount Pleasant, SC. He has a Doctor of Ministry degree and is currently working on the Doctor of Education degree at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC. He is the coauthor of two books with Dr. Norman Geisler: Bringing Your Faith to Work: Answers for Break-Room Skeptics (Baker Books, 2005) and Integrity at Work: Finding Your Ethical Compass in a Post-Enron World  (Baker Books, 2007)

 

Copyright © 2012 NormanGeisler.net – All rights reserved

Of possible interest:  Preparing your Teen for the Intellectual Challenge of College

 

By Christopher on Tribute tagged

My Memories of and Tribute to Paul Harvey

My Memories of and Tribute to Paul Harvey

By Norman Geisler

March 1, 2009

My memories of Paul Harvey go back to 1957 in Wheaton, Illinois when I heard him on the radio. He said that he had just visited a talented young man in the hospital whose career was being nipped in the bud by cancer. Paul said he went to encourage him, but he came away encouraged because the young man looked at him and said, “I do not believe that the Divine Architect of the universe ever builds a staircase that leads to nowhere!” I have used this many times since then to encourage people who are experiencing what they think is a premature loss.

My fondest memory of Paul Harvey, however, goes back to the 1970s when I was an interim pastor in Oak Park, Illinois. As I mounted the pulpit one Sunday, I was surprised to see Paul Harvey in the audience (I learned later that it was his church). I felt a lot like the man who survived a county flood who asked St. Peter if he could give his testimony in heaven. St. Peter obliged but reminded him that Noah would be in the audience!

After preaching a message on a Christian view of pleasure, I was greeted by Paul Harvey at the door with the nicest thing anyone had ever said to me after a sermon: “I have been waiting for many years to hear a message like that, and I do not think that you can beat it. But I will be here next Sunday to see if you can.” I don’t remember the title of the next sermon, but I certainly was motivated by his words to do my best. The next Sunday I was greeted by Paul with a signed record of his which I dearly treasure. It has on it my favorite illustration about the Incarnation of Christ titled “My Christmas Story.” As our six children were growing up, we played it for them each Christmas. It is still one of their fond memories of Christmas.

A humorous anecdote followed Paul Harvey’s comment to me after church. I had used a joke at the beginning of the sermon that said, “In view of the recent success of the film ‘Jaws,’ I think we need another one for older people called ‘Gums!’” The next week the editor of the local news paper asked me, “Did you really say what Paul Harvey said you did on his program today?” I asked what he said, and she repeated the joke I had told at church and that Paul Harvey had used with my name on his program. I confessed that I had said that, and added, “I also think we need another movie call ‘Braces’ for young people!” To my chagrin, she printed the whole thing in our local news paper.

 

By Christopher on Islam, Tribute

In Support of Dr. Ergun Caner

In Support of Dr. Ergun Caner

By Noted Christian Leaders

Released July 9, 2010

Converted Muslim, Dr. Ergun Caner has been under attack by extreme Muslims and others who have challenged his integrity and character, claiming that he was not a Muslim, let alone a devout one, and that he intentionally made false statements related to his Muslim background and conversion to Christianity. While Dr. Caner categorically denies these charges, he acknowledges making several misstatements over the past decade for which he publicly apologized on his web site in February, 2010, saying in part, I “never intentionally misled anyone…. For those times where I misspoke, said it wrong, scrambled words, or was just outright confusing, I apologize and will strive to do better.”

Ergun’s brother Emir (also a converted Muslim) who has been in the best position to know almost all the facts, writes: “Over the past year or so, my brother has sustained an unprecedented and orchestrated barrage of attacks from extreme Muslims and extreme Calvinists.  The attackers first attempted to prove that Ergun (and I) were never Muslims, a lie that was easily exposed.  Then, their bitter efforts alleged we were never devout Muslims, an attack that even took cheap shots at our father, his devotion to Islam, and his devotion to his family.  Documentation including court records once again illustrated their lies.  Finally, they are now attacking my brother’s character, alleging a few incorrect statements are the equivalent of embellishment and intentional deceit.  Through this entire ordeal, my brother has shown an unquestionable Christian character, asking forgiveness for any mistakes and persevering while his entire life was unbiblically placed in front of the world. As his brother, I am prouder of him today than I even was before this situation occurred.  His character, integrity, and bold witness are truly an emulation of a shepherd’s heart (1 Timothy 3:1-7) and an evangelist’s passion (Ephesians 4:11).  I am simply grateful to be his brother.”—Emir Caner, President of Truett Mc Connell College, Cleveland, GA.

Liberty University (where Dr. Caner teaches) announced:  “After a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Caner’s public statements, a committee consisting of four members of Liberty University’s Board of Trustees has concluded that Dr. Caner had made factual statements that are self-contradictory.  However, the Committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager….  Dr. Caner will remain on the faculty of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary as a Professor.” —Liberty University Statement (June 29, 2010, emphasis added)

While Caner’s exoneration* from the false charges has not satisfied all his critics, who continue to rehash old criticism, a flood of support has come in for him from noted Christian leaders and others around the country:

“Kregel Publications has concluded that the Kregel titles by Dr. Caner are trustworthy, factually accurate, and helpful to both Christians and seekers wanting to know more about Islamic beliefs and how those beliefs compare and contrast with biblical Christianity.” —Kregel Release July 6, 2010

“[TV host] John F. Ankerberg, who interviewed Caner for more than a dozen television programs, has posted on his website that he is disheartened by the attacks upon his friend’s integrity and character.  Ankerberg said he believes Caner’s testimony is ‘completely true.’” —Christianity Today, posted 7/02/2010

“ In a day of negativism and bad news, I am rejoicing today over many things.  I rejoice over faithful witnesses of Jesus in a small Ohio Baptist church that loved two Moslem boys to Christ and then encouraged them to live for Jesus.  I am grateful to God for the many people that have come to Christ through the witness of those two men.  I continually thank God for His unbelievable plan to use sinners and mistake-prone men like the Caners, and even more amazing, people like me, to accomplish some things of great value in His kingdom business.   Only eternity will reveal the good that two former Moslems have done.  I thank God for them both.”— Paige Pattersonn, president of Southwestern Baptist Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas

“I know Dr. Caner and have done a number of apologetics conferences with him, and have witnessed God using Ergun in a powerful way. He has always spoken words of grace to others, and I thus find it disturbing that some have chosen to show NO grace to Ergun in the midst of his current trial.  If God only used perfect vessels, who among us would be qualified?  I know of none.  I urge all those who respect my work to take the word of someone who knows Ergun personally (me): He is a good man with a heart for God.” —Dr. Ron Rhodes, author and President of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries

Apologist Dr. Norman Geisler declared: “We posted complete and detailed response to criticisms against Dr. Caner on our website (www.normgeisler.com).”  He concluded that, “Having examined all these charges against Dr. Caner carefully and having looked at the related evidence, I can say without hesitation that all of the moral charges against Dr. Caner are unsubstantiated. Further, no one had demonstrated moral intent on any of the factual misstatements he made (which we all make).”  He added, “Dr. Caner is a man of honesty, integrity, and loyalty to Christ.”—Dr. Norman Geisler, author and Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary

“Dr. Geisler’s response to the charges brought against Dr. Ergun Caner by some Muslims and other groups has hit the mark.  The charges on the surface sounds formidable until they are met with TRUTH, then they quickly evaporate away losing all power to condemn – leaving the accusers to contemplate their actions. Dr. Geisler’s responses serve to confirm what I had already known about Dr. Caner’s sincere character and tireless efforts to reach the lost with the gospel and equip Christians to defend the faith in a hostile world. Dr. Geisler and Dr. Caner are the two spiritual warriors I would most like next to me in the trenches doing battle for the cause of Christ.” —Dr. Joseph Holden, President of Veritas Evangelical Seminary, Murrieta, CA

*“Tim Rogers of SBC Today (A Southern Baptist news organ), declared and defended his claim that Ergun Caner was “exonerated” of the charge against him by citing Merriam-Webster’s definition “to clear from accusation or blame.”  He wrote, I used “exoneration” in the post announcing the completed investigation of Dr. Ergun Caner….  If one looks at the definition and then looks at the statement released from Liberty University, one has to admit that exoneration is not a stretch.  Why?  Notice what the statement says; “the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager [which was the claim challenged  by the critics]….Thus, I used the term “exoneration” because according to the statement released by the committee from Liberty University they cleared him from accusation or blame” (Posted June 29, 2010).

 

In Further Defense of Ergun Caner

By Norman L. Geisler

July 6, 2010

 

Since issuing a recent defense of Ergun Caner against his critics, a number of unjustified attacks have come to my attention.  Many of them are just a rehash of old ones already answered with a futile attempt to prove his intent to embellish and deceive.  Not one of these charges is substantial, involving any major doctrinal or moral issue.  Nonetheless, since left unanswered they tend in the minds of some to imply moral guilt; a brief response to them will be helpful.  It is charged that many times Caner embellished and deceived in that:

 

  1. Ergun Caner claimed to have been born in Istanbul when he was actually born in Sweden.

 

Response: All of Caner’s books (see Unveiling Islam, 17) and nearly all of his interviews and sermons state that he was born in Sweden.  Since both Ergun and his father were Turkish citizens, he strongly identified with that ancestry.  Thus, an occasional misspoken word about his birthplace is understandable.  Nonetheless, Ergun publically apologized for this and other mistakes on February 25, 2010 (see “Sixth” below).

 

  1. Caner claimed to have once lived in Ankara (Turkey) and along the Iraqi border which he did not.

 

Response: Ergun traveled with his father to Turkey several times. Later, he was along the Iraqi border as he said he was.  It should not be deemed strange that Ergun has spent time in Turkey.  After all, he has a Turkish father and was a Turkish citizen who came to America on a Turkish passport.  This allegation against him is a mere assumption without evidence which illustrates the desire to defame Ergun by his critics.

3. He claimed to have watched Dukes of Hazard and longed to marry Daisy Duke while growing up in Turkey before the show was even on TV in 1979.

Response: This statement was intended as humor and was taken as such by the audience.  Indeed, Ergun has made this joke for more than a decade and never once was it taken as a matter of fact.  He was illustrating the misconceptions between Americans and Muslims.

4. He claimed in one place to have become a US citizenship in 1978 and in another place he claimed that it was in 1982.

Response: It is well known that Caner became a US citizen in 1978.  The other date is from the period of his call to the ministry and is sometimes lumped together with the earlier date in his testimony.  No intent to deceive existed, nor has it been established by this conflation of dates.  Since it is well known by Bible scholars that this kind of thing is found in the Scriptures (which are without error), then any Christian pressing this charge would, by the same logic, have to impugn the Bible as well (see The Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 2, p. 40).

5. Caner claims to have worn a Muslim “keffiyeh“(head covering) before his conversion to Christianity, yet photos show him with his head uncovered.  This reveals that he was not a devout Muslim and that he intended to deceive when claiming to be one.

Response: Ergun’s brother Emir vouches for their devout Muslim background.  He has provided a picture (below) of Ergun with his head covered (sitting down).  Of course, there were other times when he had no covering on which would be natural.

Other evidence of his being a devout Muslim is available, such as Ergun’s circumcision ceremony and participation in the reading and recitation of the Qur’an.  Further, that Ergun was reared a devout Muslim is proven by his father’s testimony recorded in the divorce proceedings documents which ironically Ergun’s critic placed on the internet.

6. Ergun claims he was saved in 1982 but also claims his brother Emir was converted in 1982, yet elsewhere Emir’s conversion is said to be a year later (1983).

Response: Both men agree that Emir was saved a year after Ergun.  There is some confusion about the exact year.  Given that Ergun was converted in 1982 (as he claims), this would put Emir’s conversion “a year later” (as they both acknowledge).  Again, there is no intention to deceive here but simply a problem of memory about exact dates.

7. Ergun claimed his father had many wives and two half-brothers and two half-sisters, but there is no evidence for the half-brothers.

Response: Ergun’s father did have two wives, having divorced the first one.  He had three sons by his first wife (Ergun and his two brothers).  So, Ergun has two full brothers and two step-sisters (from his father’s second wife).  While speaking quickly on one occasion, he mistakenly called his brothers his “half” brothers.  This is hardly evidence of an attempt to embellish or deceive.  After all, he had the right number of each sibling, and he didn’t claim to have ten brothers or sisters!

Finally,  a Note about Ergun’s Critic:

First, Ergun is an outspoken converted Muslim which in Muslim lands is a capital crime.  Since this is contrary to law in the United States, his Muslim critics have resorted to character assassination instead.  Unfortunately, other extremists who disagree with some of his theological views have piled on and are kicking him while he is down.

Second, a blogger-critic refuses to give his real name, using a pseudonym.  This violates a moral and legal rule that one has a right to face his accusers. [This is also a good way to avoid libel charges.]

Third, his critics often assume, contrary to American law, that one is guilty until proven innocent.  Really, the burden of proof for these allegations is on the accuser, not on the accused.

Fourth, not one of these accusations is about any serious doctrinal or moral issue.  Ergun has never been found guilty of either of these.

Fifth, out of a couple thousand sermons, nearly twenty books, and hundreds of media interviews, the relatively few mistakes are trivial by comparison.  It is like looking at a glass 97% full and complaining that it is 3% empty!   I am sure that anyone who wished to do a search on other leaders who have communicated as much in the past decade or so could do a hatchet job on some of them too.

Sixth, Ergun has readily admitted the mistakes he has made and has apologized for them publically.  In February, 2010, he said in part on his Web site that he “never intentionally misled anyone…. For those times where I misspoke, said it wrong, scrambled words, or was just outright confusing, I apologize and will strive to do better.”   Even the public statement made by Liberty University on June 29, 2010 made this clear when it said, “Dr. Caner has cooperated with the Board committee and has apologized for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review.”

Seventh, by comparison, his critics have not apologized for anything they have done, even though they have wrongly:  a) assumed Ergun’s guilt without proof, b) impugned his intentions, and c) assassinated his character.  This is to say nothing of the pain, misery, and agony they have afflicted on Ergun, his family, and the problems this has caused at Liberty University.  For this they owe Dr. Caner a clear and contrite public apology.

Finally, his critics have not followed the instructions of Matthew 18 by going first to their brother and then to his church privately on these allegations.  Rather, they have practiced unbiblical gossip in passing on defaming charges about another brother in Christ to others—indeed, making these charges public.

My experience with Ergun, as that of those who know him well, is that he is a devout zealous believer who lives a life in obedience to Christ and who works diligently to extend his kingdom.  It is a crying shame that other believers have jumped on a band-wagon which is discrediting this sincere, earnest, and faithful follower of Christ.

Kregel & Caner

Kregel author Dr. Ergun Caner will no longer serve as Dean of the Liberty Seminary following an investigation by a university committee of allegations that Dr. Caner made misleading or false statements regarding his past. His contract to serve as Dean of the Seminary expired on June 30 and was not renewed. Dr. Caner does, however, remain a faculty member of Liberty University.

While news sources and anti-Caner bloggers have been quick to seize upon the committee’s finding that Dr. Caner made “factual statements that are self-contradictory,” the report also concluded:

However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager, but, instead, found discrepancies related to matters such as dates, names and places of residence. Dr. Caner has cooperated with the board committee and has apologized for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review.

In February Dr. Caner issued a statement on his Web site that said in part that he “never intentionally misled anyone. . . . For those times where I misspoke, said it wrong, scrambled words, or was just outright confusing, I apologize and will strive to do better.”

Dr. Caner’s story, as presented in his 2002 national bestseller Unveiling Islam (co-authored with his brother Emir), has been verified by numerous persons who knew the Caner brothers as teens and throughout their adult lives. Kregel Publications has found no credible evidence that contradicts the facts presented in Dr. Caner’s writings.

Moreover, evidence presented on anti-Caner Web sites, such as the legal documents related to his parents’ divorce proceedings, confirm that his father was a devout Muslim who did his utmost to insure his sons’ training in the Muslim faith. As Dr. Caner acknowledges in the introduction to More Than a Prophet (Kregel, 2003), “We were both [Ergun and Emir] raised to be faithful Muslims with the Turkish culture, yet our religious upbringing and understandings were those of devout Sunni Muslims everywhere. . . . Whatever deficiencies we may have had in our understanding have been compensated by over twenty years of study in Islam as we have tried to understand the Muslim mind” (pp. 19–20)

Kregel Publications has found no reason to withdraw Dr. Caner’s books from publication or revise any substantive statements in his books. We believe the books are trustworthy, factually accurate, and helpful to both Christians and seekers wanting to know more about Muslim belief and how those beliefs compare and contrast with biblical Christianity.

 

 

By Christopher on Cults tagged

The Supreme Court Denies to Hear Lawsuit Against John Ankerberg and Harvest House Publishers (2007)

The Supreme Court Denies to Hear Lawsuit Against John Ankerberg and Harvest House Publishers
by Norman L. Geisler

To God be the Glory!!

On June 18, 2007, the United States Supreme Court, DENIED the request of The Local Church/Living Streams Ministry to hear their mega millions case against Harvest House and Dr. John Ankerberg which they had won in the Texas Supreme Court. The Local Church/Living Streams Ministry have 25 days (till July 13) to secure a “tier one” law firm (one qualified to take them to the US Supreme Court) and appeal to the court again to hear the case. There is little chance for success in this course of action since they have already lost twice at the Texas Supreme Court level and once at the US Supreme Court level.

This is a great victory for both counter-cult ministries and orthodoxy in general. A loss would have severely limited our freedom to preserve orthodox Christianity because we would not have been able to define its limits by distinguishing it from unorthodox groups.  See our Amicus Brief and the article on the Local Church on behalf of Harvest House and Ankerberg.