Is the Old Testament Boring? The Seed and the Reason for the Season

In a recent, humorous article called "Whose Home for the Holidays?", Stephen Fried writes about the battles that often rage over which family, the husband's or the wife's, will get the most time with their married kids during the holiday season. I laughed as I read it because it is realistic. This can really be a tough issue. In fact it can become one of many consuming and distracting issues during this time of year that serves to innocently (as it seems) take our eyes off of Jesus Christ.

This is why I want to quickly remind readers that the Old Testament is the furthest thing in the world from boring or dry. It is the story of God preserving His Seed, who is the Lord Jesus Christ. It is for His glory and because of His actual birth / incarnation that we celebrate the Christmas holiday.

Genesis 3:15 and the Initial Introduction to the Seed
{God to the serpent}
"And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."

This is no minor prophecy, but the initial statement that a man would be born of a virgin (the Seed of the woman, not of a man) and that He would utterly ruin the Devil and His Work.

Genesis 4:25 It did not work out for Abel, so Seth becomes the Seed-Line
"And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.”

Genesis 22:18 Abraham, the descendant of Seth, was also blessed with the promise of a coming Seed
"In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

II Samuel 7:12 King David, a direct descendant of Abraham, was given the following seed promise from God
“When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom."

John 7:41-43 People argued over whether Jesus was truly the Seed of David
41 Others said, “This is the Christ.” But some said, “Will the Christ come out of Galilee? 42 Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” 43 So there was a division among the people because of Him.

Galatians 3:16 The Apostle Paul Clearly Identifies Jesus as the Seed
Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.

Here is the point folks, Jesus did not just pop in on the scene one day - a lunatic with Messianic dreams. Jesus came through a specific and chosen family line, as the Seed who would bless the nations. Don't believe news reports (CNN, Time, Newsweek, and so on) who rely upon atheistic or agnostic historians to manipulate the truth. They erroneously imply that the birth of Jesus did not really happen (certainly not as the biblical account details) or that Jesus was merely a good man and moral teacher. However, a careful tracing of the Seed throughout the Old Testament shows that the birth of Jesus was set up (if you will) by Almighty God to occur exactly as it did, and indeed it could not have occurred otherwise.

Here is what the Seed came to do.

Hebrews 2:14-15
Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Just as Genesis 3:15 clearly states, Jesus came to crush the head of the Devil, ruin his evil works, and set His chosen people free.

This Christmas, it will be tempting to be distracted by the feasts, the gifts, the decorations, the family gatherings, the carols, and all the rest. Keep your focus on the Seed. His was not a random, accidental birth, but a special, protected entrance of God into the realm of humanity. This is reality not simply a holiday. Merry Christmas.

Craig Branch on Scientology

Craig Branch, Director of the Apologetics Resource Center, has labored extensively to understand the inner workings of the cult group Scientology. Many of you have read his articles, but now you can listen to a lengthy interview of Craig on a recent radio broadcast of Issues, Ect.

Responding To Comment Concerning Evolution

On my last post, in which I respond to Adler's Newsweek article on Darwin's life, the following anonymous comment came in. I'd like to respond to some of the points made.

"Once upon a time, during the 16th Century, men who fervently believed that the Biblical account of existence (Creation) was the literal and 'only truth' burned people at the stake for saying that the earth was not the centre of the universe. They burned people at the stake for claiming that our galaxy was but one of many. They burned people at the stake for claiming that the earth went around the sun, and not vice versa. Copernicus. Bruno. Galileo. All suffered to one extent or the other at the hands of people who 'knew' the 'truth'. "

Please understand that the Catholic Church killed people outside of biblical sanction. They were not doing what God intended, but what they felt was right. The errors of people do not discredit the system they claim to follow, if indeed they have deviated from that system. Many factors led to these errors, such as lack of education and church abuses, but they were errors nonetheless and certainly not a true picture of biblical Christianity.

"And it was those who did the burning who were wrong. They were not different people to Christians today - the mentality is the same (although fortunately there are no longer any Sunday morning human barbeques)."

In some Christians today the mentality is the same - but not all. In those "Christians" where the mentality remains the same they, too, are in error and deviation from Biblical principles.

"Mr Dollar one again claims that it requires 'divine' knowledge to know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It doesn't. What it requires is honest observation, measurement and anaylsis of the results to know the age of our planet."

I'm sorry but with all due respect, this is ridiculous. There are so many disagreements among modern scientists as to the interpretation of data and dating that it is clear that it is not that easy to determine these things. I am not saying we should not try to date things - but lets be realistic about what we can know with our highly limited human observations. We simply do not have a time machine to know for sure. I would have been fine if Adler had said, "Many assume the planet is 4.5 billion years old." He did not say that. He said, "We know..." When in fact, we do not have certainty in this area.

"Constant denial of Darwin's Theory of Evolution is rampant amongst Christians, but I don't hear any of you denying Einstein's Theory of Relativity, without which you would have no lighting, energy, satellites, cameras, televisions, dvd's or indeed computers with which to write these messages upon."

Einstein's theory of relativity is true science not based on anti-supernatural presuppositions. BIG difference. To the degree that Darwin did true science, Christians, like me, should accept his findings as helpful. There is a wrong supposition that Christians are not interested in scientific advancement. That is hogwash. The issue is, we want advancement in an ethical fashion.

"The silicon chip relies upon Einstein's discoveries in order to operate. It was science that learned, by effort and trial and error and success to place these things at our disposal. Those who did so did not sit around praying for piles of plastic and silicon to spontaneously and miraculously arrange themselves into a computer."

Interstingly, you make the case for Intelligent Design here. Matter did not miraculously arrange itself into human intelligence either, which is far more brilliant than a computer and upon which our computers are based.

"Evolution is no different - everything evolves, even our own technologies."

Believe it or not I agree. But does evolution mean the change of one species to a completely different species? No. There are plenty of changes within a certain type of animal or plant, adaptations, but no change from fish to tree or dog to cat or horse to human or whatever.

"As for ID and its rather silly Irreducible Complexity, take a look at the common garden mole (same name in the US)? It is virtually blind, living all of its life burrowing underground. Yet its skull contains a perfectly normal orbit for the eyeball, and all of its relative species have sharp eyesight. The mole specialised to live underground, and lost the need for keen eyesight - its eyeball became reduced in complexity. Its known as devolution, and is observed, like evolution, everywhere."

By calling Irreducible Complexity "silly" you reveal you lack of knowledge of the concept. It's like me saying Darwin was silly. We might disagree on his conclusions, but I know he was far from silly. Your example does not prove anything about what this concept proposes. Just becasue a certain animal "devolves," or adapts to a new environment, does not mean that its eyeball was not irreducible complex to begin with. The point is, there are to many separate complex mechanisms within an eye that have to be working at the same time in order to function properly. Of the two options that explain how this might have happened, evolution seems totally illogical and certainly impossible. Intelligent Design makes scientific sense of observed data.

"Truth is found by eliminating the impossible, via experiment and observation."

That is right and more and more scientists are insisting that the idea of evolution is impossible.

"The Bible has been found impossible and indeed incoherent for hundreds of years via this method. Genesis did not occur. Evolution - universal, galactic, stellar, planetary and biological, DID occur, and we see its signature every day."

The Bible is impossible only to those who are already predispossed against it. And again you seem to contradict yourself by using personal terminology like the word "signature." That implies intelligence and thus destroys the theory of impersonal evolution. It is amazing how often Naturalists do this.

"Why not let your children make up their OWN minds, instead of trying to teach them something that remains unsupported by everything that has made our species a success - LEARNING. Far beter than superstition."

It is amazing that you would say this when evolutionists insist that ID not be taught in public schools. Yes, I agree, lets let kids make up their own minds - so let ID be taught alongside the theory of evolution so that they have that opportunity. As far as superstition, I am of the opinion that it takes more faith to believe the myth of evolution than it does to trust the God who inspired the words of Scripture.

I do appreciate your interaction and I hope the readers of this exchange come away with fresh thoughts in regard to this debate. May Christ be honored in our attempt to focus on the truth.

Charles Darwin and Christianity

Newsweek is currently honoring Charles Darwin by attempting to explore the evolution of his journey from faith to true science. The article was written by Jerry Adler, who obviously is no friend to conservative Christianity.

"Darwin alone remains unassimilated, provocative, even threatening to some—like Pat Robertson, who recently warned the citizenry of Dover, Pa., that they risked divine wrath for siding with Darwin in a dispute over high-school biology textbooks (click here for related story). Could God still be mad after all this time?"

I am no Pat Robertson fan either, but secularists insist on placing Robertson upon the pedastool as the head of conservative Christianity. My favorite analogy to this error is calling a liberal a Bush supporter simply because he / she is an American citizen. Still I don't think it is fair to say that Robertson's comments reveal that he is "threatened." Throughout this article Adler makes Christians out to be little idiots who revolt and whine if anything causes them to question their immature beliefs in God.

"But the man is, in fact, fascinating. His own life exemplifies the painful journey from moral certainty to existential doubt that is the defining experience of modernity."

I agree with this statement. Further the case can be made clearly that the logical conclusion of existential doubt is Nihilism. "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated" (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Thus the statement is sad and self-refuting, since after all Adler is attempting to say something with meaning and value.

"He had the advantage that by his time geologists had concluded that the Earth was millions of years old (today we know it's around 4.5 billion); an Earth created on Bishop Ussher's Biblically calculated timetable in 4004 B.C. wouldn't provide the scope necessary to come up with all the kinds of beetles in the world, or even the ones Darwin himself collected. "

The arrogance of Adler is amazing. He states that he "knows" that earth is around 4.5 billion years old. This is akin to claiming divinity. Some people call me nuts for trusting in the truth of God's Word, but it has got to be truly irrational to make as bold a claim as Adler makes here. Here is a man, like the rest of us, who probably looses his car keys on occassion, but he knows the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Surely he sees how improbable his knowledge in this area is if he is relying purely on observations in nature.

"Darwin's greater, and more radical, achievement was to suggest a plausible mechanism for evolution. To a world taught to see the hand of God in every part of Nature, he suggested a different creative force altogether, an undirected, morally neutral process he called natural selection. Others characterized it as "survival of the fittest," although the phrase has taken on connotations of social and economic competition that Darwin never intended."

Natural selection is not evolution. Even the most outspoken Creationists agree that Natural Selection is part of the scheme of nature. Adler is making Christians look stupid by claiming that they do not see the obvious - change within certain species of animals. Darwin's observations were very helpful to science in this area, but Natural Selection is not the same as macroevolution.

"So it was apparent to many even in 1860—when the Anglican Bishop Samuel Wilberforce debated Darwin's defender Thomas Huxley at Oxford—that Darwin wasn't merely contradicting the literal Biblical account of a six-day creation, which many educated Englishmen of his time were willing to treat as allegory. His ideas, carried to their logical conclusion, appeared to undercut the very basis of Christianity, if not indeed all theistic religion."

This is true. This is why I deny that Darwin's ideas were accurate. Nor would a true Christian ("educated" or otherwise) consider the Biblical account of creation mere allegory. The problem is a problem of presuppositions. Read this article to see what I mean.

"William Howarth, an environmental historian who teaches a course at Princeton called 'Darwin in Our Time,' dates Darwin's doubts about Christianity to his encounters with slave-owning Christians—some of them no doubt citing Scripture as justification—which deeply offended Darwin, an ardent abolitionist."

You cannot prejudge a belief system by the errors of some of its adherents. Too bad Darwin did not meet Christian abolitionist William Wilburforce.

"More generally, Darwin was troubled by theodicy, the problem of evil: how could a benevolent and omnipotent God permit so much suffering in the world he created? Believers argue that human suffering is ennobling, an agent of 'moral improvement,' Darwin acknowledged. But with his intimate knowledge of beetles, frogs, snakes and the rest of an omnivorous, amoral creation, Darwin wasn't buying it. Was God indifferent to 'the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time'?"

Darwin did not grasp basic Biblical logic. Read this article by Steve Cowan if you struggle with the supposed problem of evil.

"So it's not surprising that, down to the present day, fundamentalist Christians have been suspicious of Darwin and his works—or that in the United States, where 80 percent of the population believe God created the universe, less than half believe in evolution. "

Here again Adler acts as though he is a cat and all of us little Christians are the mice. I am not suspicious of Darwin. I appreciate many of the scientific advancements he made. But that does not mean that he was correct about all of his conclusions. My disbelief in evolution has nothing to do with Darwin. It has everything to do with God. I believe that the Bible is God's accurate word and provides all that I need for an accurate understanding of the world and life. All true science will accord with what the Scriptures teach because God is the Creator of all things. This is often described as being narrow minded (an incorrect conclusion) when in fact it is being God-minded. I take His word over any human's word. But don't get the wrong idea - this is not blind faith. Consider my CHRISTOCENTRIC APOLOGETIC.

"ID posits a supernatural force behind the emergence of complex biological systems—such as the eye—composed of many interdependent parts. Although ID advocates have struggled to achieve scientific respectability, biologists overwhelmingly dismiss it as nonsense."

I am pro-ID for evangelsitic purposes. Since it is closer to the truth of creation, it might open the door for students in public schools to question the the logic of evolution. It certainly is not nonsense, but my children will learn the scientific and biblical truth that God created the world in six days.

"Where is God? it is the mournful chorus that has accompanied every new scientific paradigm over the last 500 years, ever since Copernicus declared him unnecessary to the task of getting the sun up into the sky each day...For all his nets and guns and glasses, Darwin never found God; by the same token, the Bible has nothing to impart about the genetic relationships among the finches he did find. But it is human nature to seek both kinds of knowledge. Perhaps after a few more cycles of the planet, we will find a way to pursue them both in peace."

God is much closer than you could possibly imagine. There are not two kinds of knowledge - there is one true knowledge. It concerns God and His creation. Scripture is clear, there will be only one more "cycle of the planet." Adler is right, then there will be peace.

Robin McGraw Officially Endorsed on the Women of Faith Website

Robin McGraw, the popular wife of famed TV pop-psychologist Dr. Phil, has been invited as a special guest speaker at the national conference of the conservative Christian organization known as Women of Faith. We know that Women of Faith claims to be conservative because of the clear statement of faith advertised on their website. This statement includes a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, the depravity of mankind, the Virgin birth and sinless life of Christ, and salvation through Christ Jesus alone.

But does Robin McGraw believe these things? To be honest, I do not know. She doesn't say, at least in anything I have heard or read. I have e-mailed her through the "Ask Robin" page on Dr. Phil's website in order to try and find out, but have not received a response. In my e-mail, I simply asked her if she agreed with the Women of Faith statement of faith. This, in my mind, seems to be a simple and necessary qualification for any and all speakers (guests or otherwise) at a national conference.

The regular speaker-leadership team of Women of Faith includes popular teachers Patsy Clairmont, Luci Swindoll, Nicole Johnson, Sheila Walsh, Marilyn Meberg, and Thelma Wells. These biblically focused women might or might not have any control over the special guest speakers. But if they do, I hope that they are addressing this issue with the corporate leadership team.

Ladies, Robin McGraw and Dr. Phil offer nice and quite-often-truthful advice for life, but they are not verbally basing it on the Bible as the source of knowledge. Women of Faith is an overtly Christian organization with an overt trust of God through Christ and the Bible. Integrity demands action on this issue.

Mary Zeiss Strange, USA Today, and the Problem of Evil

Follow the link above to the Editorial / Opinion section of USA Today and find an article that attempts to refute the idea that religious language has meaning. The overt subtitle of the article is, "Let's quit asking why the almighty sends hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes and instead focus on questions that actually have meaning."

Strange makes the somewhat strange assertion that theodicies are not genuine attempts to find the truth to the problem of evil (sure, some of them are not), but that to attempt to reconcile the existence of God and evil / suffering is merely a pathway to power.

She lists out in a sentence or two what she believes that some of the world's religions postulate as theodicies: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, and then calls these "simple-minded." Obviously Strange has created an unfair straw-man in order to make those with religious faith look stupid. Apparently Strange is not interested in reading the hundreds of volumes and articles written on this subject by conservative Christians alone. The desire to understand this issue is far from being simple-minded.

She also makes the common error of grouping all conservative Christians under the leadership of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. It would be like me saying that Mary Strange must be a supporter of Bush since she is an American citizen (she obviously is not and I doubt she would appreciate the assertion that she is).

This article attempts to operate on a faulty premise, that religious language is meaningless. Though the case is often made that this premise is true, most philophers of religion and certainly the majority of Americans wholeheartedly disagree. To say that God and evil / suffering can logically co-exist is at the very least a meaningful assertion.

For a detailed anlysis on the Problem of Evil, read Dr. Steve Cowan's article, "Peering Through A Glass Darkly."

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe - Early in Birmingham, AL

The movie opens December 9. Many folks in Birmingham will be able to see it on December 8! The Apologetics Resource Center is hosting a sneak preview of the film as a fundraiser for our ministry. This viewing of the movie will be held at the Summit Theatres at 6:30 PM. We have reserved an entire theatre (approximately 200 seats) for this event. They are going fast.

If you live close by and would like to obtain tickets to this event, call our office at (205) 403-0102. There is no set price for the tickets, but we are hoping many will be moved to give generously, knowing the proceeds will be used to further our apologetics ministry to the glory of God.

In order to get all future viewers of the movie thinking ahead, read Matthew Hall's recent post(and the conversation in the comments). Matt brings up an extremely important point about C.S. Lewis' view of the atonement, as it is deduced from the Narnia books. I always appreciate his insight. Also, Matt is a book review contributer to the Areopagus Journal we publish at the Apologetics Resource Center.

The UK: A Secular Country?

The following is a recent comment received on this blog. I wanted to highlight and interact with the thoughts brought up here. I appreciate “anonymous” for taking the time to raise his / her opinions.

"As a resident in the United Kingdom who happened to stumble upon your web-site, I thought you might be interested in the point of view of someone from a dominantly secular country, which watches the growing evangelism in the US with a mixture of amusement and consternation."

From my perspective, it has been deeply saddening to watch biblical Christianity dying in the UK. This is the land of Spurgeon and many great Christian leaders of the past and now it is admittedly a "dominantly secular country."

"There are constant and complex debates around the world over concepts such as God and Creation and such like, but most of it is entirely unnecessary. This is not because the existence of a God is proven or unproven (neither is true). It's just that ordinary science discovered DECADES ago how all life in the universe formed - from the evolution of super-giant stars. This is where the heavy elements such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and iron that make up planets, oceans and people are made and distributed throughout galaxies after supernova explosions scatter them in giant gas clouds. Gravity causes these clouds to condense naturally, and new stars are formed, surrounded by planets rich with the elements of life."

There are many powerful arguments for the existence of God, but I am convinced that people will rebel against the clear truth until and unless the Holy Spirit opens their eyes to see the obvious. If anyone out there wants free information packets (sorry, US only) describing some of these arguments, just order them here.

"This process has been PROVEN via observations and measurements from Supernova SN1987A, and images from the Hubble Space Telescope of proto-planetary disc formation in the Orion Nebula. Spectroscopy has identified the elements of life in both these observed phenomena."

Now I certainly, as would most sane people who live in the real world, take issue with the use of the word "PROVEN" here. How can you possibly prove something as complex as the origin of life from a star that is billions of miles away? You’d think our commenter thought he, or perhaps the scientists he has such faith in, was divine. If I am choosing religions, I think I’ll pick one a bit more rational.

"Although I, and almost everyone I know, have no problem with religion in general, we do find it bizarre that in the 21st Century, so much of the population of one of our greatest civilisations, the United States, are still living in a fantasy of immortal Gods and supposed miracle men. The supposed Messiah 'Jesus Christ' has been shown beyond all reasonabl (sic) doubt to be unknown to history, in the same way that Perseus of Hercules is unknown to history - found only in legends and fables."

I am glad you do not have a problem with religion, since your faith in human science is rightly called a religion. I doubt you agree with that statement, however. Speaking of science and history, Jesus Christ has not been shown to be unknown, and certainly not beyond all reasonable doubt. Only the most liberal, fringe scholars would say something like this. The vast majority of conservative and moderate scholars believe that we can know many things about the actual existence of Jesus Christ: including His existence and His death. For those, like myself, who are persuaded of the truthfulness of the Bible, Jesus Himself is the One who convinces of His life and power and authority. Hercules is obviously a fable of the Wizard of Oz variety. But to deny the existence or knowability of Christ is more akin to denying the existence or knowability of Plato or George Washington or Henry VIII. Any fair historian will back up this point. I do not expect my commenting friend to believe this, but I do hope that other readers of this blog recognize a fringe, radical, and unrealistic statement when they see one.

"We here in the UK have learned one thing very well - we have no religion, and never needed one. Life is much more rewarding, and indeed interesting, when it is viewed with a desire to FIND THE TRUTH, rather than have 'faith' in fables and then try to 'prove' them correct. Science proves itself correct over time, time and time again. Religion just keeps struggling to hold on...."

This is not entirely true: there are many religions in the UK. There is cerainly no unified view. And, thanks be to the Lord, there are many conservative Christians there still. Take for example Alister Mcgrath, a preeminent scholar and former principle of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. As to whether religion is needed – I agree. Outward religious exercise has far too often gotten in the way of Jesus Christ. Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except by Me.” I realize that I cannot figure out life by looking at a Billion-mile-away supernova, therefore, I turn to one who claimed to be God and who substantiated that claim via miracles, not the least of which was His own resurrection. He seems to know more than me. My faith is rationally placed in this superior being, not in a fable. As to your thoughts that religion just keeps struggling to hold on, I would remind you that truth is not always popular. I encourage you to read the Gospel of John and give Jesus a fair hearing.

The Ethics of War and the War in Iraq

A Lecture Presented at Southeastern Bible College,
Birmingham, AL, November 9, 2005

by Steven B. Cowan

We are here tonight to talk about the ethics of war. Now to some minds this phrase “the ethics of war” will likely cause raised eyebrows. “The ethics of war? What can ethics possibly have to do with war? Isn’t war evil?”

Well, of course it is. War is a terrible thing. The existence and prevalence of war in history is, in fact, ample testimony to the depravity and wickedness of Man. The conduct of war involves the intentional killing of human beings and the destruction of property. War inevitably causes untold suffering. I do not think that any rational person can ever say without qualification that war is good. War is something that we would all rather do without. And as Christians it is our earnest hope that someday God, in his mercy and grace, will beat every sword into plowshares and eliminate war from the face of the earth.

But that day has not yet come. For Americans, who have lived in relative peace and safety for many years, war has become an unpleasant reality recently. We have experienced the horror of September 11, 2001, and we face the threat of more such terrorist attacks everyday. In the wake of this injustice, our nation has begun a war on terrorism that has eventuated in the ongoing military actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Though most Americans and most Christians support the general war on terror, questions have been raised about our decision to invade Iraq, and public support for the continuing involvement of American forces there is steadily eroding. So, we may ask the question: “Should we continue to fight the war in Iraq?” And many of us are still asking the question of whether or not we should have gone to war there in the first place.

Yet, there are even deeper questions that remain: “Isn’t war evil? Can there be such a thing as the ethics of war?” Throughout history, Christians have often asked these kinds of questions. We know that Jesus told us to love our enemies and to do good to those who mistreat us. He said, “Turn the other cheek?” How can Christians (or anyone for that matter) condone or participate in war for any reason?

This is the main question that we will address today. Though we may all admit that war is a terrible thing and hope that wars will cease from the face of the earth, may there nevertheless be an ethical justification for war? What, specifically, should be the Christian position on war in general and on the current war in particular? In this lecture, I will defend the view that war is sometimes justifiable, and that when war is justifiable, Christians may ethically participate in that war. Moreover, I will also argue that the war in Iraq is a just war.

Two Christian Perspectives on War

Traditionally, Christians have defended two competing perspectives on the question of war. First of all, though it has been the minority view in church history, many Christians advocate pacifism. For example, such Christian groups as the Amish and the Mennonites have historically been pacifists. Pacifism, of course, is the view that we should not participate in war. War is wrong and so we should not engage in it for any reason.

There are several varieties of pacifism, but for our purposes here we will distinguish two forms of pacifism. First, there is universal pacifism. This is the view that it is wrong for anyone, whether Christian or not, to participate in war. Second, there is Christian pacifism, which allows that non-Christians may sometimes morally participate in war, but it is wrong for Christians to participate in war.

Most Christians in history have rejected pacifism in all its varieties. They have instead advocated what is known the Just War Theory. On this view, it is recognized that war is generally evil. Nevertheless, it is sometimes just and right for a person, even a Christian, to participate in war. On this view, in other words, it is possible to have a just war, a war that is morally justified.

It should also be said, though, that on the Just War Theory (JWT), only one side in any given war can be just. That is, in any and every war, at least one side in the war is fighting unjustly. Of course, it is also possible that both sides in a given war may be unjust. But, to reiterate, there can never be a just war in which both sides are justified in fighting the war. At least one side in any war will be unjust. When we look at the criteria for a just war later, this will become more clear.

Now I have already indicated that I believe that war can sometimes be morally justified. So, it should be obvious that I reject pacifism and embrace the JWT. So let me now turn to discuss pacifism in more detail and explain why I reject it and why you ought to reject it too.

An Evaluation of Pacifism

Let me first address Christian pacifism, the view that Christians should not participate in war, though it is morally permissible for non-Christians to do so. In other words, those who advocate Christian pacifism recognize that human government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from harm, and that this governmental responsibility may require that a country go to war to fend off foreign aggression. In such cases, those who hold this view would say that most citizens of the country (the non-Christian citizens) can go to war, but not the Christian citizens.

Why would someone hold to this position? Ordinarily what is permissible for people in general is permissible for everyone. If it is just and right for the non-Christian citizens to fight off a foreign invader, why would it be wrong for Christians to help out? Well, according to Herman Hoyt, one defender of this view, the reason is that Christians have a special calling in this world from which war would be an unacceptable distraction. Says Hoyt,

Inasmuch as true Christians are “not of this world” (Jn 17:16), but have been chosen by Christ out of the world (Jn 15:19), it is the divine purpose to keep them from the evil in the world (Jn 17:15). One of those evils is the exercise of physical force to accomplish the purposes of life. This includes the use of force in times of peace and also in times of war. (War: Four Christian Views, p.32).

He goes on to say, “Witnessing for [Christ] to the salvation of souls. . . is the supreme business of the church. . . . Believers were to give themselves unreservedly to this task. Military service would exhaust their time and effort” (War, p.41). For Hoyt, the idea that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world and that our weapons are spiritual, not carnal, together with the evangelistic mission of the church, make it the case that military service is prohibited for the Christian.

This view has, it seems to me, several fatal flaws. First, though the Christian is certainly a citizen of God’s kingdom, a kingdom that is not of this world, the Christian is also a citizen of the earthly nation in which God has placed him. Christians have a dual citizenship and are called by God’s word to subject themselves “to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Pet. 2:13). This would seem to imply that Christians should support any just cause that their nation may have including any just war (assuming there is such thing). Second, this position presupposes that the only purpose that Christians have in this world is evangelism. But such is not the case. We are called to be salt and light in the world, to have a positive impact on the culture around us, to work, for example, for social justice. If this is so, then why can’t a Christian participate in a just war if that contributes to making the world a better place overall?

Third, we need to ask why military service would be any more distracting from the Christians call to witness than any other secular vocation? Being a plumber or a banker or a lawyer is as time-consuming as military service. And just as one can witness for Christ in the civilian workplace, what is it about military service that would prevent one from witnessing for Christ in the Army? Don’t soldiers need to be evangelized?

Fourthly, what happens when and if a nation’s population happens to consist of mostly Christians? On this view, then, only the small minority of non-Christians could morally participate in defending the nation when it is attacked. Surely, this cannot be right. Indeed, can we imagine any government, forced to defend itself against foreign aggression, exempting the majority of its population from military service on such grounds? I think not.

But, what of universal pacifism? This view holds that it is wrong for anyone, Christian or non-Christian, to engage in war. Certainly this view avoids the bizarre and inconsistent consequences of Christian pacifism, so it has at least that in its favor. But, why advocate a universal prohibition against war? Christians who defend this view look to the teachings of Jesus, primarily in the Sermon on the Mount, in which he enjoins his followers to non-resistance to those who mistreat them. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers. . .” He also says, “Do not resist him who is evil, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.” And he says to “love your enemies and do good to them.”

Well, what about it? Do these texts require us to be pacifists? No. The first thing we should note is that these statements by Jesus were directed toward Christians, not to everyone in general. So, at best, these biblical texts could support Christian pacifism, but not universal pacifism.

But, in any case, there are reasons to doubt that these texts support any kind of pacifism. For one thing, it is generally recognized that Jesus uses in the Sermon on the Mount a figure of speech called hyperbole—an intentional exaggeration in order to make a point. For example, elsewhere in the sermon Jesus tells us that if our right eye causes us to stumble into the sin of lust, then you should pluck it out! We know this is hyperbole because nowhere else in the New Testament do we find so much as a hint that the early church took it literally. In fact, in Colossians 2:23, the Apostle Paul tells us that such “severe treatment of the body is of no value against fleshly indulgence.” Likewise, then, we may ask whether Jesus, when he said “Turn the other cheek,” literally intended us to take this as a prohibition against any and all resistance to evil. Did he mean, for instance, that it would be wrong for me to use force to defend my wife against the violent attack of a rapist?” I seriously doubt it.

For another thing, we should take careful note that Jesus’ instructions in these biblical passages are directed to individuals. That I, as an individual, should turn the other cheek does not tell us that the government should turn the other cheek. As I will argue in a moment, the government has a God-given function to administer justice. So, even though you and I as private citizens are called upon to not resist the evil person, the state has no such pacifistic calling.

There are some other points that pacifists might raise in order to justify either Christian or universal pacifism from a Christian perspective. Someone might ask, for example, “How can Christians participate in a war when the people on the other side might be Christians, too? How can a Christian kill other Christians?” Well, this question assumes that a Christian may fight in any war. But, if the JWT is true, then Christians (and everyone else) may participate only in a just war. Which means that if Christians are on both sides of a battle, one of them is making a mistake. One of them shouldn’t be there. One of them is doing an unjust action, and there is nothing in the Bible that says that Christians are exempt from the consequences of doing wrong in this life.

But what about killing unbelievers, the non-Christians? If we kill them in war, then we are sealing their eternal destiny; we’re sending them to Hell. Should Christians participate in war, killing people who are without Christ and sending them to Hell? This is a hard question, no doubt. But if, as I will argue momentarily, it is right and just for nations to defend themselves against unjust aggression just as it is right for individuals to defend themselves against violent attackers, then this objection loses its force. Nowhere does the Bible teach that evildoers should be exempt in this life from the consequences of their actions. And if I kill another person in war who is unjustly seeking to kill me and my fellow citizens, then the fault is his, not mine. He should not have been doing what he was doing.

So, I conclude that there is no biblical basis for pacifism. Indeed, as I will now argue, there is a very strong biblical basis for the JWT.

A Defense of Just War Theory

In Romans 13:1-4, the Apostle Paul has this to say about the governing authority (the state):

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause for fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

Paul tells us here that the governing authority is “God’s servant.” And this servant of God has the God-given responsibility to “bear the sword” and to “bring punishment on the wrong-doer” (v.4). Clearly, the government is sanctioned by God to maintain order and justice within society, and to defend the lives of its citizens against those who would unjustly take them. And, by clear implication, this would mean that the state has the right and responsibility to engage in war if its citizens are threatened by unjust aggression from another nation.

We can add that the justification for war can be likened to the justification for self-defense. In Exodus 22:2, we read: “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.” The teachings of Jesus on turning the other cheek notwithstanding, self-defense against life-threatening violence is not prohibited by Scripture. Likewise, nations defending themselves against foreign aggression is not prohibited either.

What’s more, it is perfectly legitimate for Christians to participate in this function of the state. If it is good and right for a government to protect its citizens even to the point of waging war, then why can’t a Christian participate in this good function of government? I see no reason why not. In fact, when we look elsewhere in the New Testament, we see this view confirmed very clearly. In Luke 3:14, we see a reference to some soldiers who were converted under the ministry of John the Baptist. They came to John and asked him what they should do now. Apparently, they thought that their new-found faith required of them some “spiritual” service and their resignation from military service. However, John told them, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” In other words, John said, “Be good soldiers!” So Christianity is not pacifistic, but clearly supports the JWT.

Nevertheless, even though Christians may support and participate in war, all Christians (and all people generally) should agree that not just any war is justifiable. There is a higher law than the state. We answer first and foremost to God and his moral law. So, we should not blindly follow the leadership of our government when the war drums are beaten. The God-given job of government is to establish and maintain justice. But, governments often fail in this duty. Sometimes governments act unjustly. So, whether to condone or participate in a war requires careful moral reflection. In what follows I will set out the criteria that scholars of past ages have established for evaluating the justness of any given war. Then I will look at the war in Iraq in light of those criteria.

The Traditional Criteria for a Just War

There is, as I have mentioned, a strong tradition in Christian history that Christians may condone and even participate without guilt in a just war. Though war is always evil, and those who start wars are evil, not everyone’s participation in a war is evil. The Bible does, after all, permit self-defense when one’s life is threatened by another person. Likewise, it is certainly justifiable for a nation to defend itself against aggression. That being so, those defending themselves are not doing evil in fighting the evil aggressors in war. So, it is possible, in some circumstances, to justly wage war. But just what are the criteria for a just war? There are several criteria, and just war theorists have held that each one of these criteria must be met before it is morally permissible to wage war.

First, there must be a just cause. Not just any reason for war will do. Certainly, a war designed to take the property of another nation, or to kill its citizens because they are hated by the attacker, is an unjust war. Traditionally, the only just cause that has been recognized by just war theory is a war of self-defense against an invasion of one’s own country or that of an ally. So, for example, in World War II, when France, Britain, and other nations were attacked by Nazi Germany, they had a just cause to wage war against Germany.

We must be careful not to interpret this criterion too narrowly, however. As stated, the criterion would, strictly speaking, justify war only after an aggressive attack has been launched. However, just war theorists have generally agreed that a nation may justly engage in a preemptive strike in order to defend itself in the face of a clear, though merely imminent attack by a foreign aggressor. A good example of this can be found in the Israeli Six-Day War. When Israeli intelligence learned that the Egyptians and Syrians we poised to launch a military attack on Israel—and that attack was known to be imminent and certain—the Israeli armed forces launched a preemptive strike that devastated the military forces of their enemies and prevented Israel from being invaded. Just War theorists agree that this preemptive strike was justified under just war criteria because the heart of the criterion under discussion is the right of self-defense, and it would have been foolish for the Israelis to follow the letter of the law and await the actual attack of the Egyptians and Syrians.

This proviso on the first criterion is all the more important in our age, when nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction pose a real danger to the very existence of any nation attacked by them. No nation can afford to wait for an actual attack before taking action if the attack will likely involve weapons of mass destruction. So, we will understand the first criterion for a just war to allow for preemptive attacks in the face of real threats by aggressive nations.

Before I move on, however, I want to raise the question of whether or not there might be still other just causes for going to war. The traditional just war theory, as we have seen, only recognizes self-defense as a just cause for war. But there are some just war theorists (myself among them) who believe that war may be justified on other grounds. Keep in mind that the reason why self-defense is considered a just cause for war is because an aggressive attack on one’s nation by a foreign army is an act of injustice. That is, at the bottom of the issue of just causes for war is the theme of justice. And it seems to at least some just war theorists that the interests of justice vis-à-vis war go beyond the interests of self-defense.

Consider, for example, the invasion by NATO of Bosnia several years ago. The Serbs, under the direction of their President Slobadan Milosevic, engaged in a horrific campaign of genocide against the Muslims in Bosnia. NATO forces (which included U.S. forces, by the way) invaded Bosnia and put an end to the genocide. On traditional just war criteria, it is hard to see how this was a just war. After all, the Serbs had not attacked any NATO country, nor was any such attack being planned. Yet, most of us, I think, would consider the actions of NATO morally justified. This suggests that the traditional criterion of a just cause (self-defense) is inadequate. A more adequate criterion would allow as well for what we might call a moral crusade—not a religious crusade, but a moral one—in which a nation is justified in going to war in order to redress a significant injustice (such as genocide) being done to people of another nation. This point would be controversial even among just war theorists, but I think that it is worthy of our consideration.

Secondly, the war must be waged by a legitimate governmental authority. Private citizens have no right to wage war against another nation even for a just cause. A properly established government (or some officially sanctioned arm of the government) must officially declare the war and sanction the military actions taken. So, for example, we should say that the Irish Republican Army, the terrorist group fighting the British in Northern Ireland, even if they have a just cause, are not fighting a just war because their actions are not sanctioned by a legitimate governmental authority. Likewise with most other terrorist groups.

Third, war must be the last resort. War may be justly waged only after all peaceful means of adjudicating grievances between nations have been exhausted. Avoiding bloodshed is always the right thing to do if it is possible. Consider, for example, the First Gulf War. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, many weeks were spent by the U.S. and the U.N. trying to find a diplomatic solution; trying, that is, to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw his forces on his own. Failing that, the U.S.-led coalition went to war—but only because peaceful means were unable to redress the injustice done to Kuwait.

Fourth, there must be a reasonable hope of success. Even if one has a just cause, legitimate governmental sanction, and has tried to resolve the conflict peacefully, it may still be unjust to go to war. If waging the war would clearly be futile and only result in further unnecessary bloodshed, it would be unjust to go to war. The idea here is that surrender to an aggressor is the right course of action when there is no reasonable hope that resistance will repulse the invading army. A case in point here might be the initial Polish resistance to the Nazi invasion in 1939. The German tanks were met with a terribly inadequate Polish army, including old-fashioned horse-cavalry. There was no hope of success, so the Poles should not have resisted.

Fifth, there must be a rational proportion between the goal and the price to achieve it. Suppose that there is reasonable hope of success in waging war against an aggressor. Still, it may not be just to fight that war. For example, what if success can be achieved, but only with the devastation of one's own country, the loss of (say) 90% of your military forces as well as many civilian lives, and the crippling of your economy for decades to come? In such a case, the cost of success is irrationally disproportionate to the goal. A war cannot be just if the cost of waging it is far worse than the aggression it is intended to redress. So, as one of Jesus’ parables tells us, a nation must count the cost of going to war.

Sixth, there must be a just intent. Traditionally, the right intent that should motivate an otherwise just war is to secure a just and lasting peace. Revenge, conquest, economic gain, religion, or ideology are not good intentions for going to war even if you have an otherwise just cause. In other words, suppose a nation is wrongly attacked by another country. By the first criterion, they have a just cause to go to war. But, suppose the citizens and leaders of this nation say to themselves, “Hey, this nation has attacked us. We have the right to defend ourselves. But, hey, this also affords us an opportunity to conquer them and take all their stuff! This would not be a just intent, and I dare say that just this sort of thing has happened in history. We know, for example, that the American Indian Wars were replete with this kind of injustice—when an Indian tribe would attack a white village, the Army would often respond by seizing large portions of Indian lands, not in the interests of justice, but in the economic interests of settlers, the railroad, and other big business.

Seventh, the war must be fought by just means. The first six criteria must be met in order to justify going to war in the first place. But, having the moral right to go to war is still not enough to justify participation. A just war will be conducted in a just way. A war that is otherwise just (i.e., meets criteria 1-6), will become unjust if the means used for conducting it are unjust. Just War Theorists have articulated criteria for the just conduct of war:

The war must have a limited, just objective. Restoring peace and justice are just objectives, but obliterating the other country or the capacity for its citizens to survive are not.

Prisoners of war must be treated humanely and not killed or tortured. Killing or mistreating enemy soldiers who have laid down their arms in surrender is evil, not good. Of course, I realize that in war, especially in the heat and passion of battle, these kinds of things happen and may, in some circumstances, be understandable. But that does not make them right.

There must be no direct, intentional attack on civilians. This does not mean that a war is unjust if civilians happen to be killed unintentionally. It is almost always impossible to guarantee that only soldiers will be killed. So-called “collateral damage” is inevitable in war. But, intentionally targeting civilians is immoral. Here is another point where we have to be willing to take responsibility for our own actions in history. For example, on this criterion, the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo in WWII are clearly seen to be unjust because civilians were intentionally targeted.

There must be no “overkill” in the use of weapons. That is, one should not use a bomb to achieve the military objective when a bullet will do. Of course, determining the appropriate degree of force in a particular battle may not always be easy. One has to weigh several factors, including the risk to one’s own military forces. Nevertheless, it is wrong to intentionally and knowingly use overkill in the conduct of a war.

These are the primary criteria for a just war. Before I move on, however, let me mention another—though secondary—criterion that is often overlooked in discussions of this topic. If a war fails to meet one or more of these criteria, then it is an unjust war. That means that it would be immoral for anyone to participate in that war. And those who see it as unjust have the duty to conscientiously object to participating in it. This much is clear. However, conscientious objection requires clear and unmistakable evidence of injustice. Just having doubts about whether a war is unjust or not is not sufficient for conscientious objection. Questions will inevitably be raised about the justice of any war, and sometimes those questions will be serious—serious enough to cause us to doubt if the war being waged (or about to be waged) is truly just. But, the just war tradition requires that the benefit of the doubt always belong to the state. That is, if you are not sure whether or not a war is just—there is evidence going both ways, let’s say—, but your government believes or claims that it is just, then you should assume that it is just until you know better. The rationale behind this criterion is that the government authorities, who are waging the war, are usually in a better position to know the facts about the war (or at least more of the facts) than individual citizens whose perspective is more limited.

The War in Iraq in Light of These Criteria

How does the war in Iraq measure up in light of these criteria? I believe that it measures up fairly well. First of all, it seems to me that there was and is a just cause. According to traditional theory, self-defense is a just cause for one nation (or group of nations) to wage war on others. President Bush and his cabinet made a convincing case that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed a clear and imminent danger to the security of the United States. Saddam appeared to be, from the intelligence we had available, building weapons of mass destruction that we knew he had the will to use on the American people.

Of course, we all know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction—or at least none have been found yet. But, this doesn’t change the fact that our government had very good reason to think that he had WMDs—the vast majority not only of the executive branch, but both houses of congress, were convinced that he had these weapons. And waiting for Saddam to use those weapons before acting in our defense was not a rational option.

And let me also say that now that we have discovered that he probably did not have WMDs, we have no need to apologize for our actions. Saddam himself could have made it perfectly clear that he had no WMDs by allowing the U.N. weapons inspectors to do their jobs. Instead, he hindered them at every turn, leaving the inspectors and the whole world convinced that he did have such weapons. Saddam Hussein wanted the world to believe that he had WMDs.

Moreover, if you agree with me that self-defense is not the only just cause for going to war-—if you agree, that is, that a moral crusade may also justify war, then we had plenty of just cause even if we knew ahead of time that Iraq had no WMDs. Saddam’s government was a tyrannical, oppressive dictatorship. He massacred thousands of his own people at whim; he dropped nerve gas on entire villages, wiping them out. He exploited his own people for his own personal profit. If NATO was justified in invading Bosnia to end the genocide there, then we were justified in invading Iraq to end the reign of terror by Saddam Hussein.

Second, the U.S. Congress approved President Bush’s call for military action against Iraq. So, there can be no question that the war in Iraq meets the second criterion: it was sanctioned and waged by a legitimate government authority.

Third, what about the question of last resort? Though many people in our own country and around the world think that diplomacy was not given enough time, it seems to me (and many others) that diplomacy was wholly ineffective in resolving the problem of Iraq’s potential WMDs. Allowing diplomatic efforts to continue worked only in Saddam’s favor, and every day that war was postponed only increased the threat that we believed Saddam to pose at that time.

Fourth, as to whether there is a reasonable hope of success depends upon exactly what the goal is that our government was trying to achieve. Initially, the goal was to remove the threat posed by Saddam and his WMDs. We had every reason to believe that we could succeed in accomplishing this goal, and the history of what actually happened bears this out. Our military forces launched a blitzkrieg attack that toppled Saddam’s regime and neutralized his military forces in less than three weeks. No one was in any doubt as to the outcome of this initial stage of the war before it took place.

Questions do arise, however, about the on-going war effort in Iraq. The stated goal of that effort, if I understand it correctly, is to help maintain order and security until the new Iraqi government can take care of itself. I will admit that right here opinions will differ widely and strongly. We get lots of reports out of Iraq everyday about on-going violence and chaos. Some wonder if we have enough troops there to do the job and others wonder if any number of troops would be sufficient to do the job. But, the truth is that most of Iraq is secure and stable. The violence we see in the news is confined to a few specific regions, and there is no reason to believe that the insurgency there will gain enough strength to prevent us from achieving our goals there. Though we might wish for greater certainty, there is at least a reasonable hope for success. And let’s not forget that the benefit of the doubt belongs to the state.

Fifth, the cost/goal ratio of waging a successful war in Iraq easily fall within the bounds of acceptable limits, at least when looked at historically. This war will cost a lot of money when it is all said and done, but it will not break the U.S. economy. And the lives lost (over 2000 now), while tragic and regretful, are not disproportionate to the goals we are trying to achieve. By way of comparison, let’s consider what it cost us in lives to win WWII. Most Americans are oblivious to the fact that over 291,000 American servicemen lost their lives in WWII. That’s almost a third of a million! More American soldiers died on one day—D-day—in WWII than have been lost in the entire Iraq war so far. Yet, few people would argue that the cost to defeat the Axis powers was disproportionate to the goal. Since Vietnam, Americans have become very squeamish about fighting wars, and though we are certainly right to shrink back at the thought of American soldiers dying in battle, we cannot allow our squeamishness to prevent us from making a rational assessment. The Iraq War meets the criterion concerning a rational proportion between goal and price.

Sixth, whatever may be the justness of our cause, I do not think that anyone can reasonably impugn the intent. I don’t think very many who are fighting this war are doing so for revenge or for money or (as we hear from some quarters) for oil. Though some Americans may want such things, the best of us, and the best of our leaders, desire to correct the injustices done to our nation and defend ourselves from further aggression. These intentions are good and right.

Lastly, what about the means used to conduct the war? On the issue of the targeting of civilians, I believe that our military deserves an A+. They have gone out of their way, more so than any previous war in human history to minimize civilian casualties. Though many civilians have been killed and injured, no case can be made that any of these casualties were intentional.

On the treatment of POWs, however, we may raise some legitimate concerns. We all know, for example, about the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Grab. Nevertheless, there is no indication that this mistreatment was a matter of national policy, and those who perpetrated these injustices have been punished severely.

Concerning our intent for the on-going military presence in Iraq, no one but Muslim extremists believe that our objectives are anything but honorable and limited. Once having secured Iraq from the threat of the insurgency and having trained the Iraqis to maintain their own internal security, our intent is to remove our military forces from Iraq and allow the Iraqis to govern themselves. Furthermore, no significant overkill with the use of weapons is demonstrable.

In conclusion, then, I would contend that the war in Iraq is a just war, and that Christians should support it and, if called upon, participate in it. War is a terrible thing. But there are times when, in the cause of justice, the burden of that terrible thing must be borne.

Dear Madonna,

I know that the chances of your reading this letter are extremely slim, but I feel compelled to write anyway. I know it might sound a bit crazy, but I care for your soul and I think that your devotion to Kabbalah is dangerous. I do not wish to be critical or hateful or point fingers, nor am I a cold fundamentalist who demands that he be right and everyone else a liar. My points are simpler than that. I just believe that the teachings of Kabbalah are not true.

In my research of this mystical religious offshoot of Judaism, I have found that the authority for whether something is true or not is really unknowable. True knowledge of Ein Sof is behind the text of the Torah, not in it (or on the surface of it). That means that a person must be enlightened, transcending rational thought, in order to come to grasp Ein Sof. The major problem with this belief is that anybody can come up with whatever they want, so long as they believe that they are enlightened. Thus, there is no standard of truth within the system itself. There seems to be a turning off of rational faculties in general in order to come to the higher, spiritual knowledge.

But does it not seem clear that humans have rational faculties that are meant to guide us? Madonna, in order to write children’s books or perform music on a stage with electrical equipment or to be successful in business, you must use your reasoning skills. When placed beside the esoteric teachings of Kabbalah, orthodox Christianity stands in stark contrast. Instead of looking for hidden or coded meanings within the text, orthodoxy desires to find the historical, grammatical meaning of the text. This assumes that God has communicated in a way that can be understood by everyone, not just a few spiritual elites and that the things God says are true to reality.

Personally, I decided to be a Christian because of the words of Jesus. He leads me to rationally trust in Him. He tells me that I am a sinner in a legal sense, but that God has written up a contract (called the New Covenant – see Jeremiah 31) that can pardon me of my crimes. He tells me these things are true to fact, not obtained by mystical religious practices. True salvation is summarized in Hebrews 13:20-21.

“Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”

The Orthodox Christian need not look beyond Christ and His sacrifice of Himself on the cross for answers to the problems of life. He is working to make us complete by washing away our sin. Kabbalah is dangerous for the soul because it offers no true help for the immense guilt that plagues our hearts as humanity. It might offer a temporary numbness (most religions do), but it cannot deal with factual, legal guilt that we possess since Adam and Eve fell in the Garden of Eden. We are not on a journey back to that Garden, Madonna. Remember they were naked there. After the Fall they were clothed with animal skins, which we still wear today. But according to the New Testament, God’s people will one day wear white robes, a symbol of their purity. That is a different and better place than Eden and only those in Christ can enter in.

And so I’ll close. I just encourage you to contemplate whether Kabbalah is offering you truth. I also encourage you to consider that a relationship with Christ, the Messiah, might be the most spiritually invigorating decision you could make.

With Deep Respect,
Jason Dollar