Jesus is the only Savior
If we are to believe the apostolic message in the Bible:
Islam can’t save you.
Buddhism can’t save you.
Hinduism can’t save you.
And Christianity can’t save you.
Only Jesus Christ can save you.
(further discussion in Keener and Usry, Defending Black Faith, 108-35, esp. 123)
Faith no matter what the cost—Genesis 22
Abraham offers a great model of faith. He followed God’s promise when he left behind his homeland (Gen 12; see Gen 12:1; Gen 12:1-3); when he believed God’s promise about a child, God counted this trust as righteousness (15:6). But what happens when acting in faith seems to cost us the very promise that God once offered? Do we still trust God? What happens when God’s call does not seem to be, from our perspective, in our personal best interests? Do we still trust God’s promise?
This is the sort of faith that Abraham models in Genesis 22. It is a deeper level of faith than the faith in 15:6, but it is not unrelated to it. When we walk with God through years of testing, we can develop a deeper faith that trusts God no matter what. This is much more faith than is needed to be “justified,” as Abram was already in 15:6. This faith is the expression of a long-term, faithful relationship with God.
The narration emphasizes the pathos, intensifying the emotion by lingering on the point: Abraham and Isaac love each other. In 22:2, God commands Abraham concerning “your son, your only one, whom you love, Isaac” (cf. 22:12). Repetition of “the two together” heightens the pathos in 22:6, 8, as does the narrator’s slowing down to emphasize the details in 22:7. Many details add pathos, underlining Abraham’s love for his son and how the events leading up to the offering must have torn at Abraham’s heart. When Isaac calls Abraham, “My father,” Abraham responds, “Here I am” (22:7), just as he does in this narrative when God or the angel of the Lord addresses him (22:1, 11). Other details emphasize Isaac’s innocent trust, such as when he asks where the lamb is (22:7)—trust that must have further torn at Abraham’s fatherly heart.
Once Abraham is sure that God has spoken, he does not procrastinate. People back then usually rose early (19:2, 27; 20:8; 26:31; 28:18; 31:55), but the rising early in 22:3 probably especially evokes 21:14—when Abraham obeyed God by rising early to send away his son Ishmael. Abraham did not delay or stall in obeying God; God was always first.
The summons to faith builds on earlier calls to faith in Abraham’s life. When God directs him to “one of the mountains that I will tell you” (22:2), God recalls his earlier commission in 12:1: “Go … to the land that I will show you.” Abraham again had to go in faith, as he did before; the first time he left behind his past family of origin, and this time he must sacrifice his future familial legacy.
Nevertheless, he believed that God would fulfill his promise. As the note for Heb 11:19 in the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (Zondervan, 2016) puts it, “Abraham said that he would return with his son (Ge 22:5) and told Isaac that God would provide the offering (Ge 22:8). By now his faith was so strong that he understood that even if he carried out God’s instructions, God would restore his son and fulfill the promise. God had, after all, promised that his descendants would be reckoned through Isaac (Ge 21:12).”
This faith is a deeper faith than the justifying faith of Gen 15:6. Before that encounter, God had already promised Abram descendants and land (12:1-2). In Gen 15, Abram nevertheless asks about the descendants (15:2-3), God reiterates the promise more specifically (15:4-5), and Abram puts his trust in the one who is truly trustworthy (15:6). Then Abram asks how he can know that God will give him the land (15:8), right after God has reiterated that promise (15:7). God graciously confirms that promise (15:9-21). So what happens next? Abram and Sarai use Hagar to bear him a son (16:1-2); after all, God had not yet specified that Abram’s son would come through Sarah directly. Despite Abram’s requests for confirmation and uncertainties how the promise would be fulfilled, he exhibits commendable faith in Gen 15; he trusts God’s promise.
The level of faith in Gen 22, however, is at a higher level. Abraham must act on his faith, sacrificing even the very promise for which he had waited so many years. Justifying faith that God counts to us as righteousness, as in Gen 15:6, is very basic. But seeing God’s faithfulness through years of testing takes us to a deeper level of faith—a level of faith that trusts God no matter what, because we know that, whatever else might be the case, God is trustworthy. We know him; we know his character; and so we trust him. This is not a faith for which we can take credit as if we have worked it up by our efforts; it is a faith that flows from experiencing God’s trustworthiness, even in the face of hardship and waiting.
Ultimately, God thoroughly rewards Abraham’s obedient faith. God provides something better than a lamb for sacrifice (22:7-8)—an entire ram (22:13). Abraham did not go randomly to any location, but to the one that God commanded, and God had a ram ready for him. There is thus another lesson here in addition to the model of Abraham’s obedient faith: God’s faithfulness in providing what will satisfy him. That Isaac and Abraham speak of the coming sacrifice as a lamb (22:7-8) suggests that this narrative foreshadowed for Israel the deliverance of their own firstborn through the sacrifice of the Passover lamb (Exod 12:3-5, 12-13, 21). Those who see here a foreshadowing of Jesus as God’s lamb recognize the same principle of redemption realized in the Passover.
God acts overtly on behalf of his servant who has waited so long and trusted so much. An angel speaks from heaven to preserve Isaac (22:11)—just as an angel had spoken from heaven to preserve Ishmael (21:17). (The next reference in the Pentateuch to God speaking from heaven is at the giving of the Ten Commandments in Exod 20:22.) In these narratives, the angel of the Lord is first mentioned as appearing to Hagar (16:7-11; 21:17), then Abraham (22:11, 15), and then Moses (Exod 3:2).
The promise that God confirms in 22:16-17 because of Abraham’s obedience is something that God had already promised Abraham beforehand. God is the one who makes us the people he can bless; over the years Abraham obeyed God and saw God’s trustworthiness. We believe (15:6), but walking with God himself in the light of his word grows our faith. As we persevere in trusting and obeying God, he makes us ready for things we could not have handled earlier.
Is Faith a Leap in the Dark? (18-second video)
Believers can have faith because God is FAITHFUL.
Sticking together as a family even as refugees
Médine’s (my wife’s) father was half-paralyzed, so as they fled Médine’s brother often had to carry him on his back–a difficult but faithful demonstration of love. (More details in our book Impossible Love)
http://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Love-African-Miracles-against/dp/0800797779
(These pictures were reenactments by the actual characters after the war)
Staff meetings (cartoon)
Your religion can’t save you
If you rest your eternal hope in taking the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper …
If you rest your eternal hope in having once repeated a prayer of conversion …
If you rest your eternal hope in excited feelings when you sing …
If you rest your eternal hope in your church membership or denomination …
You rest your hope in something that cannot help you.
But if you rest your hope in Jesus, including a Jesus you have met in any of these or other ways, then you are my brother or sister.
Sexual depravity and a servant of God—Genesis 19:31-38
One ancient purpose of this passage is to depict the terrible origins of Moabites and Ammonites. Since Ammonites and Moabites are not a big issue today, however, I will focus my thoughts here instead on the tale of horror attached to their origins.
Drunk like Noah (9:21-22), Lot did not choose the sexual encounter the passage describes (19:32-33). He did, however, allow himself to be made drunk. The narrative might partly excuse Lot for anguish and panic in the wake of his wife’s death (19:26), as Judah’s sexual behavior seems partly explained, though not excused, in this way (38:12). The consequences, however, are horrifying. The son of a godly woman I know passed out from being drunk; when he awoke, he stood accused of a rape of which he had no memory. Eventually the accuser retracted the story and he was acquitted, but losing control of one’s senses makes one more vulnerable to unwanted activities from oneself or others.
By ancient standards, a man being manipulated sexually by women would be judged pathetic and humiliating for the man, though the narrative’s chief horror for both ancient and modern culture is the act of incest. (Most acts of incest are also acts of rape, most often from older to younger and from male to female. Yet such actions are terrible in any form.) The daughters name the babies; naming might be ultimately a male prerogative (cf. 5:3; 35:18; 41:51-52; Exod 2:22; 18:3-4; 1 Chron 7:23), but the mother also often named the child (Gen 4:25; 29:32-35; 30:6-13, 18, 20-21, 24; 1 Sam 1:20; 1 Chron 4:9; 7:16). More significantly, the names explicitly refer to their horrible action, meaning that Lot cannot but have learned of it (19:37-38).
Lot’s hospitality may show him righteous (2 Pet 2:7); God seems to have counted him that way (Gen 18:23, 25). How could such a horrible thing happen in his family? Questions of free will aside, his daughters were not the only members of the family who violated God’s standards (19:17, 26). Lot’s daughters grew up in the immoral environment of Sodom where many men of the town could demand guests to gang-rape (19:4-5).
They also grew up in a household where their father had offered to let them be raped instead of the guests (19:8). Aside from questions of whether he considered homosexual rape worse than heterosexual rape (perhaps he did so view it; cf. Judg 19:23-25, a passage also contrasting hospitality with its opposite), he wanted to preserve the sacred honor of hospitality. But despite the terrible circumstances it is difficult to think that offering his soon-to-be-married daughters to gang rapists was an acceptable lesser of two evils. He also risked his own life (cf. Gen 19:9), but his daughters cannot but have been horrified by what nearly happened to them. (The narrative may include his offer partly to emphasize the specifically same-sex predilection of Sodom’s men; perhaps it might also bespeak the physical perfection of the angels, cf. Judg 13:6.)
Lot’s commendable hospitality to the angels continues the same pattern found in Abraham’s hospitality to them in the previous chapter (18:3-8). The key differences in setting, however, underline the differences between the very different environments chosen by Abraham and Lot: Lot had chosen a prosperous (13:10-11) but ungodly (13:13; 19:4-5) place to raise his family. While such an environment may be necessary for mission (cf. Matt 10:14-15; 11:23), it is hardly ideal for raising children if not necessary. The imaginary electronic world that surrounds most of our children (through music, videogames and movies) poses a potent challenge throughout much of the West today, but the influence of the values of real flesh-and-blood people around us continues to matter.
That the daughters wanted to preserve their father’s seed (19:32) reflects an element of good intention, but it served an act that all this account’s hearers would recognize as inexcusably evil (cf. Lev 18:6-18; 20:11-12, 14, 17-21, which leaves some relations even too horribly obvious to require specifying). Their concern that no men remained in the land (Gen 19:31; the Hebrew can mean either “earth” or “land”) may also reflect their grief over the deaths of their fiancés (19:14) and their desire for the male security and motherly role expected in their culture. It also may reflect a paranoia shared with their father (19:30).
We can hardly fault any of them for experiencing what we today would call posttraumatic stress syndrome. But father-child incest (as opposed, in some ancient cultures, to marrying a half-sibling; 20:12) was condemned in all cultures in the ancient Near East, as in virtually all cultures in history. The ancient hearers of Genesis could attribute the lack of moral understanding reflected in their incestuous action only to the influence of the Sodom narrative that precedes—and possibly in Lot’s own willingness to sacrifice their virginity to protect the guests.
Lot and his daughters may have raised their new children with the sort of compromised morals with which they had conceived them. In any case, this horrifying background of Ammonites and Moabites offers a stark contrast with a different childbirth narrated soon afterward. Lot’s daughters become pregnant by an “old” father (19:31); contrast aged Sarah’s pregnancy by Abraham in his “old” age (21:1, 7). Abraham and Sarah remained in God’s plan, and God provided them with a miracle. (The miracle was not only of birth in old age, but that it happened at the time that God had spoken—21:2.)
Of course, things do not always work out this way. Godly parents can have ungodly children, and ungodly parents can have godly children (1 Sam 8:3; 2 Chron 21:1-6; 24:2, 17-22; 25:2; 27:2; 28:1; 29:2; 33:1-2; 34:1-2; 36:5). Genesis’s story of Joseph shows that a godly person can often succeed despite a dysfunctional family background. But by and large, some backgrounds are better for children than others (cf. Prov 22:6). The influence of Sodom’s sexually loose morals haunted Lot’s family thereafter.
Do Christians Have a “Persecution Complex”?
Do Christians Have a “Persecution Complex”?
If we care about truth, sometimes we must speak against conventional wisdom, regardless of how one this may result in one being subjected to ridicule in some circles. Those who have not shared an experience are often quick to dismiss it, but their quickness often stems from their ignorance of others’ genuine experiences.
Just Because You Haven’t Experienced It …
While some people may indeed have a “persecution complex,” many others have experiences of persecution or prejudice that others dismiss simply because it is not their own experience. This observation applies to various issues.
When in the late 1980s and in the 1990s I learned from my African-American friends the continuing and serious reality of racism, it necessarily changed the orientation of my life. Speaking out cost me some relationships, but truth and justice are not negotiable. When I wrote about extremists slaughtering Christians and moderate Muslims in northern Nigeria, I was accused by even a Nigerian journalist of Christian bias (within a few years, however, Boko Haram became widely known). When I wrote about miracles and (still more controversially) reported experiences with hostile spirits, I was sticking my neck out, recognizing that many fellow academics would scoff. Nevertheless, I was readier to value experiences of actual witnesses—including on some points myself—over arrogant voices of inexperience.
In many parts of the world, Christians are facing life-threatening persecution and serious prejudice. This is true for most religious minorities, and perhaps partly because Christianity is a religious minority in many countries, it is true for large numbers of Christians. To deny this would be simply irresponsible; the BBC and other media outlets have many reports. For some compiled reports from Christian sources, survey the content of some of the following works:
- Hefley, James, and Marti Hefley. By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the Twentieth Century. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
- I am n: Inspiring Stories of Christians Facing Islamic Extremists. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2016.
- Marshall, Paul A. Their Blood Cries Out: The Worldwide Tragedy of Modern Christians Who Are Dying for Their Faith. Dallas: Word, 1997.
- Shortt, Rupert. Christianophobia: A Faith under Attack. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Doyle, Tom, with Greg Webster. Killing Christians: Living the Faith Where It’s Not Safe to Believe. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2015.
And especially these well-researched works:
- Marshall, Paul, and Nina Shea. Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedom Worldwide. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
- Marshall, Paul, Lela Gilbert, and Nina Shea. Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians. Foreword by Eric Metaxas; afterword by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2013.
Prejudice in the United States?
But what about in the United States? Certainly what Christians face here is nothing compared to what Christians face in Iran, northern Sudan or especially North Korea. Nor is there government-sanctioned religious prejudice, despite local cases of hostility toward various faiths, including against Christian groups. To define any prejudice as persecution may trivialize the meaning of persecution. At the same time, those who are too quick to deny all claims of prejudice trivialize others’ genuine experiences.
In response to films such as “God’s Not Dead II,” some critics have been decrying a Christian “persecution complex.” Some Christians may be too sensitive about matters that are not such, but their critics are often too insensitive—in ways that they would never be if it were some different group experiencing the prejudice. Simply because the critics have not experienced a given prejudice—whether religious, ethnic, or some other kind—does not mean that nobody is experiencing it.
Of course, not everything that some Christians claim as persecution really is such. Not being granted special privileges is certainly not persecution. Nor is not being allowed to set policy for the state—so long as the state is not allowed to set policy for the church and Christian organizations. Nor is respectful disagreement, provided (and this is sometimes an issue) Christians and other people of faith are also welcome to express their own convictions. That is, being treated equally with others is not discrimination.
Nevertheless, genuine prejudices and individual and local acts of discrimination exist, and it trivializes such prejudices to decry them as a “persecution complex,” whatever their object. I was shocked to hear my African-American friends’ stories of encounters with racism, though the majority of accounts did not include reports of physical violence or death. Yet I was forced to recognize that simply because I was not a victim of racism did not mean that no one was. I had not experienced it simply because I was white and, to that point in my life, had only rarely been a racial minority in other settings.
Those who dismiss others’ reported experiences of prejudice are insensitive, whatever the reported prejudice. One can trivialize the prejudice by claiming, “It’s not as bad as what some other group experiences.” Yet almost any prejudice could be so dismissed—and by some people is so dismissed—by being placed against harsher realities such as genocides. Nor does belonging to a group that constitutes a majority in society—as statistical Christians are even though very-seriously-practicing Christians are not—prevent one from experiencing prejudice in particular settings in which one is a minority.
Some Early Encounters with Prejudice
Because my own experiences are the ones to which I can testify firsthand, these are the primary ones that I recount here, although the early experiences are much less significant than those I will recount afterward.
Here are a few examples; others might easily supply much more serious ones. I was in high school when I was converted from unchurched atheism to Christianity. (For those who think high school is too young to make major life decisions, keep in mind that I was reading Homer at twelve and Plato at thirteen.) Some of my peers did indeed ridicule my newfound faith—though I did not find that experience surprising or very bothersome, since I had faced ridicule from some different peers when I was an atheist. (I was probably more strong-headed in high school and college than any time before or after.)
At least in those days, some elementary and middle school kids, and to some extent high schoolers, made fun of peers for anything—for what they wore, for who their friends were, for their weight, for their names (in elementary school I was a “keener wiener”), and so forth. But because one group is not alone in facing some others’ hostility does not make it any less real or painful to many of those who experience it.
Today we have become more sensitive about some of these matters, rightly considering our young people’s feelings on some points. Yet peer pressure and ridicule remain, often including peers’ faiths (or non-faiths). This may be more true for some faiths than for others, particularly more in some parts of the country than in others, but it is especially hard on young people who have to spend much time among their peers.
One benefit of feeling marginalized at times is that one can become more sensitive to others who experience such marginalization. Thus I soon befriended a Jehovah’s Witness who experienced far more marginalization than I did; our faiths differed, but we understood each other. More influentially in my life long-term, shared commitment to faith regularly transcended traditional ethnic boundaries. But I have written more on these experiences elsewhere (including in Médine’s and my book Impossible Love).
Although some teachers felt no constraints about addressing religion (including negatively) if a student raised the topic, I had much more freedom to speak as a student than teachers generally would. I would give examples of a couple teachers’ fears already in the mid-1970s, even outside school, but I promised to focus here on my own experiences. I mention their concerns in passing simply to illustrate that ambiguities surrounding religious practice have been generating anxieties for some time.
More Substantive Encounters
Although ridicule did not bother me too much at that stage, and mere teasing bothered me even less, some of my experiences soon proved more substantial.
As a fairly young Christian I was sometimes beaten for sharing my faith—for as little as saying, “Jesus loves you.” Now you might retort, “It’s your own fault for not keeping your faith to yourself.” But if you were to respond that way, I would be tempted to respond that you are not treating faith the same way that you would treat someone speaking about something else they cared about. If someone beat you up for voicing a political perspective as a Democrat or a Republican, wouldn’t you say that they were violating your right to free speech? Or if someone pummeled you because you blissfully shared about someone you were in love with, wouldn’t you find this abuse offensive?
Years later, one fast-food restaurant where I applied for a job interviewed me briefly, and, discovering that I had attended a Bible college, immediately dismissed my application. “We don’t want any preaching here.” Surely it reflected some prejudice to assume that I would be preaching (especially as a cook, with a primary audience of hamburgers)? Admittedly, in another setting, where a different restaurant owner had more positive experiences with Christian college students, the same background probably counted in my favor.
Even today, with laws against religious discrimination, we cannot know all the intangibles in people’s past experiences that affect their perceptions and consequent decisions. We can only work to counter prejudice—an increasingly difficult exercise in a polarized public sphere where dueling media outlets highlight either the best or worst examples of groups (such as evangelicals, Catholics or Muslims) depending on their supposed political connections.
Prejudices in Academia
Despite traditions valuing objectivity (or attempts at objectivity) in the academy, prejudice happens there too. Not always— for example, I had a wonderfully healthy relationship with one of my French professors who was an atheist. One day, he asked me, concerned, if Christians really wanted to eradicate secular humanists. I laughed and explained that some Christians warned that secular humanists wanted to eradicate Christians. The danger of such polarizing propaganda is that it can fulfill itself by mobilizing constituencies against one another. Most of my professors treated me fairly.
Yet hostility does exist. One professor thought that any professor who publicly admitted belief in God should be fired. I have been in public settings where relatively little-published scholars dismissed me from counting as a scholar because they knew of my personal faith, even though I had not introduced it into our discussion or my work in question. I used abundant historical data as a control on my argument to reduce bias; although my critics had neglected such controls, they denied having any biases.
Aside from my personal faith, sometimes I have observed visible disdain from academicians in some other disciplines who do not consider biblical studies genuinely academic. (Never mind the 45,000 ancient extrabiblical references in my Acts commentary, culled from years working in the historical context. For them, my very field of study precludes me from being very smart.)
Moving from personal anecdote to a broader sociological survey, Elaine Howard Ecklund, in her 2010 study published by Oxford University Press (Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think), found that over one third of science professors at elite universities envisioned no “positive role for religious people, institutions, and ideas on their campuses” (p. 91; happily, 42 percent did allow for a positive role, 110). Despite the religious roots of many western universities and divinity schools at their own universities, some professors even maintain that the existence of divinity schools is dangerous, tantamount to endorsing religion and undermining science (97).
Such contempt does not amount to persecution, but it is clear that some critics are openly hostile to faith and that people of faith encountering them will likely have experiences of prejudice.
While avidly anti-religious voices in elite research universities account for only 5 percent of the interviewees in Ecklund’s research study, they constituted a very vocal minority (105-6). Happily, a subsequent study appears to suggest that this tendency is less pronounced at many other colleges. And the majority of my own friends who did advanced degrees in physics and other sciences did not report experiencing mistreatment based on their faith or other factors. There have been, however, some exceptions.
Unfair polemic characterizes the internet, however, from some dogmatic new atheists, dogmatic Muslims, dogmatic conservative Christians, etc. This is not persecution, but such misrepresentation can readily set the stage for such, as various anxious constituencies recognize. One generation’s rhetorical target practice can easily become the next generation’s casualties, as Jewish thinkers rightly remind us. (Indeed, Hitler planned to abolish Christian denominations once he had eliminated Europe’s Jewish community, if he won the war by 1945.)
Being aware that prejudice and caricaturization can, under the right circumstances, morph into persecution, is not a persecution complex. It is an observation about history. Yes, many fears are generated by political propaganda to mobilize constituencies; some, however, are recognitions of where such polarization could lead—toward any group that does not hold power—if public discourse continues to degenerate.
Dismissing People’s Experiences that You Don’t Understand
Of course, whatever you are, some people will not like it, whether they feel free to verbalize that dislike or not. (At least back in the early 1980s, some people explicitly disrespected me simply because of my bushy beard. Eventually I did give in to such complaints and trimmed it …) And Christians cannot really complain when some people don’t like us for our faith. After all, Jesus warned his followers to be ready for much worse suffering than public ridicule; that was one reason that over the years I often decided to simply shrug it off.
Nevertheless, critics who dismiss Christian experiences of prejudice and sometimes discrimination as a mere “persecution complex” speak too glibly based on their own lack of such experiences. Granted, most religious groups face prejudices from some groups of people; atheists often face this also. (And friendly Christians, Muslims, atheists and others often get stereotyped based on the loudest and most fundamentalistic members of their groups.)
But just as it’s insensitive to dismiss Jewish or African-American or Ahmadiyya or other groups’ reports of their experiences (I deliberately mix both ethnic and religious categories here), it’s also insensitive to dismiss the experiences of Christian individuals or groups. Those of us who’ve experienced prejudice know its reality firsthand. If you haven’t experienced it, I’m happy for you. But don’t dismiss others’ lived reality as a “persecution complex”—or we may be tempted to call you out for your hypocrisy. By being insensitive to others’ experiences of prejudice and discrimination, you simply prove their point.