World Religions Comprehensive Exam - Question #2

NOTE: This is another unedited reproduction of an essay answer given on my comprehensive exams last week. Essay answers were given in 80 minutes, with no resources at hand; that will show a times!

QUESTION B. Describe the rise of Islam in the Modern West and evaluate the potential of Islam as a major player in the religious life and thought of the West in the 21st century.

The relationship between Islam and the West has been marked by mutual misunderstanding, suspicion, and hostility. Nonetheless, the latter half of the 20th century saw an increasing presence of Islam in Western (Christian) nations, both in the form of individual Muslims and Islamic organizations.

Earlier this week, I received an email from my uncle, which contained a forwarded 9-minute video clip. I cannot remember the name of the organization which produced the video (except insofar as it was a Catholic organization), but the video expressed what has become a common theme (a common fear, perhaps) amongst Westerners – Islam is poised to become the dominant force in Western Europe and North America, and by 2100 the West will no longer be ‘Christian’, but rather ‘Islamic’. The video was accompanied by ominous music, and was narrated in somber, funeral-home tones. Yet the facts expressed therein were undeniably true. Islamic presence in the West is certainly growing, and if trends continued unabated, there will be more Muslims than Christians in many Western nations within 50 years.

In this essay, I will seek to uncover the complex relationship between Western Christianity and Islam through the pre-modern and modern periods. I will briefly discuss the place of Islam in pre-modern Western Christianity, focusing upon the origin and spread of Islam and the Christian ‘Crusades’. I will then examine the relationship between western nations and Islamic states from 1400-1900, focusing on the Ottoman Turks, the Spanish Moors, and European colonialism. I will look at the 20th-century changes wrought by immigration and reconstruction, and survey the contemporary place of Muslims and Islamic institutions in Europe and North America. Finally, I will turn to evaluate the potential of Islam as a religious player in the West in the 21st century. I will outline the positions of strength, as well as noting some areas of vulnerability and weakness. I will conclude that Islam is well-positioned to be a significant force in the west, but that there are a number of vital questions that must be answered first.

I. Pre-Modern History

Islam was embroiled in controversy with Christianity from its very beginnings. Mohammad was certainly familiar with at least some form of Christianity (although it seems to be a heterodox Christianity which worshiped a perverse trinity of God, Mary, and Jesus), and initially expected Christians (like Jews) to embrace his prophetic message and join the new Islamic umma.

As the Muslim community grew, it expanded northward out of Arabia, and entered into military contest with the Zoroastrian Persian Empire as well as the Christian (Greek Orthodox) Byzantine Empire. The Persians and Byzantines had been continually at war with one another for centuries, and had been exhausted by their struggles. Both were ripe for the picking, and the Muslim armies swept through them quite quickly. The ‘Holy Land’ was conquered by the Muslims, and Islamic empires advanced towards the city of Constantinople. Muslim armies also swept through North Africa, which had been a bastion of Christianity, and pushed up across the Mediterranean into Spain until Charlemagne turned them back. As Muslim armies advanced, and Christendom assumed a defensive posture, the western Christian attitude became one of fear, resentment, and hostility toward Islam.

The Crusaders were launched a few centuries later with the professed goal of recapturing the Holy Lands for Christ. The conduct of the Crusaders was, by most accounts, appalling (not universally, but generally). Treaties with Muslim rulers were broken, civilians were slaughtered, cities were pillaged. The legacy of the Crusades still sits bitterly in the Muslim mindset. Muslims perceived the Christian West with suspicion and hostility and resentment.

Thus, by the outset of the modern period (arbitrarily designated about 1400 herein), Muslims and Christians had embraced mutual hostility for one another. There was misunderstanding, fear, resentment, and mistrust from both sides toward one another. Indeed, the legacy of that mindset is still evident in many westerners and Muslims alike today.

II. 1400-1900

During the modern period, the interaction of Islamdom and Christendom increased exponentially, but the presence of Christians in Muslim territories and Muslims in the West remained insignificant.

The Ottoman Empire (Turkish) expanded through the Balkans and into Eastern Europe. Constantinople was sacked in 1452, marking the Ottoman entrance into Europe proper. Vienna was besieged. Muslims were on the very doorstep of Europe, instilling further fear into western Christian minds.

Meanwhile, the Moors in Spain (Spanish Muslims) had been present for hundreds of years, but were driven out when Ferdinand consolidated his position in the late 1400s. At the same time, Europe began to gain control of the world’s shipping lanes, and commercial power began to come into European (instead of Muslim) hands.
As European military and commercial power increased throughout the 15th through 19th centuries, the presence of European colonialism increase accordingly. Colonial powers made their presence felt in traditionally Islamic territories. Unchecked centuries of Muslim expansion and dominance came to a screeching halt. Western Christendom felt vindicated; Muslims felt humiliated. The balance of power had shifted. But the pre-modern mindsets remained entrenched. Westerners continued to fear and resent Islam and Muslims, though now they could look down upon them as well. Muslims continued to mistrust and resent western ‘Christians’, but now had to bemoan their subjugated status as well. European colonialism did increase the presence of westerners in Islamic territories, and the presence of Muslims in the West. Western rulers went to the territories they governed, and had to interact with the local Muslims accordingly.

III. The Twentieth Century: Increasing Intermingling

Immigration from Islamdom to the west became a significant trend in the 20th century. Prior to 1900, there had been small waves of immigration from Muslim territories to various western nations. But generally these were few in number and significance. That changed dramatically in the 1900s.

Prior to World War I, a wave of economic immigrants flowed to the United States, Britain, and France from various Muslim countries. While these immigrants generally retained their Muslim status and beliefs, they did not generally form vibrant and vigorous Muslim communities. A few mosques dotted the landscape, but the Muslim immigrants were generally content simply to be here and left relatively alone.

Between the two World Wars, the flow of immigrants remained relatively light – particularly after the onset of the Great Depression in 1929. Again, immigration was primarily economic, with the added element of family reunification. Immigrants remained somewhat isolated, not forming strong distinct communities. The mindset of Muslim immigrants and their immigrant communities was affected by the geopolitical situation: Muslim territories around the world were being dominated by European (Christian) colonial masters, and the Muslim psyche was somewhat fragile and humiliated. Hence, Muslim communities in the West suffered from an inferiority complex of sorts. They were content to live and let live, and to quietly live Muslim lives amidst Christian majority populations.

After World War II, however, the trickle of immigrants became a flood. Western Europe had been devastated by the war, and significant reconstruction was necessary. With the death of a significant portion of their young adult population, however, manpower was lacking, and economic immigrants were actively recruited. Germany recruited large numbers of Turkish Muslims, North African Muslims flowed across the Mediterranean into France, while Indo-Pakistani Muslims were brought to Britain. Diverse groups of Muslims from those and other countries came to the United States and Canada to settle. The numbers of immigrants continued to increase as European colonialism came to an end and former colonies gained independence. Civil wars wracked many former colonial territories, resulting in a second wave of immigrants: refugees entering western Europe and North America.

IV. The Contemporary Situation

Today, Islam is the 2nd-largest religion in virtually every western nation – the only possible exception being the Jewish faith in America, which seemingly remains slightly larger than the Muslim population. Various aspects of the contemporary presence of Islam in the modern West need to be emphasized: (1) numbers; (2) institutions; (3) visibility; (4) confidence; and (5) public prominence.

First, numerically Islam in the west has grown to the 2nd or 3rd largest faith community in each country. Germany is home to more than 3 million Muslims; there are close to 6 million Muslims in America. The numbers are large, and growing through both biological reproduction and evangelistic expansion (da’wah).

Second, Islamic institutions have proliferated in the west. Prior to World War II, western nations may have had a handful of mosques; now, mosques are a fixture in every large city, many towns, and even the rural countryside. Indeed, Canada’s public television network sponsored a show called ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie,’ the pluralist Canadian version of the American classic. Besides mosques, organizations such as CARE promote Muslim interests in America. Muslim student ministries are active in every large university in Canada – Friday prayers are attended by hundreds of Muslim students at the University of Alberta, and even their noon-hour prayers during the rest of the week are strongly-attended. Paramosque organizations work diligently to spread the Muslim faith and strengthen the faith of the next generation of Muslims.

Third, Muslims are becoming ever more visible in western society. The wearing of the hijab (head-covering) by Muslim women has been an issue in many western nations (including Canada), but represents a greater willingness of Muslims to be publicly identifiable by their faith. One hundred years ago, Muslims in the west tended to want to blend in; now they desire to be known by their faith.

Fourth, Muslims are increasingly confident, both individually and corporately. Part of the newfound Muslim swagger is due to the demise of western colonialism and the perceived decay and decadence of many western nations. Britain and France are no longer perceived as superpowers; their hold over international affairs has ceased. Muslim confidence is also due to the rise of Islamic nations in power and prestige. Arab oil has had a large part to play, as Saudi Arabia and other countries exert greater influence over world affairs than they could under the colonial system.

But Muslim confidence also stems from changes within the immigrant Muslim community. Muslim families who have been here for multiple generations have become wealthy and influential. Many recent immigrants are well-educated professionals. No longer are Muslim immigrants happy just to be quietly unnoticed in their day-labor jobs. They are confident in their education, abilities, and faith alike.

Fifth, along with their increased confidence has come an increase in public prominence. Canada now has multiple Muslim Members of Parliament, as well as elected Muslim representatives at the provincial and municipal levels. Muslim individuals and communities are also increasingly outspoken is seeking public accommodation to the requirements of their faith – halal meats in schools and public cafeterias, allowances for noon prayers at work and in schools, segregated physical education for schoolchildren, etc. Three generations ago Muslim Americans would not have dreamed of agitating for such changes and accommodations; the Muslim community today has the confidence and institutional resources to engage in public appeals.

At the same time, as the video I received from my uncle demonstrates, there remains a great deal of Western fear and mistrust toward Islam and Muslims. Doubtless, the after-effects of 9/11 play an important role in contemporary fears. However, even before the attacks, there was widespread public fear of Islamic incursions into the west. Islam and Muslims remain misunderstood by most Westerners, and that misunderstanding easily generates fear and mistrust.

V. The Potential for Islam in the 21st-Century West

What, then, is the potential for Islam as a major player in the religious life and thought of the western world in the 21st century?

A. Positions of Strength

First, it needs to be noted that Islam is in a position of strength, and that strength is only increasing. Western Christianity continues its slow decline, rending the religious fabric of western culture. Islam is stepping into that confused religious climate as a self-confident, assertive faith, unhesitatingly promoting the need to submit to Allah. Muslims engage in avid evangelism, both through literature and personal contact. The growth of Islam in the west is not due, as the video I was sent suggests explicitly, solely to biological growth (large Islamic families are almost always mentioned as the driving force behind Muslim expansion) – evangelistic growth also figures prominently.

The influence of Islam within the African American community in the 20th century needs also to be noted. The Nation of Islam began as a heterodox semi-Islamic sect, but has moved toward the Islamic mainstream in the latter half of the century. African-American resentment toward white ‘Christian’ America remains strong, and that feeds the strength and vitality of many Muslims’ faith.

Second, western guilt over the injustices of the Crusades and colonialism has fostered an environment which is very positive for the growth and entrenchment of Islam in the West. Westerners are (rightfully) apologetic over past treatment of Muslim peoples and territories [although we wait in vain for Muslim apologies over the conquest of North Africa, Judea, Constantinople, etc.], and want to somehow ‘make amends’ with current generations of Muslims.

Third, the reigning religious pluralism and tolerance within western culture provides a friendly atmosphere in which Muslims can successfully agitate for cultural, social, and economic accommodations. Schools a hundred years ago, with a dominant Protestant mainstream, would never have even entertained a Muslim plea for special privileges; today, schools are eager to accommodate the special needs of other religious and cultural groups. I am certainly not saying this is a negative thing, and that schools ought not make such accommodations – I am merely pointing out that this is something new in the west; a situation newly amenable to the growing influence of Islam in the west.

Fourth, as Christianity declines in the West, the religious landscape cries out to be filled by something. Mankind is incurably and unquenchably religious. God has created us for intimate relationship with Himself, and we have a religious desire within us to know and be in relationship with the divine. When Christianity is not considered a viable option (as it is not for many people in Western culture today), something else will inevitably take the place of Jesus Christ as the object of our worship. Hence, Westerners are spiritually hungry, they are thirsting for spiritual communion. There is a spiritual void in the soul of many western nations; and Islam is ready and willing to step into that void.

Finally, from a pragmatic and political perspective, Islam is well positioned to ally with the ‘religious right’ in America (particularly) as a champion of ‘family values’ and conservative issues. While Christians and Muslims certainly do not agree on every theological issue, they share a repulsion at the moral degradation of Western society and culture. Thus, Islam is able to cooperate on many political issues with other religious conservatives, and to gain public prominence and acceptance on that score (not unlike has happened with Mormonism in some ways).

B. Vulnerabilities / Positions of Weakness

Nonetheless, Islam faces some distinct vulnerabilities in its desire to be a major player in the west in the 21st century.

First, there remains a deep mutual misunderstanding and mistrust between the west and Islam. For Muslims, the West is viewed as corrupt, degraded, decadent, untrustworthy. For Westerners, Islam is viewed as devaluing, violent, aggressive, and hateful. There is mutual antipathy and antagonism. Again, this is not universally true, but it is general and widespread. For Islam to become a major player in Western society, Western misunderstandings need to be appeased and resolved.

Second, media caricatures of Islam and Muslims remain predominantly negative. Notwithstanding the relatively unpopular Little Mosque on the Prairie’s positive depiction of Islam, most media representations are highly unflattering. Of course, evangelical Christians can make the same complaint!

Some of the antipathy from the West toward Islam does not stem from misunderstanding, but rather from an accurate understanding of Islamic precepts. This results in a series of questions that need to be asked of Islam, seeking to unveil whether or not Islam is capable of playing a major role in the 21st-century West.

(1) Can Islam embrace religious plurality and tolerance? The growing visibility and influence of Islam in the West is due largely to the religious tolerance which it has enjoyed in those nations. However, Islamic nations tend not to embrace such religious plurality. Rather, Islam itself understands that no rational person could deny the truth and power of Islam. Anyone who is not a sinner will embrace Islam. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, anyone who remains not a Muslim is either “ignorant, stupid, or wicked (but I’d rather not consider that).”

(2) Can Islam allow others the same right to evangelize that they demand and receive? Yvonne Haddad celebrates the religious tolerance of America, in permitting free practice of Islamic da’wah (evangelism). Carol Anway similarly shares stories of Muslim women who have come to faith through the active evangelistic efforts of American Muslims. However, Haddad also decries the attempts of evangelical Christians to convert Muslims away from Islam. I am not sure how that tension is resolved within her, as she seems entirely oblivious of the contradiction. However, it remains that, if Muslims desire to share their faith with others and see Americans convert to Islam; they must similarly be willing to allow Christians to share their faith with others, and see Muslims convert to Christ.

(3) Similarly: Can Muslims (sadly) recognize that some of their youth may convert away from the Islamic faith? I have two close friends who are active in ministry to Muslims in Canada. Both converted to Christ between the ages of 18 and 21. Both were disowned by their families. One had a bounty put on his head by his father, and had to flee for his life. Again, Carol Anway celebrates the stories of American women who convert to Islam, and sadly notes that many of their families have difficulty accepting their new faith. Christmas becomes awkward, family reunions are somewhat tense: but in no cases did she observe families disowning their children, or seeking to have them killed. Even within relatively modern American Muslims like Yvonne Haddad, there is a strident opposition to having children be converted away from Islam. However, if Islam desires to become a major player in the contemporary West, it will have to accept that this is going to happen.

(4) Can Muslims (sadly) acknowledge that denigration of the prophet and Qur’an are inevitable in a land with freedom of speech and expression? No one expects Muslims to celebrate when infidels revile Mohammad or mock the Qur’an – any more than I celebrate when people desecrate the name of my Savior and Lord in word and deed. However, the response to the Rushdie affair and the Danish cartoons by Western Muslims was questionable. Muslims have to acknowledge that the freedoms they enjoy within the religiously tolerant west are the very same freedoms that allow people to insult their prophet. It would also help if they acknowledge that some of their beliefs about Christianity are somewhat insulting to committed Christians (Jesus is so much more than a prophet; and the Qur’anic suggestion that the Christian Trinity is Father, Consort, and Sexual Offspring is offensive).

(5) Finally, can Muslims eschew their historical commitment to the union of church and state? The Islamic ideal is a community, umma, which combines faith, economics, politics, and social structure in one. The hijra to Medina marked the beginning of the Muslim faith, because Mohammad had political power and influence there. Islam inherently seeks to unify faith with politics and sociology.

Ultimately, I suspect that the answers to many of those questions is no – particularly the last one. The situation of Muslim in the modern West is an anomaly in Islamic history. Never before have large numbers of Muslims willingly lived as a distinct minority under the rule of non-Muslims. It remains to be seen whether Muslims can moderate (change) their faith such that they are willing to be minorities, willing to allow others to evangelize their members, and willing to allow the separation of church and state.

Christians and Environmental Responsibility

This will be a brief blog entry - something I am definitely not known for.

Friday afternoon I overheard a very unfortunate exchange involving two Christian leaders. Whether the exchange was in jest or not, sarcastic or not, I am not sure. I interpreted it as somewhat jesting, but based upon sincere foundations, and for that reason it troubled me greatly.

"Hey - is that a new truck you've been driving lately?"

"Yep - I'm just doing my part to consume as many of our precious resources as I can!"

The second individual seemed proud of themselves for purchasing a gas-guzzling, resource-consuming vehicle, which evidently was gratuitously unnecessary (it's not that this Christian leader was a farmer or rancher or construction worker or whatnot, that he needed the storage and/or towing capacity).

I am not sure how widespread the mentality is, but I am absolutely disgusted by the anti-environmentalism attitudes which affect at least some people in evangelical Christianity. There seems to be an approach that says, "Well, if the environmental movement is led primarily by non-Christian pagans, it must be the spawn of Satan; therefore, I will live in absolute opposition to everything they stad for." Yes, I exaggerate for the sake of making a point.

In Genesis 1, God commands His people to subdue (or control) the earth. He goes on to mandate our sovereignty (or rule) over Creation. Is our rule supposed to be selfish, consumptive, and rapacious? I see no biblical mandate for that. Rather, I see the biblical mandate for sovereignty to be focused on others, not self; the good of the ones being ruled, not the selfish interests of the one ruling. Why would our sovereignty over creation be any different?

What is the result of evangelical anti-environmentalism? (1) We are unfaithful to our biblical mandate to be stewards of God's Creation. (2) We become a laughing-stock, an item of derision, to mainstream society, which rightfully is more concerned about preservation and responsible treatment of Creation.

Brothers, this should not be. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can reject the pantheistic overtones of the mainstream environmental movement without embracing an unbiblical, materialistic anti-environmentalism. Of all people, Christians should be at the forefront of the Creation-care movement, seeking to exhort everyone to acknowledge that "This is My Father's World," that we do not have the right to rape and pillage God's Creation, but rather are called to exercise servant-leadership (stewardship) over what God has entrusted to our care.

Please, never, even in jest, suggest that you are doing your best to consume as much as possible, to waste as many resources as possible - the world sees, takes notice, and maligns the name of the One whom we represent when we do.

Worldview Comprehensive Exam - Question 2

NOTE: The same reminder - these are unedited versions of exam answers provided in 80 minutes with no resources at hand. Hope you enjoy them!

Question #2. Discuss issues related to the historical reliability of the Bible, including questions of methodology and archaeology. Include in your discussion representatives of the various issues.

The historical reliability of the Bible is a central issue for apologists, preachers, and theologians alike. From an apologetic standpoint, if the Bible is not historically reliable, then the founding facts of the Christian faith are in doubt. For some worldviews and religions, this would not be a crucial blow. Buddhism does not stand or fall on the historical veracity of biographies (hagiographies) of Gotama. Nor does Islam stand or fall (for the most part) on the historical reliability of the sunna. Mormonism quite clearly does not stand or fall on the historical reliability of the book of Mormon (or else it would have fallen quite some time ago!). But Christianity is uniquely tied to events in history which, if true, verify the truth of the Christian faith; but which, if false, disprove Christianity altogether. Chief amongst those historical facts are the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ – although certainly other historical facts are important to the Christian narrative as well (e.g., Creation, the Fall, the Flood, the Exodus, the miracles of Christ).

Christianity stands or falls on the truth or falsity of these historical events. As Paul insists in 1 Corinthians 15, if Christ has not risen from the dead, then our preaching is useless and so if your faith. If the resurrection is not historical (i.e. if it is a myth, or a metaphor, or a deception, or whatever else), then Christianity is a pack of lies, and we ought to pack our bags and go home.
But how do we know that these historical events did in fact happen? On what basis do we believe them? Primarily, we know about them through the record of Scripture. Genesis tells us about Creation and the Flood. Exodus tells us about the events of the Exodus (which are then the basis for much of the rest of the New Testament). And the New Testament Gospels are absolutely central, in conveying to us the truths surrounding the incarnation, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, to accept the historical occurrence of these events, we must accept the New Testament Gospel records as fundamentally reliable and trustworthy.

However, if a non-Christian friend asks you why they ought to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and you tell them “The Bible says he did,” the natural response of the non-believer will be: “So what? Why should I believe what the Bible says?” Indeed, he will often continue, “Isn’t the Bible just a bunch of books written by people much later? Isn’t it full of myths? Didn’t people make it all up? Isn’t the Bible untrustworthy and unhistorical?” In other words, it is incumbent upon the Christian apologist, preacher, and theologian to (1 Pet. 3:15) give an answer to those who ask us the reasons for the hope that we have; we are to tell people why we trust the Bible, why we accept it as a historically accurate record of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

With that in mind, in this essay I will defend the historical reliability of the Bible, focusing particularly on the New Testament Gospels because, in my perspective, they are the fulcrum on which everything hinges. First, I will briefly recount the rise in biblical skepticism from the Enlightenment through the 20th century. Then I will argue that, contrary to the skeptical conclusions of New Testament critics, there are six persuasive reasons to trust the historical reliability of the Gospels.

I. The Rise of Skeptical Biblical Criticism

From their writing, the New Testament Gospels, individually and collectively, were treated by Christians as authoritative records of the birth, ministry, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. From Irenaeus onward, we hear the early Church fathers confess faith in the Four Gospels, the four accepted records of Jesus’ life. The historicity of the accounts was unquestioned by Christians. Even those engaged in heretical movements (Gnosticism, Docetism, etc.) acknowledged the Gospels as accurate and authoritative (except Marcion, who rejected all but an emasculated version of Luke’s Gospel).

Non-Christians frequently found fault with the Gospels (e.g. Celsus in the 2nd century, Porphyry in the 3rd), but rarely did they reject the fundamental historical narrative of the Gospels. The fact of the resurrection was, of course, rejected; but the account of Jesus’ life was not.

With the rise of the Enlightenment in western Christendom, however, the New Testament Gospels came under the skeptical scrutiny of scholars who had embraced a fundamentally naturalistic worldview. Their naturalistic worldview was at odds with the frank supernaturalistic worldview assumed and proclaimed throughout the Gospels, necessitating a redefinition or reinterpretation of the Gospel records. H. Reimarus thus recorded his growing doubts about the accuracy and historicity of the Gospels, followed by David Strauss and Friedrich Schleiermacher. In the 20th century, Bultmann represented the culmination of the German school of skeptical biblical scholarship, arguing that we had to ‘demythologize’ the New Testament to remove its supernaturalistic elements and make it compatible with a modern, scientific, naturalistic Western worldview. No one who turns on an electric light switch can responsibly continue to believe in the miracles of Jesus, according to Bultmann. American scholars involved in the Jesus Seminar (Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan) adopted and publicized these critical conclusions and sought to argue that the Jesus presented in the New Testament Gospels is not a historical representation of the Jesus that actually walked in Galilee and Judea, but rather a theological imposition of the later Christian Church. While not a scholarly work, Dan Brown’s da Vinci Code represents a popularization of the conclusions of skeptical scholarship.

The fundamental assertions of critical scholarship, then, are that: (a) the Gospels are not reliable history; (b) our knowledge about the historical Jesus must be supplemented by non-canonical sources, particularly the gnostic gospels and documents; (c) our understanding of Jesus must be harmonized with a naturalistic worldview.

Interestingly, New Testament critics are at odds with the insights of ancient historians, who place much greater faith in the authenticity and reliability of the New Testament Gospels. For example, A. N. Sherwin-White suggests that we have good reason to trust the historical record of the Gospels. Why this disconnect? In what follows, I will seek to lay out a case for the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels, demonstrating that we do have good reasons for trusting the historical record contained within them.

II. Date

First, the New Testament Gospels are written very close to the time of the events which they narrate. Even by the estimates of the most radical skeptical scholars, all four gospels were completed by A.D. 105; all scholars agree that Mark is written prior to A.D. 70. Since Jesus was crucified between A.D. 28 and 33 (I think A.D. 30 is about right), that places the earliest gospel within 40 years, and the latest one at most 75 years from the death of Christ. I would argue that the traditional dating for the Gospels is more accurate – that Mark was written prior to A.D. 60, Matthew and Luke both between A.D. 60 and 70, and John around A.D. 85. In this case, you have three complementary synoptic gospels written within 30-40 years of Jesus’ death, with John supplementing the synoptic about 20 years after that.

The early date of the Gospels is important for two reasons. (1) It means that there would still have been numerous eyewitnesses alive, both friends and foes. Christians who had walked and talked with Jesus would have been around to question, correct, and confirm the narratives of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Non-Christians, who perhaps were involved with opposing Jesus or even demanding his execution, would also still have been around – to counter, question, and debunk any false or incorrect historical claims made by the Gospels. Significantly, we find no record of non-Christians disagreeing with the historical claims of the Gospels. (2) It means that there is not sufficient time for mythical or legendary accretions to be accumulated within the Gospels. Comparing the time-frames of the Gospels to those of the sunna of Muhammad and the hagiographies of Gotama Buddha, we can see that as the time between the life of the historical figure and the writing of the account of the historical figure increases, so too does the element of legendary additions. That is, accounts written close to their lifetimes have no or minimal legendary additions; accounts written much later have significant legendary additions (e.g. Buddha emerging from his mother’s womb fully-grown). This is also evident from a survey of later Christian gospels, like the infancy Gospel of Thomas, or the 2nd-century (or later) Gospel of Peter – the legendary elements are quite apparent. In Thomas, the young Jesus lashes out in anger and curses a playmate, killing him. In Peter, the resurrection scene is narrated, with two angels “as tall as the sky” leading Jesus, who is “taller than the sky” out of the tomb, followed by a walking talking cross. In comparison, the New Testament gospels are plain, bereft of legendary accretions.

II. Eyewitness Claims

Second, the New Testament Gospels all claim to contain eyewitness testimony. So, on the one hand, they are all written early enough that they certainly could be verified or debunked by living eyewitnesses. But furthermore, the Gospels claim to contain exactly such eyewitness accounts. Richard Bauckham, in his exhaustive Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, concludes that the claims to eyewitness status are authentic, and are demonstrated by both internal and external evidence (see IV and V of this essay).

Mark, the earliest Gospel, does not explicitly state who wrote it. Church tradition is unanimous in attributing it to John Mark, who was an associate of the early Apostles, and who wrote the recollections of Simon Peter (see Papias’ testimony). Thus, Mark is associated with the eyewitness testimony of the ‘head’ apostle. Matthew is written by one of the 12 disciples, Levi (Matthew) the tax-collector. Luke, while not an apostle, explicitly claims to have interviewed numerous eyewitnesses in the research and preparation of his Gospel. John, while the latest Gospel written, makes the strongest claims to eyewitness status – John 20 and 21 emphasize that this is the testimony of the one who saw these things. It is not necessary to conclude that the apostle John wrote the Gospel himself from start to finish; but it is unavoidable to conclude that whether it was John or his disciples who wrote the words contained in the Gospel, it is based (professedly based) on what John the apostle saw, heard, and touched.

The claim to eyewitness testimony is not limited to the Gospels. It is also evident in the New Testament epistles – again, 1 Corinthians 15 is a prime example. 1 John 1 is also a strong example, wherein John claims that he is writing of what he has seen, heard, and touched, and is now relating it to his audience so that they might know the truth of what they have been taught. The authenticity and authority of the apostolic teaching and tradition was based on the eyewitness status of what they were recounting.

A skeptic can certainly argue that the Gospels (and Epistles) are lying, and that they were not eyewitnesses. But what the skeptic cannot rationally conclude is that the Gospels never pretend or claim to be eyewitness accounts of what really happened. Sadly, this is what they often do. Crossan argues that Luke is not intending to write a historical account of what happened after Good Friday, but is rather simply telling people metaphorical stories about the disciples’ experiences. But that is what Luke is explicitly not doing. Luke sets out to tell his readers what really happened, and states so clearly in his preface. Ditto for John. The attempt of critical scholars to mythologize the New Testament violates the explicit purpose of the Gospels.

III. Manuscript Evidence

So the Gospels were written relatively close to the time of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. And they claim to be eyewitness accounts of those events. So what? Many contemporary skeptics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Dan Brown, Muslims) argue that the texts that we have in our New Testament are not reflective of what was originally written. The text has become corrupt. Perhaps the autographs (original Gospels) would be historically reliable. But what we have has been revised and re-written by later scribes and theologians to reflect the emerging dominant orthodoxy. Thus we cannot be sure what exactly Jesus did do and say. That has been lost.
The argument that the New Testament texts have become hopelessly corrupt is most prominently featured in Islam. Mohammad claimed that God had given previous revelations to the Jews (the Torah) and the Christians (the Gospels, or injil), but that these revelations had become corrupted, so that God revealed his final revelation through Mohammad (the Quran).

Fortunately for Christians, and unfortunately for Muslims, there is no evidence supporting the thesis of rampant corruption of the New Testament text. Rather, the discipline of textual criticism has recovered, with almost absolute confidence, the text of the original autographs. There is, to be sure, considerable textual corruption in many manuscript traditions. But the breadth and depth and wealth of extant manuscripts allows a detailed comparison which establishes the original wording of texts. There are over 5000 manuscripts, full and partial, of the New Testament Gospels, the earliest of which go back to the 2nd century. On top of that, we also have citations of the Gospels from the early Church fathers, where the wording confirms the extant manuscript record. As a comparison, the Roman historian Suetonius’s works have less than 20 extant manuscripts, the earliest of which dates from 800 years after his original writing. Compared to other ancient literature, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming and conclusive.
Why then do critics reject the authenticity and historicity of the Gospels? As David Hall points out (The Seven Pillories of Wisdom), critical scholars refuse to treat the Gospels according to the same academic criteria with which other ancient literature is considered. Rather, they seek to apply modern requirements and worldview presuppositions upon the Gospels- if the Gospels do not meet these unrealistic standards (exact reproduction), then they must be questionable. But if these standards were applied across the board, our knowledge of ancient history would be, well, ancient history. We wouldn’t know anything, because nothing would be trustworthy and reliable enough!

IV. Internal Evidence

The historicity of the New Testament Gospels is further supported by the internal evidence of the texts themselves. We have seen that the Gospels were written early enough to contain eyewitness testimony, that they make the claims of containing eyewitness testimony, and that the manuscript evidence is strong enough to support that claim. But that in itself does not mean that the material within the New Testament Gospels is eyewitness testimony. All we have thus far is the claim to eyewitness testimony.

The validity of that testimony, the truthfulness of the eyewitness claim, can be further demonstrated by considering the internal and external evidence. Here we will consider the internal evidence of the texts.

When the police investigate a crime, they seek eyewitness testimony as to what happened. However, it is not enough for someone merely to claim that they witnessed a crime. Rather, the police want to verify that the person’s testimony is valid. That will require at least two things – (1) demonstration of the integrity of the eyewitness; and (2) confirmation of the truthfulness of their testimony through incidental details.

The character and integrity of the professed eyewitness is crucial to testing their truthfulness. If Robert is accused of a gruesome murder, and the prosecution’s key eyewitness to the crime is Robert’s avowed enemy George, who secretly covets Robert’s wife and business, then the judge and/or jury will be right in questioning the validity of George’s eyewitness testimony. If George has previously been shown to willingly perjure himself in order to impugn Robert, his testimony will be further undermined. On the other hand, if the prosecution’s eyewitness is of unquestioned integrity, their testimony will be of much greater worth. Imagine then, that the defense calls an eyewitness, Robert’s mistress Rachel, to the stand, who testifies that Robert could not have committed the crime, as the two of them were ‘occupied’ together all that evening. While Rachel’s testimony will not be immediately discounted, the judge will have to consider whether Rachel has anything to gain by defending Robert; whether she might perjure herself in order to protect him from conviction. (Incidentally, David Hume’s consideration of testimony would require that in the event that there is testimony for both the prosecution and defense, the judge would simply balance the two out, and conclude that there is no evidence on either side. Contrary testimony results in a wash-out.)

When we turn this criteria to the authors of the New Testament, we must ask whether they had anything to gain by telling falsehoods about the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Many critics have argued that this is precisely what happened; but they have difficulty in explicating precisely how the apostles stood to gain. Martyrdom? Death? Torture? Wealth and riches were certainly not on the line in the 1st century Christian context. One could make that argument for 4th century Christians – but they are not the ones who wrote the Gospels! Furthermore, applying the criteria of embarrassment makes it unlikely that the Gospel’s authors made their stories up – there’s simply too much stuff that reflects very poorly upon them, particularly in Mark’s Gospel!

More tellingly, when we turn to the issue of incidental details, the Gospel records prove themselves historically accurate. If police have a professed eyewitness to a crime, they will seek to uncover whether the person was actually at the scene of the crime by determining whether they can identify incidental details that they know to be true of the scene, but which are unrelated to the actual crime itself. The color of the paint on the walls; the clothes the accused was wearing; or anything else unusual about the scene.

The Gospels are remarkably replete with incidental details – details which flesh out the account of Jesus’ ministry, but which are unnecessary to the story being recounted. As one example, consider the healing of the crippled man in John 5. John paints a very vivid picture for us, describing the place – the pool of Bethesda; and even the number of colonnades present there. He also recounts precisely how long the man had been crippled – not “about 40 years”, but rather precisely 38 years. Given the biblical tendency to round numbers off and provide general estimates, John’s precision is an indication that this is historically veridical. Similarly with Jesus’ anointing by the sinful woman in Mark’s Gospel, Mark recounts the precise way in which the woman anoints Jesus – by breaking the bottle and pouring the perfume on him, rather than the more customary way of simply unstopping the bottle to pour some of the perfume out. The presence of these incidental details, of which Bauckham recounts literally hundreds, is strong evidence that the claims to eyewitness testimony are valid and authentic. The Gospel-writers were there, they saw what they said they saw, and are thus able to present compelling portraits of the events they narrate.

V. External Evidence

The external evidence supporting the historical reliability of the Gospels brings us to the discipline of archaeology. Archaeological evidence has been unearthed which supports the reliability of much of Scripture. For example, the healing in John 5 (mentioned above) was often questioned by critics because they claimed there was no pool of Bethesda, there was no Sheep Gate, and who would have five covered colonnades anyway? There was simply no knowledge of any such architectural structure in 1st-century Jerusalem, so critics claimed that John was simply making up those details to make it look like he was there, when in fact it is all imaginary. [This totally overlooks that John’s original audience would have known whether he was making these things up, and would not have believed his account if it was so transparently composed, but so be it.] Then, in the 1980s, archaeological digs in Jerusalem uncovered the Pool of Bethesda, and near it, an inscription of the Sheep Gate, and the five covered colonnades spoken of by John. This is but one example of archaeological evidence confirming the historical reliability of the accounts of the Gospel. There are numerous others for the New Testament Gospels – place names in John, persons mentioned in Luke’s Gospel. The discipline of archaeology has also been instrumental in verifying the reliability of Old Testament accounts as well. Critical scholars were fond of questioning the historicity of King David until the discovery of the ‘House of David’ inscription. Mind you, even with that evidence, scholars often still question the historicity of David; it’s just now they have to do so in face of contrary evidence!

It is important to remember, however, that archaeology has only limited power and scope. Archaeological evidence can support the historical reliability of the Scriptures. However, a lack of archaeological evidence is not evidence of historical unreliability. This was the mistake made by critical scholars in questioning passages like John 5. There was no archaeological confirmation of the Sheep gate, etc., thus they believed it was made up. Then they had to revise their hypotheses with each archaeological discovery. Archaeology can only serve a confirming role, not a disproving role, with regards to historical reliability. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

VI. Existential Evidence

Ultimately, the date, eyewitness claims, manuscript evidence, internal evidence, and external evidence which support the historical reliability of the New Testament will only bring us so far. People can be brought to acknowledge the general reliability of Scripture. But that is not the point of apologetics, nor is it the goal of Scripture. Rather, the purpose is to invite people into a living relationship with the Triune God through faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, when we defend the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels, it is essential that we end with a Pascalian appeal to experiential verification. Christ does not invite us simply to consider the Gospels as a historical document, but rather desires for us to apply the Gospels to ourselves, to allow the Christ spoken of to enter into our lives.

Marriage supplies a pertinent analogy. I can write about the virtues of marriage, and the fulfillment and joy which is available to men who enter into and uphold a biblical marriage. I can speak of the ecstasy of marital union, the peace which comes from having a life-partner, and the intimacy which is unsurpassed in human relationships. I can even point to sociological data that demonstrate that faithful married couples express higher levels of sexual satisfaction than unmarried sexual partners or unfaithful spouses. But ultimately, I have to acknowledge that one can only appreciate and agree with that argument if they themselves enter into such a marriage (or are already in one). Words and arguments will only come so far – it is only as one experiences marriage that they can see what God can make it to be.
Similarly with the Gospels. There are indeed compelling rational reasons to accept the Gospels as historically accurate representations of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But that won’t get you there! One has to enter into relationship with the Christ of Scripture in order to fully appreciate the historical reliability. The Gospels are open to personal verification – God invites us into relationship with him, to experience the truthfulness of the claims made of and about Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament. Our apologetic for the reliability of Scripture must end with such an appeal.

Philosophy Comprehensive Exam - Question #1

NOTE: Again, remember that these are exam answers - unpolished and unedited, and with no resources at hand. I had 80 minutes for each essay. This particular essay required me to delve into the field of epistemology, which is still new and challenging to me. It's also much more personal and 'stream-of-consciousness' rather than analytical. Hope you enjoy it!

QUESTION 1. As you look past the Ph.D., how might you understand the next step you should take? With what warrant will you choose to move to a new place or stay in the area, undertake one form of employment and not another, etc.? Will this be a matter of internal justification, external justification, or both?

Thirteen and a half years ago, God called me into full-time vocational ministry, making it clear that He desired for me to prepare for and enter the pastorate. Three and a half years ago, God began prompting me to go back to the school to pursue a Ph.D. in order to enter into a teaching ministry for the glory of His kingdom. Eighteen months ago, my family moved more than 3300 kilometers (2000 miles), from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, to Louisville, Kentucky, and I began doctoral studies.

I. Entering the Great Unknown

In many ways, coming to Southern Seminary was entering the great unknown. We had never lived outside of Edmonton, never traveled to the continental United States (although we quite enjoyed our honeymoon in Hawaii). I am a settler by nature, preferring to put down deep roots in a community rather than to move to a new place and form new relationships and connections.

However, as we anticipate completing doctoral studies, and consider ‘what comes next’, we have considerably more existential angst. We know that the next stage in our life will be, to an even greater degree, entering the great unknown. We know whom we have believed, and we know that He is able to fulfill His purposes for our lives. We know that He will be with us, directing our path, as we seek to be faithful to the mission He has given us. But we have absolutely no idea what the next stage in life will be. The vision we have is of returning to Canada to teach in a college/university/seminary setting, while also serving the church by bringing apologetic conferences, workshops, seminars, sermons, and Sunday school classes to local congregations. But we have no idea whether that vision will be fulfilled (immediately or eventually); we have no idea where we will move, no idea what type of job I will pursue/receive.

However, there are several spiritual and epistemological principles and foundations upon which we will employ as we enter into the great existential unknown. The spiritual principles and foundations are centered upon our living relationship with the Triune God, and are absolutely essential. However, they will not be the primary focus of this essay. Rather, I will focus on our epistemological pursuit of knowing God’s purpose and calling, and considering the justification that we will have for our next stage. First, I will consider the nature of God’s will. I will argue that we must distinguish God’s sovereign (and unalterable) will from His moral will. Moreover, I will insist that rather than speaking of God’s will for my life, we must more properly speak of God’s intentions or calling for my life. Second, I will discuss how we seek to know what God’s intentions for our lives are. I will argue in favor of the Blackaby’s traditional ‘specific-intentional’ approach to discerning God’s will, while insisting that the insights of Garry Friesen’s ‘wisdom’ approach is essential as well. Third, I will consider the issue of warrant and justification for our future endeavors – how will we know that this is God’s will? I will argue that (1) we are warranted in confidence that we are living according to God’s intentions if we are operating epistemologically in the context of a healthy relationship with God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; (2) we obtain internal justification for our knowledge that we are following God’s intentions by the ‘cognitive rest’ or ‘peace’ that we experience; and (3) we receive external justification for our knowledge that we are following God’s intentions by a post-operative evaluation of our decision-making process in the light of consequent events and experiences [that is, hindsight and reflection]. In each of these aspects, I will emphasize Jay Wood’s notion of epistemological virtue – that we seek to live and make decisions in an epistemologically virtuous manner.

II. Does God Have a Specific Will For Your Life?

In How Then Shall We Choose?, three views of ‘decision making and the will of God’ are considered – Henry and Richard Blackaby’s ‘traditional’ or ‘specific-will’ approach; Garry Friesen’s ‘wisdom’ approach; and Smith’s ‘relational’ approach. A fundamental question must be asked of the Blackaby’s approach – namely, does God truly have a specific will for your life and daily decisions? Friesen insists that God does not, and supports his argument biblically. There is absolutely no biblical evidence, according to Friesen, that allows us to identify a specific will of God for our personal lives. Rather, the biblical differentiation is between God’s sovereign (or unalterable) will, and His moral will. God’s sovereign will reflects His eternal decrees, which are unchanging and unchangeable. God’s moral will reflects the holiness of His nature and character, and can be further separated into His effective (prescriptive) moral will and His permissive moral will. That is, in some cases God causes His moral will to be actualized, while in other situations God permits His moral will to be violated. Thus, for example, God permits Adam and Eve to fall into moral sin and rebellion – the fall of mankind is not a reflection of God’s holy (pure, sinless) nature and character, but is rather a violation of it, but nonetheless the fall is within God’s will, as He permits it to occur.

In no way, however, does the biblical discussion of God’s will speak of God’s particular or specific will for individual human beings. God’s will is an expression of His being, His nature, His character, and His eternal decrees. Thus, when we speak of God’s interaction with individual human beings, we should not speak of God’s will for their lives, but rather of God’s purposes, intentions, or calling upon individuals. When God reveals Himself to Abraham, then, God does not tell Abraham, “This is my will for your life;” rather, God calls Abraham out of Ur and into Canaan. Similarly, when God reveals Himself to Saul on the road to Damascus, he does not tell Paul, “This is my will for your life,” but rather calls Paul to a life of evangelistic ministry and reveals His divine purposes for Paul’s life and ministry. Thus, the Blackabys are certainly correct in insisting that God has and reveals a specific intention or calling for specific people; but they would be well-advised to speak in terms of intention rather than in terms of will.

III. How Will We Know God’s Intentions For Our Future?

I have argued that God does have specific intentions for us, and I sincerely believe that God has a purpose or plan for what my family will do when I have finished Ph.D. studies here in Louisville. But how do we identify it? How do we know what God’s intentions for our lives are? As a pastor in Edmonton, it was not an uncommon experience to have a young adult (or teen, or older adult) come and ask how they are supposed to know what God wants them to do with their life! As Christians, we desire to honor and glorify God in everything that we do. We want to live in the center of His will; we certainly do not want to embark on an educational or career path that will prevent us from fulfilling God’s purposes for our lives. So how do we identify God’s intentions for us?

A. The Blackaby Approach

Fundamentally, I am in accordance with the Blackabys’ approach – we must seek to learn what God desires of us, and God is faithful in communicating to us His intentions. A little over a month ago, I had an interesting conversation with a very intelligent friend here at the seminary. He insisted that God no longer speaks audibly and personally to Christians today – that God’s self-revelation in written Scripture is sufficient, and that personal communication between God and His people no longer occurs. I am convinced that my friend is wrong, based partly on the testimony of other Christians, partly on my own experience, and partly on my understanding of God and the nature of His covenant-relationship with us. Many Christians throughout the ages have testified to God’s direct communication with them. In my own life, I have experienced God’s direct communication on two occasions, both times of significant decision – once when God audibly called me to the pastoral ministry, the other when God audibly authorized me to quit working at the bank I served during seminary in the 1990s. I can no more deny God’s direct, personal communication than I can deny the trans-national verbal conversation that I had with my parents over the weekend. I know it’s possible, because I have personally experienced it. Furthermore, however, I would insist that God dwells within His children in the form of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling Spirit is the source of God’s communication with us. And the nature of God’s relationship with us is such that continued communication between God and His children should rather be expected than rejected.

The Blackaby model is built upon the foundation of such personal communication between God and His people. The Blackaby’s insist that believers must be radically open to receiving God’s intentions and purposes in their lives. The sources of God’s communication with His people is summarized by the Blackabys: (1) Scripture; (2) prayer; (3) fellowship; and (4) circumstances. I would suggest that Frame’s tri-perspectival approach to theology and epistemology is helpful in summarizing the means by which God conveys His intentions, purposes, and calling for our lives. (1) The normative approach – God speaks authoritatively through His Word, guiding and directing our life accordingly. For example, since God has commanded us to not commit adultery, it will be fairly clear that God desires me to reject the impending offer to star in pornographic movies when I graduate. (2) The situational approach – God speaks into our particular context through the circumstances that we find ourselves in. For example, as I pray and seek employment opportunities in the world of higher education after graduation, an unexpected job offer from a little-known Bible college in Lincoln, Nebraska could very well be God speaking to me through circumstances. (3) The existential approach – God speaks into our lives directly through interactive prayer and the voice of the Holy Spirit, and also through His people within the community of faith. For example, when I was in my final year of my Bachelor’s degree, seeking to understand God’s intention for my next step in life, God spoke audibly to me as I prayed for direction – “I want you to be a pastor.” It was clear, and I had to conclude that someone was crazy – either myself (for thinking I heard God speak to me), or God (for thinking that I ought to be a pastor). Or, again, the prompting to return to school to pursue a Ph.D. came from God speaking through other Christians – members of my ordination committee in the spring of 2006, and a trusted mentor in university ministry later that same year. Thus, I would insist that God communicates His intentions to His people normatively, through Scripture, situationally, through the circumstances He sovereignly ordains, and existentially, through prayer and other believers.

This raises two issues that identify regularly-perceived weaknesses in the Blackabys’ traditional approach to discerning God’s intentions for our lives. On the one hand, it is argued that much of life is ‘mundane,’ and not the subject of God’s communication with us. On the other hand, it is argued that we are not intended to sit around waiting for God to speak to us before we step out into action.
Both perceived weaknesses are valid concerns, but can be addressed and accommodated within the Blackaby approach, particularly by acknowledging and adopting the insights provided by Friesen’s wisdom approach to discerning God’s purposes. Friesen argues that God desires us to be more assertive and bold in our approach to His intentions. He begins by insisting that: “Where God has commanded, we must obey.” Thus, again, I must decline to accept jobs that require me to engage in sinful behavior and activities. But he proceeds: “Where God has not commanded, God has granted us both the freedom and the wisdom to choose.” Friesen’s approach, in many ways, is like that of my friend who denies God’s continuing personal communication with His children. God has spoken authoritatively in Scripture, and what Scripture commands, we are to obey. However, the vast majority of life is an application in wisdom of Scriptural commands – in those areas, we have both the freedom and the wisdom to choose how to live. Thus, God does not command whether I should remain in the States or return to Canada after graduation – He permits me to choose. God does not ordain whether I ought to accept hypothetical job offers from Orlando, Tuktuyuktuk, or Edmonton – I have the freedom and wisdom to choose.
First off, I must insist that I think Friesen is fundamentally wrong in such assertions. It may well be that God has commanded which of those three job offers I am to accept, but if I adopt (strictly) his wisdom approach, I won’t even consider the job offers from Orlando or Tuktuyuktuk after receiving the offer in Edmonton – I will ‘wisely’ and ‘freely’ choose to go back to my hometown to teach. If, however, I adopt (as I insist we ought to) a Blackaby openness to hearing God communicate His intentions to us, normatively through Scripture, situationally through circumstances, and existentially through prayer and the fellowship of believers, then God may well indicate that I am to accept the job offer in Orlando, despite the hellishly hot and humid climate I would have to endure thereby (not to mention the distance from all family and existing friends). Thus, I must remain open to hearing God speak and communicate His distinct, direct, personal intentions for my life and ministry; I cannot solely adopt Friesen’s wisdom approach to decision-making and the will of God.

Nonetheless, I must also admit that Friesen’s approach has a lot of wisdom, and needs to be applied as a supplement or corrective to the Blackaby approach. God may well convey a direct intention to my post-Ph.D. direction; on the other hand, God may not communicate directly what He desires for me to do. Indeed, God made it clear existentially that He intended for me to return to school and pursue a Ph.D.; however, He did not speak directly (normatively, situationally, or existentially) telling me that I was to come to Southern Seminary in Louisville. Rather, we applied prudential wisdom in considering the options. Yes, we asked God to tells us what He wanted us to do, we asked Him to show me where to study; but clear direction did not come. Instead, as we proceeded to investigate academic options, it gradually became clear that it ‘made sense’ to come to Southern – it was cheaper (as a Canadian Southern Baptist) to come here than to study at most other seminaries; I was able to pursue my primary academic interests (major in Apologetics, minor in World Religions [and Philosophy]); the size and atmosphere of Louisville is more similar to Edmonton than other potential cities (Fort Worth, Wake Forest) I could have studied in; the institutional Calvinism would be challenging and sharpening for an avowed non-Calvinist. One could argue that God was speaking situationally, through circumstances that He brought our way, in directing us to the appropriate school; but it certainly did not feel that way. We experienced the decision making process much more as an exercise of wisdom in accordance with what God had previously revealed to us. And we expect that the next step in our life journey may well be the same – God may not reveal clearly and absolutely what He intends for us to do after graduation, but rather will ask us to exercise wisdom in ascertaining the right road to go down.

Friesen and Smith also criticize the Blackaby approach for its tendency to induce passive Christian decision-making. Erwin McManus (pastor at Mosaic, in California), shares a story of a friend who graduated from seminary, but after two or three years had not yet accepted a pastoral position, despite having been offered several. The friend insisted that he did not have absolute certainty that God wanted him to accept any of those positions, and that he did not want to take a job that was not God’s specific will for his life. McManus responded, in some frustration, that his friend simply needed to step out and “Do something; anything; something good, something in accordance with God’s revealed will in Scripture.” Sitting around waiting for God to reveal His precise intention can lead to paralysis and inactivity. I think this criticism has great merit, and reveals that the Blackaby’s perhaps overestimate the frequency with which God reveals a specific plan for a specific individual. I agree with Friesen that the vast majority of life is governed by ‘mundane wisdom.’ The Blackaby’s note the necessity of applying wisdom in many of life’s decisions (cereal for breakfast, choice of clothes, etc); but Friesen’s point is that it is mundanity that is paradigmatic, not God’s revelation of specific intentions. I suspect that Friesen is correct; although I also fear that Friesen overextends himself and denies the applicability of seeking God’s specific intentions altogether.

Nonetheless, Friesen’s ‘wise’ advice reminds me not to sit on my haunches after completing my Ph.D., waiting for God to reveal the next step in His grand plan for my life. Rather, I am to conduct myself with: (a) a radical openness to hearing God give me direct intentions for my future; but also (b) a willingness to weigh options, compare possibilities, and exercise Christian wisdom in ascertaining God’s intentions for my future.

IV. How Do We Know That We Know God’s Intentions?

In epistemology, the primary question is not, “What do we know?”, but rather, “How do we know that we know?” With regards to my future direction, the epistemological question is therefore not, “What are God’s intentions for me?”, but rather, “How will I know that this is God’s intention for me?”

A. Plantinga’s Warrant

Traditionally, knowledge has been considered to be ‘justified true belief.’ To truly know something, we need more than mere belief that something is so. That belief must also be true; that is, it must correspond to how things are in the real world. Furthermore, we must have justification for that belief – our true belief must be grounded in rational faculties or operations.
Alvin Plantinga supplements this traditional conception of justified true belief with his notion of ‘warrant’. Plantinga’s warrant implies that we have justified true belief when our cognitive faculties are working properly (as they are supposed to), within a macro- and micro-environment which is conducive to their proper operation.

From a Christian perspective, looking towards future ministry after completion of my Ph.D., Plantingian warrant has considerable appeal and application. Along with the Blackaby’s, I confess that God has specific intentions for our lives which He desires to communicate to us. Hence, I must be epistemologically open to receiving God’s direction and purpose. Furthermore, along with Friesen, I acknowledge that God does not always communicate directly or personally with us, but often gives us both the freedom and the wisdom to choose our path in accordance with His revealed moral will. Hence, I must be epistemologically aware of what God condones, commands, and condemns. Finally, along with Smith, I insist that our decisions are to be made from within the context of an intimate relationship with the Triune God. Hence, a conducive environment for my decision-making faculties to operate within requires spiritual discipline and development. Thus, whatever path I ultimately go down after Ph.D. studies, I will warrant for that decision if and only if: (a) I have been open to receiving God’s specific intentions (and if such intentions have been conveyed, I faithfully obey them); (b) in the event that God has not directly communicated His intentions, I have exercised prudence and wisdom in choosing the correct path; (c) within the context of a vibrant relationship with my Lord and Savior. All three aspects of my decision-making process are essential to obtaining warrant for my future decision.

B. Frame’s ‘Cognitive Rest’ (Blackabyan ‘Peace’)

Once that decision is made, however, how will I know that it was the right one? How will I have the knowledge that this is, indeed, God’s intention for my future? Plantinga’s notion of warrant, though extremely helpful, is incomplete, as it allows us to have warrant for a belief even when we do not realize that we have warrant for it. In this case, however, I want not merely to have ‘Warranted Christian Belief,’ I desire to know that I have warranted belief that this is God’s purpose for my life.
John Frame speaks, in his Doctrine of the Christian Life, but more fully in The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, about the notion of ‘cognitive rest’. Old-school evidentialism, as epitomized by William Clifford’s evidentialist thesis (“It is wrong for everyone, anywhere, at any time, to believe anything on the basis of insufficient evidence.”) insists that we have to exhaust every possible objection, research every possible option to the utmost of our ability, before we can conclude anything confidently. [Of course, Clifford’s evidentialist maxim fails to live up to its own standards, as there is no sufficient evidence that we ought to embrace his maxim, so we could legitimately ignore it. Nonetheless …] Frame disagrees. He acknowledges that there are limits to what we can realistically investigate. We cannot have exhaustive knowledge of everything. We cannot satisfy every doubt or question that we will ever have, about anything! Indeed, when we prepared to come back to school and move to the States, there were unanswered questions: “What if I am rejected from the program? Will I be able to do it? How are our kids going to adjust? Are we going to go bankrupt?” We didn’t have answers to all of those questions. But we did have ‘cognitive rest’, which Frame defines as the place we come to when, having investigated things fairly thoroughly, we find ourselves no longer needing to look into it, but rather at ease with the conclusion we have reached. We were confident that we knew God intended for us to move to Louisville. The Blackaby’s, I believe, are speaking of the same thing when they talk about being “at peace” with a decision. Perhaps we do not know why God desires this of us at a particular point in time, but we have peace that this is indeed God’s intentions for us. The Blackaby’s share several stories of having such peace (or cognitive rest) in the midst of decisions that seemed questionable or unlikely at the time.

C. Wood’s ‘Virtuous Epistemology’ and Justification

Jay Wood, in Becoming Epistemologically Virtuous, has a lengthy discussion of justification in knowledge. He examines the traditional differentiation between internal and external justification, and concludes that both are essential, and can be incorporated within a virtuous epistemology.

Internal justification for knowledge understands epistemology primarily in terms of deontology, or duty / responsibility. Justification stems from having exercised our rational capacities in a responsible and truth-seeking manner. Internalists are generally either foundationalists or coherentists – the first arguing that justification stems from having our beliefs founded upon properly basic beliefs, the second arguing that justification stems from have our beliefs cohere with our overall noetic structure. Externalists, on the other hand, understand epistemological justification to stem from the results of the epistemological process. Our beliefs are justified insofar as they result in attainment of the truth. Externalists are generally reliabilists, and emphasize the general reliability of our epistemological faculties.

Wood argues that the internal/external debate regarding justification cannot be satisfactorily settled simply because both are essential to justified true belief. First, there is an unmistakeable need for internal justification. If we have not conducted ourselves with epistemological virtue, then our beliefs are not justified. There are rational duties and responsibilities that we have; for example, we have a prima facie duty to trust our sensory inputs, and a prima facie responsibility to accept the validity of human testimony (after all, we know next to nothing absent of the input of other rational human agents). Second, there is a need to external justification as well. Our beliefs can only be justified if they cohere with the way things are.

With regards to my post-Ph.D. future, both internal and external justification will be critical. International justification will be the result of Plantinga’s type of warrant (discussed above at the end of that section). I will justified in believing that this is God’s intention for my future based on my self-reflective confidence that I have conducted my epistemological inquiries faithfully and rationally. External justification, however, will only be available after the fact. External justification implies that I will be justified in believing that this is God’s intention if and only if, in fact, this is God’s intention. Thus, external justification will not be available immediately upon graduation, or even immediately upon accepting (or pursuing) a job offer. Rather, it will be the result of hindsight reflection.

This is not unusual, however; indeed, I would argue that external justification for our knowledge is typically only available after the fact (as hindsight or post-reflection). For example, when I graduated in 2000 and sought a pastoral position, there were many options that did not work out. Three churches interviewed and candidated me, and subsequently extended a call, inviting me to come as their pastor. We did not have ‘cognitive rest’ about any of those three churches, and regretfully declined. Three other churches interviewed and candidated me, and we were extremely excited about the prospect of serving in those churches. We have not just cognitive ‘rest’, we had cognitive enthusiasm! However, those churches had no such cognitive rest; they declined to offer a call. Eventually, I was interviewed at Edmonton Chinese Baptist Church; then I candidated at the church. We had cognitive rest; so did they. They called me as English Pastor, and I began ministry there in July 2001 – more than a full year after my graduation. During the year-long process of seeking a pastoral position, seeking God’s intention for our ministry, we did not have external justification for our actions or beliefs. We believed that God did not want us to accept a call to three specific churches; but we had little in the way of external justification for that belief. Afterward, however, the external justification was very apparent in a variety of ways. Each of our three children has had significant health issues requiring regular visits to specialists – much more accessible within the urban ministry context of ECBC than the isolated rural contexts I had received previous calls to (and where my heart desired to serve). Two of our children were emergency deliveries, and may not have made it in a rural context. Given our later calling back to school, and future academic ministry, the urban Edmonton context, and especially my involvement in campus ministry there, was a necessary part of the process. Throughout the past eight years, events and reflection has provided external justification for our original belief that God intended us to serve at ECBC. We already had internal justification – having been open to God’s calling, sought His will earnestly, and conducted ourselves with due diligence and responsibility. The external justification was only available later.

It will be the same when I complete Ph.D. studies. When we take the next step into whatever ministry God intends, we will initially have the internal justification of knowing that we exercise our epistemological virtue in making a decision in deference to God’s intentions. However, we will not have external justification until later, when we can see how God worked in and through the circumstances He brought us into. Again, I emphasize that I believe this is normative – we cannot have external justification without a degree of separation from the belief or action or decision in question.

World Religions Comprehensive Exam - Question #1

NOTE: Just a reminder of the nature of these posts. These are unedited, unaltered responses I gave in comprehensive exams last week. Each essay answer was written in 80 minutes, with no resources at hand. Thus, there are no citations, some figures will be imprecise, quotations are paraphrases, etc.

QUESTION A. As fully as you can, describe and explain the changing religious landscape of 20th century China. Consider the historical roots of that landscape and reflect on the potential of the Christian tradition for reshaping that landscape in the 21st century.

The rise and fall of Maoism (Chinese Communism) in the 20th century marked an incredible upheaval in the religious landscape of China. For nearly two millennia, the ‘Three Religions’ (Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism) had permeated the philosophical, cultural, religious, and social spheres of the Middle Kingdom; in 1949, the hold the Three Religions exerted was irrevocably shattered. Meanwhile, Christianity had been almost universally viewed as a ‘foreign’ religion, and was therefore deemed suspicious and inherently un-Chinese. Prior to the rise of Mao, Christianity struggled to make inroads into the Chinese religious landscape. The expulsion of Western missionaries in 1949, combined with a small and leadership-weak Chinese Church, led most Western scholars and observers to bemoan the ‘death’ of Christianity in China. As we will see, however, the rise of Maoism was an unexpected boon to the Christian Church in China, and the fall of Maoism revealed an explosively-growing indigenous Chinese Church.

In this essay, I will examine the historical roots of the Chinese religious landscape, exploring the Three Religions as well as the missionary efforts of Christians. I will then turn to the developments in the 20th century, and consider the radical upheavals wrought by rebellions and the rise of Communism. Finally, I will examine the contemporary status of the Christian Church in China, and explore the potential of Chinese Christianity to reshape the religious landscape of China, and the fabric of global Christianity as well.

I. Historical Context – the Three Religions in China

For centuries, Chinese thought and religious practice was dominated by the three ways – Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. While Western missionaries found it entirely incomprehensible, the common Chinese person regularly embraced all three traditions. Indeed, the three traditions fed into and off of one another, such that Confucius was found amongst the pantheon of gods and bodhisattvas, and the same idols could be found in Taoist and Buddhist temples.

A. Taoism – Philosophical and Religious

The historical roots of Taoism are shrouded in the mists of time and myth. Legend has it that Lao-Tzu (6th century B.C.) wrote the Tao te Ching, the foundational text of Taoism, upon leaving a decadent imperial court in disgust. As he was riding off into the sunset, a gate guard beseeched him to leave behind his wisdom for future generations. Lao-Tzu consented, leaving behind a pearl of wisdom treasured by Chinese for millennia to come.

The philosophical wisdom of the Tao te Ching focuses on three notions. First, the notion of the Tao – the nameless, shapeless energy source which governs and runs the world. The Tao is certainly not ‘God’, and is definitely impersonal. Beyond that, the Tao is difficult to define; indeed, its essence is indefinability. Nonetheless, the concept is that the Tao is essential unity or oneness between all things and all people. The Tao is effectually empowering through the twin poles of yin and yang, which represent several dualities at once – creation and decay, male and female, active and receptive, aggressive and passive. History is a continual cycle, sometimes yin predominating, sometimes yang. As things are, things once were, and once again will be – the cycle of history is unending and cyclically repetitive.

Second, the responsibility of persons is to be at one with the Tao, to keep from impeding the flow and harmony of nature which the Tao governs. Hence, the chief ethical notion in Taoism is wu-wei, which kind of means ‘do-nothing-ness’; although it is not a lazy or passive response to fatalism, but rather an active attempt to contribute to the harmonious flow of the Tao.

Third, philosophical Taoism generally eschews political involvement. Lao-Tzu was disillusioned with the royal court, as the legend goes, and thus leaves altogether – a pattern which is imitated by future generations of Taoists. This becomes important in regards to compatibility with Confucianism, which is inherently active and political in nature.

Finally, the role of religious Taoism needs to be mentioned. Philosophical Taoism was an inherently elitist pursuit. There was great emphasis upon pursuing meditative and ascetic enlightenment in order to achieve oneness with the Tao; this was not something that everybody could do. The techniques of meditation were extremely demanding in both time and concentration. Working peasants were not suitable candidates for the regimen! Philosophical Taoism also emphasized strict diets and bodily discipline. Yet the tenets of Taoism appealed to the common person, and a religious superstructure developed around the foundations of philosophical Taoism. The religious structures adopted the practices of Chinese folk religion, including many of the local geographical deities. This became important when Buddhism was important into China, as popular Buddhism pursued the same practice of syncretism.

B. Confucianism – the Practical and Ethical System

Taoism governed the philosophical and religious mindset of pre-A.D. China. Confucianism governed China’s praxis. Confucianism, while not atheistic in form, was methodologically agnostic in practice. There was a strict separation of ‘church and state’, or personal religious practice and public political or ethical behavior – something which contributed to the simultaneous adherence to both Taoism and Confucianism amongst most Chinese. Confucianism governed the political practice, ethical standards, and social structures of China.

Confucius founded a system which was intended to direct the paths of enlightened rulers. The Confucian political system emphasized three roles of government: (a) to provide a sufficiently strong military to defend the empire; (b) to ensure sufficient material goods for the well-being of the populace; and (c) to maintain the good-will of the people through benevolent rule. The ideal Confucian government was a ‘benevolent dictatorship’ – an emperor with absolute power, but who ruled in the interests of his people.

The ethical standards of Confucianism emphasized two sides: (a) the inherent goodness and perfectibility of man; and (b) the need for right conduct and living. On the one hand, Confucius (and most of his disciples and successors) believed that mankind was fundamentally and inherently good. There was certainly a need for discipline, to shape and perfect the human person; but the raw material was good. On the other hand, Confucius outlined the ‘five noble virtues’ which guided right conduct and behavior. There was a strong emphasis on righteousness, right ritual, humaneness (or self-less-ness).

Finally, Confucianism directed the social structures of imperial China. The focus on filial piety – or loyalty to family and elders above all else – was central. Hence Confucianism did not object to (but even encouraged) the practice of ancestor reverence or worship which Taoism and folk religion also embraced. The Confucian educational system acknowledged all students as capable of entering into advanced education and becoming part of the civil service (imperial bureaucracy). History holds that Confucius was willing to accept students even if they were unable to pay tuition – so long as they were willing and able to learn.

C. The Introduction of Buddhism

Buddhism, though a ‘foreign’ religion, and thereby suspicious to the inherently protective and xenophobic Chinese mind, managed to permeate Chinese culture by co-opting Taoist and Confucian terminology when translating sacred Buddhist texts into traditional Chinese script.

The Buddhist notion of nirvana became the Tao; the Taoism notion of wu-wei was adopted as the equivalent of the Buddhist desire for self-emptying of desire. The Buddhist “Eightfold Noble Path” became the Confucian ‘five noble virtues’. With the exception of filial piety, the ethical standards of Buddhism were perfectly compatible with those of Confucianism. Finally, popular Chinese Buddhism adopted the pantheon of Taoist gods and immortals, thus ingratiating itself to the popular mindset. Taoism and Confucianism had provided a rational, logical path for Buddhism to enter into the Middle Kingdom.

D. Christian Missions Prior to the 20th Century

The history of Christianity in China prior to the 20th century is varied and checkered. The earliest Christian missionaries to China were Nestorian Christians from Persia. They established monasteries and churches, and gathered numerous local communities of believers. However, oppression eventually dwindled their numbers, and the Nestorian Christian communities died out.

Matteo Ricci and the Jesuits made strong attempts to contextualize Christianity in the 14th (?) century – Ricci was even accused of promoting a ‘Christianized Confucianism’. Their attempts were focused upon Chinese elites, and lack of success at that level meant there was no strong lasting impact from their efforts.
Later Christian missions in China were closely connected (in the Chinese mind, at least) with ‘gunboat diplomacy’. As European powers exerted military influence (threats) over imperial China, they gained ‘free ports’. Based in those free ports, Christian missionaries would establish a bridgehead, and launch missionary efforts outward from there. Some missionaries (e.g. Hudson Taylor) contextualized their mission, adopting Chinese dress and customs to the greatest extent they could; others remained Western in form, dress, and custom. Hence, most Christian missionaries were viewed with suspicion – they were outsiders, foreigners, guay-lo.

II. The Twentieth-Century Upheavals

A. From Imperial China to 1949

The first half of the 20th century saw considerable upheaval in its own right, much of which had grave implications for Western Christianity. The Boxer Rebellion vented considerable frustration (violently) upon foreign missionaries. The May 4 student rebellion was also aimed at foreign missionaries, who were perceived as corrupting the Chinese spirit and culture.

The short-lived republic of Sun Yat-Sen and Chiang Kai-Shek was viewed by western Christians very favorably, as both men professed a Christian faith. Within China, however, the republic foundered, as Maoist Communism gained support.

B. The Rise of Maoism

After the Second World War, the civil war between Chiang’s Nationalists and Mao’s Communists engulfed the country, leading in 1949 to the withdrawal of the Nationalists to the island of Formosa (Taiwan, very close in pronunciation to Tawa). Maoism was victorious within China. The effects of Communism were significant for the religious landscape of China.

First, all foreign missionaries were expelled. The thousands of westerners who had gone to China to bring the Gospel to the Middle Kingdom found themselves unwanted and forcibly deported. From a western perspective, it seemed that the Chinese Church had been killed in infancy. From all accounts, the native leadership within the Chinese Church was weak in both numbers and spiritual maturity. With the official atheism which now governed China with a perceived iron fist, the prospects for Christianity seemed incredibly bleak.

Second, Christian churches were closed throughout the country. What few believers there were, were driven underground, at least in the short term. Around 1958 (I forget the exact date), the Communists permitted the re-opening of a few churches under the auspices of the TSPM (Three-Self Patriotic Movement) Church – a Christian church which acknowledged the supremacy and benevolence of the Communist rulers, and agreed to heed government practice and regulation.

Third, Christianity was not the only religious suppressed by the Communist authorities. Taoist temples were closed, Buddhist monasteries were confiscated and turned into state museums. The official religion of China became atheism. There is no God, no gods, no bodhisattvas, no immortals, no local deities, no supernatural powers to be appeased – the Communists turned upon not only the foreign Christian religion, but also upon the native traditions which had nurtured Chinese culture and imagination for 2000 years.

Fourth, Confucianism was repudiated. Communists agreed that mankind was fundamentally good; but that was as far as its agreement with Confucian political ethics went. Family was not all-important (though it did matter) – if parents were closet Christians, they were to be betrayed by their children. Deceased ancestors did not require sacrifices or offerings or reverent remembering – they were dead and gone. The elitism of Confucian benevolent dictatorship was a bourgeois myth intended to perpetuate the subjugation of the peasantry. Only rule by the proletariat could be for the proletariat.

Thus, Communism sought to wipe clean the religious landscape of China – replacing the Three Religions with a new brand of atheistic communism. China’s soul was denied, rejected, repudiated.

During the ten-year Cultural Revolution, the aggressive stance of Communism deepened, and turned upon intellectualism and scholarship within China. The intellectual classes were arrested and forced into ‘re-education’ through intensive manual labor. While later released and permitted to resume ‘normal’ activities, many scholars lost the most productive years of their adult life; many others lost their health, some even their very lives.

In sum, the religious upheaval prompted by the rise of Maoism was not akin to a thunderstorm that wreaks havoc upon the landscape, uprooting some trees, causing localized flash flooding; rather, it was more like a magnitude-10 earthquake, which flattens every building, demolishes every home, overturns the very soil itself, leaving a landscape of nothing but rubble, dust, and hopelessness in its wake. The religious landscape of China was not merely revolutionized; it was pulverized.

C. The Death of Mao(ism)

With the fall of the Gang of Four, and the death of Mao Zedong, conditions in China began to change. The extremism of the Cultural Revolution was past; Deng Xiaoping began to institute slight liberalizations in policy – both economically and religiously. To be sure, China remained an officially atheist country; one could not be a member of the ruling Communist Party and also be a believing Christian or Buddhist or Taoist. However, the stranglehold over the beliefs of the common people was loosened.

In 1978, the Chinese Communists began allowing the re-opening of churches, temples, and monasteries. Some confiscated property was returned. By the mid-80s, it became clear that religion had ‘returned’ to China. What emerged stunned observers – in the West and in China alike.

Christianity had not been extinguished in Communist China. Rather, an underground church of primarily house-church networks had literally exploded in growth. The church in 1949 comprised approximately one million native Chinese (Catholic and Protestant combined). By 1978, the official number of Chinese Christians was around 12 million; by 2000, the official government numbers of TSPM Christians was over 20 million. Unofficial estimates, which include not only TSPM Churches but also unregistered churches, range between 50-100 million. Christianity is approaching 5 to 10% of the Chinese population.

The fall of Maoism also opened the door for the revitalization of the Three Religions which traditionally had governed China. And they certainly did emerge. Taoist rituals were once again openly celebrated; Buddhist monasteries reopened. Even Confucian rituals were practiced openly. But things are not the same as they once were.

One primary change within the Chinese psyche has been an irrevocable loss of the Confucian ideal of the inherently good, perfectible man. The horrors perpetrated upon the Chinese people, by the Chinese government, served as existential disconfirmation of the truth of Confucian anthropology. Remember, Confucian government had three purposes: (a) military defense; (b) material provision; and (c) the goodwill of the people. Under Communism, millions of peasants starved to death, primarily due to misguided Communist policies, and the increasing corruption and hypocrisy of the Communist oligarchy was acknowledged and reviled by all. The only success, by Confucian standards, was the strong military put in place by the Communists (although even there, Formosa remained a thorn in their side). That a Chinese government could so systematically and completely fail its people, and govern in its own interests even while professing to be in power for the good of the proletariat, was a shock to the Chinese system. In such a context, the Christian doctrine of original sin and total depravity gained newfound credibility.

D. The Emerging Chinese Christian Church

The church which emerged from the rubble of Chinese Communism was not at all what western scholars expected. There are several noteworthy traits.

(1) Indigenous. Foreign missionaries were expelled in 1949. Contact between Chinese Christians and foreign Christians was forbidden and nearly impossible. The growth of the Chinese Church under Communist rule was therefore led by fully native Chinese leaders. This had significant impact in two ways. First, it meant that Christianity could no longer be perceived within China as a purely foreign intrusion. The suspicion that attached to Christianity during the imperial age was lessened. Second, it meant that Christianity was fully contextualized. Certainly there were elements within Christian worship that were adopted and maintained from previous European missionary efforts. But even these elements were Sinocized. Christianity in China became fully Chinese. While the expulsion of foreign missionaries in 1949 seemed to be a regrettable and devastating blow to the kingdom of God; it turned out, on the contrary, to be the means which God used to bring about massive growth within His kingdom.

(2) Holistic. Western Christianity is sometimes accused of tending towards one of two extremes: a dry rationalistic faith; or a contentless emotivism. Chinese Christianity seems to embrace the whole person. It is deeply rational and full of content; but at the same time Chinese worship is passionate and emotional.

(3) Socially Concerned. Christianity gained credibility under Communist rule partly due to its social concern. When the Communist authorities neglected the physical and emotional needs of the population, the Church did all it could to step into the void and provide for the poor and the downtrodden. There are numerous testimonies of conversions that came about through relationships formed when local Christians provided for the needs of a local family.

(4) Theologically Conservative. Chinese Christianity, particularly in the unregistered church, in unapologetically conservative and biblical. There has been a strong and conscious rejection of western liberal biblical scholarship, and an adherence to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and authority. While there are still elements of liberalism within the TSPM churches and associated seminaries, even there, there has been a substantial return to orthodox evangelicalism.

III. The Prospects For the 21st Century

What does the future hold for China? It is always dangerous to prognosticate, as we do not know the sovereign intentions of God. I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, and I certainly cannot claim to know what the Church will look like in China in 100 years. Nonetheless, it is the place of scholars and observers to make ‘educated guesses’, hoping that the emphasis falls more upon educated than guesses.

First, it seems clear that the Chinese Church is poised to become the largest body of evangelical believers in the world within the next generation. Indeed, some argue that there are already more evangelical Christians in China than there are in America. Thus, the impact of Chinese Christianity upon global Christianity needs to be evaluated and assessed. This is not the time or place for such assessment, but it is an item of pressing interest.

Second, Christianity is approaching a type of ‘critical mass’ within China. If estimates are correct, there are close to 100 million Christians in China, a little less than 10% of the population. The church has grown at least 50-fold, and perhaps 100-fold, in only sixty years. It is clear that God has been doing a great work within China since the rise of Maoism. What implications does this critical mass have for the landscape of 21st-century China?

Third, Christianity is now viewed very differently by the educated elite in China than it was 60 years ago. Prior to Communism, Christianity was feared, viewed with suspicion. It was a foreign religion, unsuitable to China. Christianity was inextricably associated with gunboat diplomacy. Missionaries were suspected as potential ‘foreign spies’. All that has changed. Indigenous leadership now leads an indigenous church which is authentically Chinese. Furthermore, the demise of Confucian ideals has opened the door to a culturally-elite acceptance and respect for Christianity.

Indeed, an item of significance for the future of Christianity has been the rise of ‘cultural Christianity’ in China. In North America, ‘cultural Christianity’ carries with it the negative connotation of someone who professes to be Christian because of their familial or cultural heritage – a cultural Christian in America is someone who claims Christianity on their census form but carries no sincere or authentic Christian belief. Chinese ‘cultural Christianity’ is completely different. The term is applied by Chinese ‘cultural Christians’ themselves, and carries with it the notion that Christianity is culturally advantageous, and would be beneficial for China to adopt as its official religion. Scholars and other cultural observers within China acknowledge the cultural (and political and economic) benefits which have accrued to nations with a strong Christian heritage; they also observe the lack of similar benefits which have come to nations embracing Islam or atheism (Communism). Hence, they draw the conclusion that there is something about Christianity that works for the benefit of the people within that nation. As a result, these ‘cultural Christian’ trumpet the benefits of Christianity, even if they themselves are not avowed evangelical Christians. Many ‘cultural Christians’ are also members of registered or unregistered churches; but others are not. What is absolutely stunning, however, is the radical change in perspective within China’s elites in the space of a few generations. Christianity has gone from being a despised foreign religion, to being snuffed out as an ‘opiate of the masses’, to being now acknowledged as the greatest thing that could happen to China. This reflects not only a changing perspective on Christianity, but also disillusionment with the three native traditions which previously held Chinese elites in sway.

Despite these positive signs which indicate a powerful future for Christianity in China, there are a few areas of concern. First, Chinese Christianity is predominantly rural. The church has made less evangelistic headway in the major cities, particularly Beijing. In some ways, this makes sense, as the major cities are centers of Communist influence and power, and one still needs to be a professing atheist in order to be a party cadre. In other ways, however, this is a worrisome trend which bodes ill for the future of the church in China. Urbanization shows no signs of slowing; a church which fails to reach the cities will fail to reach the future of China.

Second, there are concerns amongst observers regarding the transmission of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the younger generation. From a western perspective, Sunday school programs and other children’s ministries are very weak (often nonexistent) in China. The concern is that youth are not being discipled – hence, they may not emerge as authentic believers. The lack of children’s ministry in China may be a relic of the church under communist reign, when teaching children about Jesus was a capital offense. Regardless, there does need to be a focus upon equipping the younger generation for faith and ministry.

What are the ultimate prospects of the Christian church in shaping the 21st-century religious landscape of China? Only God knows. However, it seems clear that Christianity is here to stay. The church is in no dangers of dying. If the explosive growth of the past 60 years continues unabated (which I doubt it can, just given the rapid scope of past growth), Christians will represent a distinct majority of the Chinese population by 2050. Christianity has already radically altered the post-Communist landscape of China. Emerging from the rubble created by the Maoist earthquake is rising, not the three-headed dragon of Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism, but rather the Cross of Christ and the Triune God of Christianity.