The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism

Sin is a big word for Jews and Christians, it is an especially toxic word among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.  When some attitude, thought, or behavior is put under the label of sin, people take notice.  When I was much younger than I am now, it was not uncommon for people in my sphere to talk about going to the movies or social dances as a sin.  In fact, both of those things were banned by the Christian College, Cornerstone, that I attended.  In both cases, blanket bans and talk of sin was unproductive, and unnecessarily legalistic.  What should have happened was a much more nuanced discussion about temptation and stewardship of time and resources that led to much more accurate conclusions like, "Some movies should not be viewed by Christians, and would thus because of their immoral content be sinful to attend." Or, "Some social dancing, because of its connection to both alcohol and potential to inflame lust in young people who may not be capable of saying no to that temptation, should be avoided by Christians."  Statements of that nature don't fit on a bumper sticker, don't feel tough enough by those rooting on the Culture Wars, but actually conform much more closely to both the teaching of the Apostle Paul about the confluence of Christian freedom and responsibility {1 Corinthians 10:23 New International Version “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.} and the actual reality of how Christians deal with and overcome temptation.

That being said, the choice of Pastor Joe Rigney {with the support and agreement of Pastor John Piper, Pastor Doug Wilson, and apologist James White} to label Empathy a SIN cannot be set aside as hyperbole or click-bait {if that was the goal, to gain notoriety and ultimately sales, this discussion takes on a whole different tone; let us not assume the worst}.  Rigney, and those like minded leaders in the Church, want Empathy to be reevaluated, judged, and jettisoned from Christian discipleship, ministry, and counseling. 

The following quotes are from Pastor Joe Rigney's, The Enticing Sin of Empathy HOW SATAN CORRUPTS THROUGH COMPASSION   Unfortunately, Rigney considers himself to be somehow C.S. Lewis' literary successor and has written his indictment of Empathy in the style of the The Screwtape Letters.  It worked well for Lewis' genius, less well here.

When humans are suffering, they tend to make two demands that are impossible to fulfill simultaneously. On the one hand, they want people to notice the depth of their pain and sorrow — how deep they are in the pit, how unique and tragic their circumstances. At the same time, they don’t want to be made to feel that they really need the assistance of others. In one breath, they say, “Help me! Can’t you see I’m suffering?” and in the next they say, “How dare you act as though I needed you and your help?” The sufferer doesn’t want to be alone, and demands not to be pitied.

Rigney sets forth an example of the complex emotions of traumatized people.  He evidently considers it a tool useful to Satan that those who have are experiencing deep pain may at the same time struggle to accept help for that pain.  Traumatized people don't have straightforward emotional responses; that's not news.  He really shouldn't be surprised, is not the Bible full of examples of people who didn't feel worthy of God's redemption, Peter saying to Jesus, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” (Luke 5:8) being but one example.  Moreover, in ministry I've experienced this, as have countless other pastors and lay Christians.  When we reach out to someone in desperate need of help, that person either struggles with pride (not being willing to admit they need it) or with despair (not seeing that help is possible for someone like them).  The human condition, especially apart from the involvement of the Spirit, is a mess.

Now, sufferers have been placing such impossible demands on others from time immemorial. In response, our armies have fought for decades to twist the Enemy’s virtue of compassion into its counterfeit, empathy. Since we introduced the term a century ago, we’ve steadily taught the humans to regard empathy as an improvement upon compassion or sympathy.

Here is Rigney's premise: Empathy is a twisted mirror to Compassion, a counterfeit modern opposite.  For this to be true, one would need to search the Bible in vain for empathy on display and only find compassion.  Let's take a look, does God show compassion ONLY, or empathy too under its umbrella?

Matthew 9:36 New International Version

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.

1 Peter 3:8  New International Version

Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.

Romans 12:15  New International Version

Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.

John 11:34-36New International Version

34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked.

“Come and see, Lord,” they replied.

35 Jesus wept.

36 Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

Hebrews 4:15  New International Version

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

Beyond these examples from Scripture, passages where Compassion is not devoid of emotional connection, there is one simple act of Jesus that puts aside any thought that Jesus only felt Compassion and not Empathy: He touched the lepers.

Matthew 8:3  New International Version

Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy.

To touch a leper was forbidden, it made one unclean according to the Law of Moses, and risked infection.  Why would Jesus touch this man before he healed him?  He could just have easily healed him first, and then (after presenting himself to the priests to be declared 'clean') this man could have had all the hugs he needed.  Why?  Because Jesus felt his pain, his isolation, his loneliness.  Was Jesus thus unable to see what the man really needed?  Did he lose sight of Truth?  Of course not, his Empathy was one of the reasons why Jesus was able to transcend conventional wisdom and accepted limits, to show the mercy and love of God to someone in desperate need of both.  In all honesty, this one passage is a deal-breaker for the notion that Empathy is Sin.  Jesus felt the pain of others, it didn't hinder him from remaining true to his calling and purpose one bit.

In addition, this entire pronouncement of SIN against those who feel empathy is a semantic exercise with two words that have significant overlap in their semantic ranges, and are often used interchangeably by authors, pastors, and the public.   

According to Merriam-Webster, which actually contains a page comparing the two terms:

What is the difference between empathy and compassion?

Some of our users are interested in the difference between empathy and compassion. Compassion is the broader word: it refers to both an understanding of another’s pain and the desire to somehow mitigate that pain:

Our rationalizations for lying (or withholding the truth)—"to protect her," "he could never handle it”—come more out of cowardice than compassion.
— Eric Utne, Utne Reader, November/December 1992

Sometimes compassion is used to refer broadly to sympathetic understanding:

Nevertheless, when Robert Paxton's "Vichy France" appeared in a French translation in 1973, his stark and devastating description ... was rather badly received in France, where many critics accused this scrupulous and thoughtful young historian either of misinterpreting the Vichy leaders' motives or of lacking compassion.
— Stanley Hoffmann, The New York Times Book Review, 1 Nov. 1981

Empathy refers to the ability to relate to another person’s pain vicariously, as if one has experienced that pain themselves:

For instance, people who are highly egoistic and presumably lacking in empathy keep their own welfare paramount in making moral decisions like how or whether to help the poor.
— Daniel Goleman, The New York Times, 28 Mar. 1989

"The man thought all this talk was fine, but he was more concerned with just getting water. And, if I was going to be successful on this mission, I had to remember what his priorities were. The quality you need most in United Nations peacekeeping is empathy."
— Geordie Elms, quoted in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History, Autumn 1992

In some cases, compassion refers to both a feeling and the action that stems from that feeling:

Compassion, tenderness, patience, responsibility, kindness, and honesty are actions that elicit similar responses from others.
— Jane Smiley, Harper’s, June 2000

while empathy tends to be used just for a feeling:

She is also autistic, a disability that she argues allows her a special empathy with nonhuman creatures.
— Tim Flannery, The New York Review of Books, 29 April 2009

Thus if Rigney is correct, and compassion is a virtue, but empathy is a sin, the only thing that a Christian can do to have compassion, which is required, is to understand the pain of others, want to help them alleviate it, but NEVER feel that pain.  The primary distinction between the two terms is the emotional connection that empathy makes beyond that of some forms of compassion.  I've known this many times in ministry.  There are some people I have helped in their distress whose emotional state, for whatever reason, does not powerfully connect with me at that time.  I help them just the same.  And yet, there have been others, perhaps in the same circumstances, whose emotional pain hits me powerfully, even causing me to loose control over my emotions and shed tears.  In both cases I offer such help as I can give, am I to believe that the emotion-less response, Spock like, is a virtue, and the one that causes me emotional pain too, the more empathetic response, is SIN??  This conclusion I reject both categorically, and whole-heartedly.  I have my mother's heart, I always have.  When she cries, I can't hold back tears, the things that tug at her heart have always tugged at mine.  It is a gift of God born of both my nature and my nurture, and something that I am profoundly grateful to my mother for the role she played in giving it to me.  Why?  Because it has produced some of the most powerful and transformative moments in my ministry.  In addition, it has shaped my heart and mind, bringing me closer to the suffering of others, shutting down excuses and rationalizations against helping others in need, because at times I can feel what they feel (at least in part).  That Christian Fundamentalism (or Evangelicalism, the two terms, ironically, have much overlap) has degenerated to the point where a seminary president lays this down as the Rubicon that cannot be crossed, is an indicator of just how ill this patient has become.

Of note: In his discussion Rigney is defining Empathy in a way foreign to both the dictionary definition and common usage.  He is putting on empathy all manner elements that are not required, not part of what this emotion actually is.  Those who just read the headlines won't notice this, they'll assume that a minister of the Gospel has warned them not to feel the pain of others because it is sinful, and walk away even more misguided than if he/she had tried to maintain the hair-splitting definitions Rigney is favoring.

Think of it this way: the Enemy’s virtue of compassion attempts to suffer with the hurting while maintaining an allegiance to the Enemy. In fact, it suffers with the hurting precisely because of this allegiance. In doing so, the Christians are to follow the example of their pathetic and repulsive Master. Just as the Enemy joined the humans in their misery in that detestable act of incarnation, so also his followers are to join those who are hurting in their misery.

However, just as the Enemy became like them in every way but sin, so also his followers are not permitted to sin in their attempts to comfort the afflicted. Thus, his compassion always reserves the right not to blaspheme. It seeks the sufferer’s good and subordinates itself to the Enemy’s abominable standard of Truth.

Our alternative, empathy, shifts the focus from the sufferer’s good to the sufferer’s feelings, making them the measure of whether a person is truly “loved.” We teach the humans that unless they subordinate their feelings entirely to the misery, pain, sorrow, and even sin and unbelief of the afflicted, they are not loving them.

Here Rigney builds his Straw Man to dismantle.  His false dichotomy states that one can ONLY have empathy if one abandons the desire to seek the good of the other person, that while Christ did indeed suffer 'with' those who were hurting, in other words he felt their pain, this was somehow not Empathy, but only Compassion.   The last sentence above is instructive: Rigney has now redefined empathy to be feeling the pain of others WITHOUT any recognition that pain might be, at least in part, caused by sin or unbelief on the part of the person one is feeling empathy towards.  But why??  Even if there is an attempt to demand such unquestioning, truth-less, empathy on the part of a person in pain or from segments of society, why must a Christian accept it?  This is a classic example of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water'.  Joe Rigney, as a Culture Warrior, fears that 'they' are trying to use blind empathy to advance their political causes, and thus 'we' must reject empathy, in its entirety, to deny them that tool.  In other words, let us surrender this field of battle and retreat.  The answer is no.  No, I will not allow the Culture War to dictate my theology, I will not adjust my ministry focus and methods to avoid any taint of looking/acting/sounding like 'them' to satisfy the knee-jerk reaction of political partisanship.  

By elevating empathy over compassion as the superior virtue, there is now an entire culture devoted to the total immersion of empathy. Books, articles, and social media all trumpet the importance of checking one’s own beliefs, values, judgments, and reason at the door of empathy.

This is the what Rigney believes the Left is doing.  If taken at face value, why would the Church change in response?  One can first listen to those hurting and in pain without making judgments either way until you know what is going on.  One can simply say instead, "I do feel your pain, but my devotion to Christ shows me what the ultimate answer to that pain is."  Why must we abandon Empathy to protect Truth??  This is the dangerous false dichotomy of this position.  We are being asked to make a sacrifice by abandoning empathy, 'for the greater good', that is unnecessary.  I, as a minister of the Gospel, am fully capable of understanding the pain of someone I'm trying to help, even feeling some of it myself, without abandoning my own connection to Truth and Righteousness.  

Is it possible for a minister or a counselor to lose objectivity, to get too close to someone they are trying to help?  Of course it is,  but Rigney didn't say, "Be careful because sometimes people take empathy too far."  The "Sin of Empathy" is a much catchier title, but also foolish.  

Rightly used, empathy is a power tool in the hands of the weak and suffering. By it, we can so weaponize victims that they (and those who hide behind them) are indulged at every turn, without regard for whether such indulgence is wise or prudent or good for them.

Here is where it seems the 'quiet part' is said out loud.  The reason for this diatribe against Empathy is that victims have been 'weaponized' in the last few years.  The primary examples of this are the MeToo Movement and BLM.  Women are starting to believed when they report sexual abuse, and questions of ongoing systematic racism are starting to be taken seriously.  Rigney, and those echoing his fears, view such victims as a Trojan Horse, threatening both Complementarianism, what John Piper is best known for, and the longstanding dominance of Whites in America.  If we feel the pain of women and minorities, if we take the harm done to them by individuals and institutions who have not traditionally been held accountable seriously, will we not be seeking what is True and Righteous?  Is this not the call of the Church, to defend the powerless against those who harm them?

This reminds me of the attempt to smear Rachel Denhollander, a sexual abuse victim and advocate for those being abused, by some within the SBC. {"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}  This Christian woman was connected to 'godless ideologies' by Founders Ministries, despite the fact that her efforts were both God honoring and biblically correct.  Her crime?  Working on a 'Blue' issue that was shining the light of Truth on the sins committed in churches on the 'Red' team.

How do we know that this push against Empathy is connected to blowback against MeToo and BLM?  In other words, that it is a Culture War response of the Team Red against Team Blue, and not simply the seeking of theological Truth?  The ouster of three pastors at John Piper's church, known for their empathy and willingness to work on behalf of the oppressed, makes the connection clear.  Read the article from Christianity Today, it provides important context for this discussion. {Bethlehem Baptist Leaders Clash Over ‘Coddling’ and ‘Cancel Culture’ A debate over “untethered empathy” underscores how departing leaders, including John Piper’s successor, approached hot-button issues like race and abuse. by KATE SHELLNUTT}  

 Empathy demands, “Feel what I feel. In fact, lose yourself in my feelings.”

Why must it be thus?  Even if some demand that Empathy be this, it isn't, nor does it have to be.

When faith is abused by some, do we declare faith a sin?  When love is abused by some do we declare love a sin?  Of course not, don't be ridiculous, so why would we cast empathy out into the darkness simply because some may want to use it for unhealthy purposes?

The Culture Wars make for BAD theology.  When we look at what is happening in the Culture, and then design a theological response to bolster 'our side' against 'them', the results are not pretty.  The Church is supposed to be above such swaying to and fro, supposed to be firmly planted on the Solid Rock.  This is yet another example of how we endanger the Church, its purity and its mission, when we marry the Church to politics.  Empathy is not a sin, it never was.

For further discussion:

Holy Post Episode 472 The “Sin of Empathy” & Spotting Toxic Leaders with Jamin Goggin & Kyle Strobel  This topic is discussed from the 33:20-59:00 mark.

Empathy is Not a Sin by Warren Throckmorton

“Your Empathy Is a Sin”: A Response to Desiring God by Rebecca Davis

Empathy is a Virtue, by SCOT MCKNIGHT

The American Crisis of Selective Empathy And how it reaches into the church. By David French

Would you tell your daughter NOT to report being raped?

There are a number of practical and societal reasons why someone (male or female) might resist reporting a sexual assault, from the fear of not being believed, to the very real possibility of retribution, to the tendency of many to victim blame.  If these were not enough, and of course we must add to them the often ridiculous back-log of untested rape kits, there has emerged in connection with recent events in America, a theological/moral argument to refrain from reporting/prosecuting sexual assault and rape that is being drawn from the Mosaic Law.

My introduction to this viewpoint came from a Christian apologist/writer whom I have expressed admiration for in the past, and whose writing on issues of Biblical Criticism are well researched and first rate.  Unfortunately, James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries, took it upon himself to offer a political commentary regarding the controversy surrounding the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  As you know if you read my blog, I will refrain from making any political commentary, but the use of the Bible by James White (and others as well, he's just the most well known) to advocate for the silencing of those who have been the victims of sexual assault (or by extension, any crime without corroborating witnesses) deserves a response.  I reached out to Alpha and Omega Ministries a week ago with my concerns by email, but received not response.

Please watch the relevant portion of the video before proceeding, the link is below:

James White, Alpha and Omega Ministries, from 9/25/18

The relevant passage of the video begins at the 7:00 mark and last until the 19:29 mark...It references Deuteronomy 19:15-21 and Deuteronomy 22:23-27

19:15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, 17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.


22:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.


25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

"If you can't prove it, you don't report it" (at 11:30 mark)

My rebuttal to the assertion of James White is not a dismissal of the Mosaic Law, nor is it an abandonment of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" (both of which he accuses those with a differing view of doing in the video).  It does not come from a secular viewpoint and a liberal agenda, I can't imagine anyone who knows me at all accusing me of either.  This issue is not a case of all-or-nothing as those with a political axe to grind on both sides would have us believe.  Our choice is not between always reflexively believing the man (no matter how many individual women make an accusation, each as the only witness to their alleged assault) or always believing the woman (no matter the collaborating evidence).  James White said that it is our task to "approximate" the justice of God, and he is absolutely correct in that, but then makes it quite clear that because he believes we are incapable of doing anything of the sort, thus any victim of a crime that was not witnessed by others ought to be told, "wait for God's justice, we've got nothing for you here."  Will God judge in the end with absolute truth and justice?  Yes, indeed, but that does not preclude us from doing our best here and now, nor does that excuse us as Christians or as a society from our moral obligation to fight against the evil that exists in humanity.

Is our criminal justice system capable of making mistakes, of letting the guilty go free and convicting the innocent?  Of course it is, sadly often based upon the poverty/wealth and/or skin color of the defendant.  The failure of our system to never convict the innocent does not give us the excuse to throw our hands up and stop trying to prosecute those who are truly guilty.

If a single victim should be morally prevented from reporting the crime which has been done to him/her, if those victims should be dismissed, even threatened with jail for speaking up (by making the assumption that as a single witness it must be a false allegation), we would still have an epidemic of predator priests raging in our nation, and around the world, we would still have Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nassar, and Bill Cosby preying upon their victims {of course, we know how many times attempts to report their heinous crimes were dismissed by those in authority, both in the Church and in the government, allowing the toll of victims to rise ever higher}.

I will continue to defend the need for the people of God to view the Bible as completely authoritative in their lives for both faith (theology) and practice (morality).  I will continue to defend its absolute relevance to us today, as it was to our ancestors in the faith.  I cannot, however, see that in this case, James White, and those who echo his words (more examples in the links below) are showing us the only way to do that.

A criminal justice system must presume innocence, and it must have a high bar of evidence to convict those accused, but it cannot tell the most vulnerable among us that they have no avenue for justice, and it cannot threaten victims with reprisal simply for asking to be heard.  As a society, and as a Church, we have failed to protect the weak and vulnerable from the strong and the privileged, we have far too often allowed politics to color our sense of justice, and we have been complicit in the heaping of shame upon those who have been victimized.  This cannot be what God expects of his people, our call to righteousness demands more.

A perfect system of justice is indeed unattainable, but we've got to do better than to say, "if you can't prove it, you don't report it."  May the LORD spare me from having to ever counsel my daughter about whether or not she should report being sexually assaulted, but I for one would not tell her to be quiet.





(Below are a few examples of Deuteronomy 19 being applied to the current political drama, simply there to show that the commentary of James White is echoed by others.)

AFA commentary: What Should Be Done About the Kavanaugh Nomination?

Engage Magazine: Brett Kavanaugh: Innocent till proven guilty

{Update 11/21  The James White that I used to listen to while working no longer has the same ministry.  In the past 3-4 years he has followed Eric Metaxas down the road of political 'sky is falling' conspiracy theory laden hysteria.  I no longer recommend listening to his messages with the exception of the older material related to textual criticism}

Once again, rushing to judgment leads to error.

It should be obvious to Christians that being quick to judge another Christian, especially one you don't know personally, especially one who you only have an incomplete picture of, is both foolhardy and dangerous, and an avenue leading to sin.  While the phrase, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is ingrained in our minds, we are at the same time bombarded with snap judgments and half-truths (if that) from the constant stream of information flowing our way, much of it politically motivated, through both the news media and social media.  The desire to get a story out fast, and the ease of sharing or re-tweeting something, especially something that confirms our own viewpoint or something salacious, can turn a small story into an avalanche that leaves fact-checking and a balanced view in the dust.

In recent months, a handful of people with an online/media presence have hammered away at an apologist that I often listen to (though don't agree with on everything, of course) named James White.  I first came across James White in college when his book, The King James Only Controversy was required reading for my Biblical Criticism class, that book would later form the nucleus of my History of the Bible lectures.

Those critical of James White in relation to a two-part dialogue he participated in with a Muslim Imam, have filled the airwaves/internet with a vast amount of partial truths, innuendo, name calling, and outright lies (easily refutable ones).  Why would they be able to get away with such character assassination?  Because God's people have allowed themselves to become lazy.  They've been spoon fed opinions in the political realm, leaning one way or the other, and have long since grown accustomed to accepting what they hear as the truth without verifying it.  I know that while watching the news, or reading an article online, it isn't possible to verify everything that you see, but when the issue involves accusations of "heresy", "cowardice", and claiming that a Christian is in league with mysterious Islamic forces that are trying to take over the world, one would think that you and I would be willing to at least dig enough to see whether such startling accusations have a basis in the truth.

Throughout this whole ordeal, the video of the dialogue in question has been available online, easily accessible to any willing to watch before reaching a conclusion about it.  Unfortunately, many of those who have been critical have too much invested (politically, emotionally, financially) in an apocalyptic narrative that is threatened by peaceful dialogue with Muslims.  For some, a clash of civilizations, WWIII style, is a desired outcome.  They see this as a pre-cursor to the 2nd Coming of Christ, and/or are looking at this issue through Nationalist eyes and not through Gospel ones.  Do some within Islam want worldwide Jihad and death to all the infidels?  Of course, many of them have joined terrorist groups to further their vision of utopia.  Does their desire make such a global fight to the death inevitable?  Not at all.  The Cold War ended without WWIII erupting, that was a far more grave situation against an enemy far better equipped to wage war, yet it never fully erupted into all out war.  One should then ask, why are so many people in Europe and America so heavily invested in seeing the current level of conflict become a global war?  Why do they want the dream of the terrorists, global war, to come true?

For the sake of the Church, and the sake of the Gospel, we cannot afford, as Christians, to close our hearts and minds to the need of the Muslim people to hear and receive faith in Jesus Christ.  If we choose to write off a billion people as beyond the reach of the Gospel, great will be our shame, and severe our judgment before Almighty God.  If we choose to abandon them, for any reason, we will have failed as the people who have been called by God to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

We won't reach Muslims with the Good News by lumping them all into one group as terrorists.  We won't reach Muslims by shouting from street corners, posting insulting videos, or insisting that any conversation include condemnation of Muhammad.  That avenue offers no hope of success, only the self-righteousness of condemning those who are already lost (as if have been told to do so by God).  How will the Muslims of the world be reached for Christ?  Through patience, understanding, friendships, honesty, and kindness.  If you're not interested in being a part of such a loving approach, your problem isn't with James White or the countless missionaries at work for the Kingdom in Muslim countries today, your problem is with the Gospel.

For the sake of the truth, and to show at least a modicum of interest in it.  Read the article below published by ChristianNews.net  If you still think White is a "dupe" or Judas, dig further, or perhaps look in the mirror and ask yourself why you won't want Muslims to hear about Jesus.

Apologist James White Draws Concerns After Holding, Defending Interfaith ‘Dialogue’ at Church With Muslim Imam

FYI, one of the issues being condemned is the use of a church building for this event.  The Church in the NT is not a building, it is a people.  It is not the place which is sacred, but the people who meet there who make it so by having been saved by God's grace.  To use such a building to further the spread of the Gospel is a use that brings glory to God, not shame.

{Update 11/21  The James White that I used to listen to while working no longer has the same ministry.  In the past 3-4 years he has followed Eric Metaxas down the road of political 'sky is falling' conspiracy theory laden hysteria.  I no longer recommend listening to his messages with the exception of the older material related to textual criticism}

The Folly of Angry Witnessing and the Folly of attacking Christians who befriend the Lost

Is this what Jesus had in mind when said, "Go into all the world..."

From time to time in my life I've seen people standing on a street corner with a homemade sign that lists a variety of things that God hates.  Sometimes the things on the list are accurately taken from the text of the Bible, and sometimes they reflect the beliefs of the person who made the sign, often involving politically motivated choices as well.

What then should the average Christian think in response to such demonstrations, most of which involve anger and shouting, a tactic far more likely to make enemies than friends.  Should Christians care about offending the Lost?  Should we be presenting the Gospel with anger or love?

The most important question, which should be obvious to all who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ but perhaps is not, is this: What does the Word of God say about the tactics we should be using to witness to those who don't know Jesus as Lord and Savior?

1 Peter 3:15-16 is one such key passage, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.  Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

Do you mean, Peter didn't write, "Shout at the unbelievers, ridicule them, call them names, for then they will want to join you."  And he didn't write, "disrespect the lost, treat them with unkindness, and say horrible things, especially false ones, about anyone who dares to befriend an unbeliever."

Peter did write that we must witness with gentleness and respect, and he did write that we must conduct ourselves always with good behavior as representatives of Christ.

So, why all the yelling, why the hatred?  For some, it is a misguided notion that they have to defend the Law of God against societal or governmental forces, and therefore they have appointed themselves as judge, jury, and executioner on God's behalf.  For others, it might be a form of racism or ideology based hatred that is driving their counter-productive attempt to hate-witness.  The most obvious example of this in action in the West today relates to Islam.  There are some in the Christian community, at least they claim to represent Christ, who feel the need to warn about the dangers (which are of an apocalyptic level in their mind) of terrorism from individuals/organizations influenced by Islam, and therefore their only interaction with Islam is angry and militant.  They say things like "All Muslims are terrorists", or "Islam is of the devil".  They think that they're defending Western civilization and Christendom, but in reality all they accomplish is to make terrorism more likely by further marginalizing Muslims living in Western nations, and even more importantly, shutting the door against the Gospel's message even more firmly.  What Muslim, who believes in Muhammad and the Qur'an, is going to listen to what you have to say about the love of God and the desire that God has to offer forgiveness in Christ, when you approach that Muslim by insulting Muhammad and spitting upon the Qur'an?  In what reality does this tactic work even 1 in a million times?

Do you want the Lost to hear the Gospel so that they can be saved, or do you just want credit for yelling it at them?  Do you actually love the Lost, in imitation of our heavenly Father, who sent his Son to die for our sins, while we were still sinners, or has hatred clouded your mind and convinced you that some people are beyond God's saving grace?  (As if you deserved God's grace, but they don't!)

If you can't speak to those who don't know Jesus with gentleness and respect, maybe you should just keep your yap shut and let those whose hearts are burdened for a world full of people without God's love in their lives, be the ones to represent Jesus.

Do Christians really want Muslims to be saved?

In light of recent venomous criticism raised by self-proclaimed Christians against Christian author and apologist James White because of his willingness to dialogue with and debate Muslim apologists and imams with respect and fairness, an important question needs to be asked of the Church.  Do we, as followers of Jesus Christ, really want Muslims to come to know the love of God that is in Jesus Christ?  Do we want Muslims, any and all of them, to be violently killed or saved by love and grace?

If you actually do, as a Christian, want Muslims to come to know the love of Christ, (like any of the Lost: Atheists, Mormons, Hindus, etc.) what attitude would best help that evangelistic effort?  Do expressions of hatred help spread the Gospel?  Does calling all Muslims terrorists help them see that they need to come to Jesus by faith?  Or do we actually push forward the cause of the Gospel through dialogue, openness, respect, honesty, and charity?

James White has been the lightning rod of this issue, but it is far bigger than him.  The Church is being challenged by the violence of terrorism to reject hatred and remain steadfast in the embrace of the peace of Christ.  Giving in to hatred it easy, it appeals to our fallen human nature, it appeals to our tribalism and racism, but it is the opposite of the Fruit of the Spirit which we are supposed to be cultivating as disciples of Jesus.

Consider Saul of Tarsus.  He was a violent man, full of hatred, responsible for the deaths of Christians.  Should the Early Church have killed him in self-defense?  Should they have spewed hatred at him in return?  What did God do about Saul of Tarsus?  He showed him Jesus, and turned him into the Apostle Paul, perhaps the greatest missionary the Gospel has ever seen.  If Peter or John had given in to the temptation to respond to Saul with hate, how many souls would have remained Lost instead of hearing the Gospel?

A related question that we, as Christians, need to answer: Is our hatred of Muslims being driven by our politics?  When contemplating the criticism directed his way, much of which has only a token connection with the truth, James White recently said, "If your politics destroys your passion for the Lost in your life, dump the politics, stick with what has eternal value."

Are you a Christian?  Do you want Muslims, the vast majority of which are non-violent no matter what nonsense you read online or hear from politicians trying to get your vote or businesses trying to get your money, but even the terrorists who have killed Christians, to find forgiveness in Christ?  You have been forgiven for your sins, you came to Christ by grace, are you willing to be so ungrateful an adopted child of God that you would push others away from God's love?  All have sinned, all need a savior, if you think you have any right to be God's gate-keeper and decide who deserves God's grace and who deserves God's wrath, you are woefully and dangerously mistaken.

If the Gospel you claim to believe isn't for everybody, then you don't really believe it.

If you don't show love to the Lost, you have failed in your responsibility to share the Gospel.

What you win them with is what you win them to.

If you do a Google search on that quote, "What you win them with is what you win them to", you'll likely find a lot of blogs from pastors and other church leaders talking about what it means in relation to evangelism and outreach by the Church.  The quote is a variation of something A.W. Tozer said, "You win them to what you win them with", although figuring out who first turned it around isn't easy.  I first heard the new version of the quote listening to James White, Christian author and apologist.

Given the rancor and divisiveness of the 2016 election in the United States, it seems evident that the principle underlying the quote applies to elected officials as well.  If a politician runs an honest campaign, you can expect him/her to govern honestly, if a politician runs a sleazy and dirty campaign, you can expect him/her to govern in a sleazy and dirty manner.  That ought to be obvious enough to the average voter, but it seems that many voters, on both sides, have been operating under the illusion that the person/party in which they place their trust will govern differently than they ran for office, as if the character that is displayed (or lack thereof) in the attempt to gain power is somehow divorced from the character (or lack thereof) that will be displayed in the exercise of power.

The same principle holds true in the business world.  Any company which employs sneaky or underhanded tactics to get customers through the door cannot be expected to treat those same customers with honesty and integrity once they have their money.

I'm also reminded of the various commercials on TV from law firms hoping to recruit people to sue over this issue or that, can one expect a lawyer who would resort to such a blatant appeal to greed to gain a client to subsequently treat that client with anything other than that same greed?  Or consider the cash advance and structured settlement commercials, they too make their appeal based on short-term desires pumped up by greed in order to gain customers, would you expect your interaction with such a business to be based on any other principle than their greed?

Regarding the Church, we have a greater reason than what is practical to heed the warning of using tactics which are less than fully upfront and honest.  It is of course immoral for the people of God to try to increase our membership/attendance through duplicitous or sneaky means.  In addition to our moral imperative to avoid such things, they just don't work.  If you "win" a person for the Gospel with anything less than (or greater than) the Gospel's simple message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, you haven't "won" that person at all.  The Gospel's power is not based in our tactics or effort, but in its Truth.  If the Church offers the Truth, in love, and fails, so be it.  If we offer a diet version of the Truth, even our successes will be failures.

Should the Church be inviting and friendly, a place where those from the outside feel welcome?  Of course it should, for we have been commanded to share the Gospel with the Lost, but if in our efforts to be inviting and friendly we dilute the Gospel, minimize the focus on worship, or simply offer up a feel-good experience devoid of the Gospel's emphasis on repentance, we will have "won" the lost to our fellowship, but they'll still be lost.  Only the true Gospel, the Gospel of the Apostles as contained in the Scriptures, has the power to save, offering the world anything less is a fool's bargain.

Pastoral ministry, Apologetics, and Optimism for the Church

One of the things that I sometimes do while working at my desk during the week is listen to Dr. James White's online program The Diving Line from Alpha and Omega Ministries.  These Youtube videos often deal with topics that interest me, in particular Biblical textual issues.  One of the things that I have noticed of late, is that Dr. White's perspective, as an apologist who spends a lot of his time debating, is as a result at times negative about the state of the Church today.  When you spend all of your time and effort combating error and heresy within the Church, and fending off assault from those who are supposed to be on your side, as well as those who are not, it is no wonder that Dr. White doesn't get the chance to see the positive things that are happening in the Church that I have the good fortune of witnesses on a regular basis as I go about pastoral ministry here in my little corner of the world.
It may be that there is theological rot in many of the seminaries, some of which have wandered away from Orthodoxy, but here on the local level, at least in my own experience working with the 50+ churches that we've come into contact with through Mustard Seed Missions, I've only worked with men and women who are preaching, teaching, and living the same Gospel message as our ancestors in the faith.  If certain denominations are heading into danger, and that's something an apologist like Dr. White should be focusing on, that same trend is not evident here on the local level.  Working here in Venango County these past four and a half years, has given me a tremendous optimism about the work that God is doing, an optimism that stems from our ecumenical work for the poor through Mustard Seed Missions, as well as the food pantries, the cross walk, the 40 Days of Prayer, and all the other ways in which God's people here in this place have been working hard for the kingdom of God.
Just today as I listened to yesterday's program while working on my PowerPoint for Sunday, James expressed some of his own frustration after spending the first 45 minutes talking about some of the struggles the Church is facing by those who are wandering from orthodoxy, he said, "And I know in my  mind, God is still on is throne, I'm only seeing a small portion of it.  We've seen all sorts of people brought out of error...I know all that, sometimes you just start getting tired."  After that, Dr. White commented that he takes a long ride on his bike to help clear his mind of the weight he feels on his shoulders when fighting day after day on these issues, a sentiment that I can wholeheartedly agree with (for me, it is running on our awesome running trails in the woods at Two Mile or Oil Creek State Park).
I know that a lot of you are worried about the future, about the future of our nation, and the future of God's Church here.  There are things worth worrying about, trends that need to be countered, battles that must be won.  When that fight ways heavy on your mind, the antidote that I have found may offer you solace.  Find your fellow Christians who have a passion for those in need, and get busy doing something to help in the name of Christ, and get together with your neighboring churches to worship together.  You're not in this alone, and neither is your church.  God has brought revival to this nation through his Church before, he can do it again.  Instead of waiting around for that to happen, get started on kingdom work today, who knows, you may end up being a part of how God turns that blessing of revival into a reality.

{Update 11/21  The James White that I used to listen to while working no longer has the same ministry.  In the past 3-4 years he has followed Eric Metaxas down the road of political 'sky is falling' conspiracy theory laden hysteria.  I no longer recommend listening to his messages with the exception of the older material related to textual criticism}

The History of the Bible: Lecture series

Is the Bible the Word of God?  That is a question that only faith can answer.  Is the Bible we have today an accurate representation of what its authors originally wrote?  That is a question that evidence can prove.  The Bible is by far the most well attested ancient document with a rich manuscript history and a fascinating story of ordinary people who rose to the occasion to protect it, or sank to the depths to try to keep it from the people.  It is a story of hand-written copies, and a story of translation efforts from the original Greek and Hebrew.  This three part series will open the door to the much larger subject of the history of the text of the Bible, its preservation and transmission from the ancient world to the plethora of English Bibles that we have available to us today.  Along the way, it will help answer questions about the reliability of our text, the affect that variants have upon our confidence in the text, as well the reasons why we have so many translations in English today.

            There are skeptics who don’t believe that we can have any confidence that our text is the same as what was originally written.  Amazingly, they agree with the essential facts of history that the Bible’s manuscript tradition is rich and ancient, sadly, they draw opposite conclusion from this evidence and end up with nothing but doubt.  There are “perfect” Bible zealots who have complete confidence in one particular translation of our text, made 400 years ago, who are immune to evidence because their belief in the text of the Bible is a matter of faith not facts.  Both of these groups think that ordinary Christians will have their faith destroyed if they learn the truth about the history of the Bible, they’re both wrong.  The Word of God has been handed down to each new generation throughout the history of the Church, and that story is something that every Christian should want to know.

In order to best understand the lecture, please take the time to download the PowerPoint, Word document, and especially the manuscript chart.  Having them in front of you while you listen will allow you to more fully understand the information that is being presented.

To watch part 1 in the series, click on the link below:

The History of the Bible video, 1 of 3

The History of the Bible video, 2 of 3

The History of the Bible video, 3 of 3 

To look at the PowerPoint slides used in the presentation, click on the link below:

 History of the Bible PowerPoint (for all 3 parts)

To view the manuscript evidence Word document, click on the link below:

Manuscript evidence

To view the manuscript history chart created by Pastor Powell and Pastor Scott Woodlee, click below:

Manuscript History chart 

Why the Bible skeptics and KJV only fanatics have something in common.

As I continue to prepare for my upcoming History of the Bible series, I’ve been watching some of the Youtube videos of James White’s debates with both Biblical skeptics and KJV fanatics.  In doing so I’ve come to a realization, although I’m sure someone else has noticed this already, to me it was still worth noting.  The skeptics and the KJV fanatics are two sides of the same coin.  Now, they certainly won’t say that, and would likely have a hard time having a civil conversation, but that doesn’t change the fact that both groups are over-reacting to the same historical fact that we don’t have a perfectly preserved New Testament text, a fact which has been known since at least Erasmus first published his Greek NT over 500 years ago, but one that both groups never tire of using as some sort of “secret” that the Church doesn’t want you to know.

            The skeptics, like Bart Ehrman and John Shelby Spong, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, (which any rational Bible believing scholar readily admits without fear) and erroneously and over-zealously concludes that the entire NT is therefore untrustworthy, that Jesus never claimed to be God, that the resurrection and the virgin birth are myths, and that the Church has been part of some Dan Brown-like conspiracy to hide the truth from the rubes that still believe such things.

            The KJV only fanatics, like Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, and erroneously and over-zealously conclude that the only solution is to posit a perfect re-inspiration of the Bible in the form of the KJV, thus concluding that whatever mistakes the KJV contains don’t actually exists, that all further scholarship and all modern translations are perversions of the devil, and that the only option for the Church is blind faith in the KJV to the extent that even foreign missionaries should teach illiterate tribes English so that they can read the KJV instead of doing new translation work.

            That both of these positions are clearly unnecessary and exceedingly dangerous is clear.  If either group had their way, the Church as we know it would be destroyed and be replaced by something that either has no soul, because it has lost its faith to doubt, or no mind, because it has had to silence its intellect to exist. 

            The history of the Bible isn’t a fairy tale full of perfect people, but it also isn’t something to be afraid of.  For those who wish to maintain both their faith and their intellect, the study of the history of how the Bibles we have today came to exist is both enlightening and enriching.  Don’t let the skeptics or the fanatics scare you away, the truth is not our enemy.

* On a personal note.  This observation of the connection between these two groups occurred to me as I lay in bed, rather than hoping I remembered it the next day, I got up to post it to my blog.  I assumed that somebody else had noticed this before be, and of course they had.  Two days later I was watching a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace, during which Wallace drew the comparison between skeptics like Bart and KJV Only advocates.  Thus my "original" observation lasted only two days before I found out it had already been made by a NT expert, oh well.

Thoughts about the history of the Bible & KJV Onlyism

As I prepare to teach my series on the history of the English Bible for the third time, beginning on August 10th, I've been reminded of the zeal with which advocates of KJV Only positions have often disparaged the faith of fellow Christians in the name of defending God's Word.  That the Word of God should not be used to tear asunder the Church of God seems like an obvious truth, but sadly it is not.  That historic facts should be the basis of our faith, and our faith in the accuracy of the Scriptures also seems like an obvious truth, but it is routinely tossed aside when passion replaces reason and personal attacks replaces evidence.
As I was continuing to refine my presentation I came across several resources that might be helpful to those confused about the KJV Only debate that I would like to share here.

This first one is a web page by a man named Derek Oulette who created it in response to a "historic" chart that he was given by a KJV Only advocate.  It answers the fundamental questions of text types, copies, and reliability in an accessible manner.  To look at the web page, click here: KJV Debate web page

The second is series of TV shows recorded about twenty years ago that feature James White, one of the best authors on this subject, The King James Only Controversy, as well as representatives from the translation teams of the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, along with three KJV Only advocates, among them the notorious "Dr." Samuel Gipp.  As you watch, notice the use of evidence and facts on the side of those representing the modern texts, and the complete disdain for them on the other side along with circular arguments and personal attacks.  To begin watching the videos, click here: John Ankerberg TV show videos
** There are 39 videos in this series, but they average about 5 minutes each.  Also, the KJV Only advocates in these videos are fond of accusing those representing the modern translations of being on the side of their arch-villain, the Roman Catholic Church.  This attitude of acting toward the Catholic Church like the year is 1611 instead of 2014 is beyond sad; We're 500 years out from the Reformation, isn't it time to start building on our common love of Christ and stop acting as if the next Pope is likely to be the Anti-Christ?  Fear of the Catholic Church runs right alongside anti-intellectualism in the KJV Only circles.**

The whole issue of NT textual criticism can frighten lay Christians without cause (which is one of the reasons for my desire to teach the history of the Bible), this webpage does a good job of explaining some of those historical issues in a brief format. To visit the webpage, click here: NT Textual Criticism

The last is a portion of a video from a physics teacher in England who regularly posts video that explain complicated things like the European Union or the American Electoral College.  This particular video is a Q&A that delves into the subject of opinions and why people hate to change them.  Skip ahead on the video to 1:15 to start the question about opinions.  To watch the video, click here: CGP Grey video

** I know that some will say, "the Bible isn't an opinion to be dropped when I learn something new!!"  Of course not, and if you think that you've missed the point.  The authority of the Bible is foundational to who we are as Christians, the history and exact text of the Bible is different, however, because it involves evidence and ongoing research.  When Nesle-Aland and UBS (the two primary Gk. texts for modern Bibles) issue an updated version of their text they're doing so because ongoing study in the fields of Biblical archaeology and textual criticism continue to help us move closer to the original text; the accuracy is already 98%+, but why shouldn't we be willing to continue working on that last 2%?  To fix the errors of the past is not to denigrate God's Word at all, rather it shows our reverence for it, thus when the text can be corrected we must do so instead of clinging to it like an out-dated or erroneous opinion.  That is the fundamental error of the KJV Only advocates, and the reason for referencing Grey's video.**

Lastly, let me make it clear that I appreciate the KJV Bible, it was a remarkable Bible in its day made by men who loved God and served his Church.  It has stood the test of time far better than many other translations, but it isn't perfect.  It has errors, these can be corrected, it has archaic language, this can be updated.  I have no problem with those who love the KJV, or with those who only use the KJV, but those who insist on KJV Only, and attack anyone who uses any other translation (even the NKJV), are wolves in sheep's clothing, they can only destroy the Church through their work.

Thankfully, I have encountered only reasonable ministers here in West PA, men and women eager to serve the Church of God, more interested in saving the lost and shepherding their flock than fighting their brothers and sisters in Christ.  This sort of environment doesn't exist in a vacuum, however, it continues to need education and ecumenical cooperation to feed it and keep it strong.  In my own way, I'm happy to be contributing to that effort.