The Erosion of Religious Freedoms

Forerunner, "WorldWatch," May-June 2013

Ever since the United States Supreme Court ruled against prayer in the public schools in 1962, religious freedom has been under assault, despite the fact that the Bill of Rights clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The government, under the guise of the “separation of church and state” principle—which it perverted just enough to widen the scope of its attacks—has steadily barred religion from the public square, twisting the phrase, “freedom of religion,” to “freedom from religion.” Christianity, the primary religion of Americans, has been the chief target.

The tempo of the march against religious freedom has sharply increased in the last several years, particularly under the Obama administration. The following examples of blows against the free exercise of religion have occurred within the last five years:

• After a Christian photography company in New Mexico was sued for declining to photograph a homosexual couple’s commitment ceremony, the state’s Supreme Court held that the law compels the owners to compromise their religious beliefs. The business had to be closed.
• The city of San Diego pressured four Christian firefighters with disciplinary action if they refused to take part in its “Gay Pride” parade, during which the firemen were subjected to verbal abuse and sexual gestures. Winning their lawsuit, they were awarded $30,000 in damages.
• A day after a visit from Federal Reserve employees, an Oklahoma bank was forced to remove Bible verses from its website, crosses from teller stations, and buttons carrying a Christian Christmas message.
• A Missouri university threatened to withhold a Christian student’s degree after she refused to write a letter to the state legislature in support of homosexual adoption.
• Under Obamacare, the Department of Health and Human Services mandated that all organizations (except churches) that offer group health insurance to provide for abortifacients such as Plan B (the “day-after pill”) and Ella (the “week-after pill”).
• In New Jersey, a second-grade public-school student was forbidden to sing “Awesome God” in an after-school talent show. Another girl in Port Charlotte, Florida, was barred from singing “Kum Ba Yah” at a Boys & Girls Club talent show because the song included the words “Oh, Lord.”
• Despite a previous written agreement to respect a pro-life nurse’s religious convictions, a New York hospital threatened her with termination and loss of license if she refused to participate in a late-term abortion.
• Florida withheld grant money from students attending Florida Christian College because the college did not satisfy the state’s “secularity checklist.” A lawsuit forced the state to reverse its policy.
• The Centers for Disease Control fired a Christian counselor because she refused to lie about why she was referring clients with same-sex relationship problems to other counselors.
• A third-grader in Plano, Texas, was forbidden to include a religious message in the goodie bags that he was bringing to the “Winter Party” to share with his classmates.
• A Cisco employee was summarily fired for his belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, though he had never mentioned his view at work, but only in a book that he had written.

From just this sampling of infringements of religious liberty, it is plain to see that the trend is widespread. Christians, especially, are seeing their religious freedoms limited by federal, state, and local governments; schools and universities; institutions and corporations; and community groups. Liberty Institute, “a nonprofit legal group dedicated to defending and restoring religious liberty across America,” has documented a list of nearly 1,200 incidents of bigotry against religion in the U.S., most having occurred in the past ten years (http://www.libertyinstitute.org/pages/survey-of-religious-hostilities). While various courts found many of these occurrences to violate the First Amendment, too many have become legal precedent and the law of the land.

Another inference from the above list is that many of them involve Christianity’s stances against homosexuality, homosexual adoption, homosexual “marriage,” and abortion, all sexual-freedom issues. American values have been so turned on their heads that today, sexual freedom, which receives no mention in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, trumps religious freedom, which is specifically named. Moreover, as the New Mexico photography case shows, a Christian, protecting his conscience, cannot even politely say, “No,” to a homosexual without being hauled off to court for discrimination and losing his business along the way.

Many Christians and churches have tried to “stand in the breach” to uphold biblical moral values, but they have only delayed the crumbling of all barriers to sexual expression. Lately, all opposition has seemed ineffective, as California, for instance, now requires public schools to allow self-perceived transgender students, regardless of their birth gender, access to whichever restroom and locker room they wish to use. Clearly, the cultural trend in America is toward “anything goes” and nothing being stigmatized—or else.

And who but Christians would denounce “anything goes”? Thus, Christians have been targeted as enemies of “progress,” and every effort is being employed to stifle, ridicule, or delegitimize Christianity’s voice in society. So far, anti-Christian attacks have mostly been legal maneuvers, designed to marginalize Bible-believers, not yet reaching the level of outright persecution. However, Scripture warns repeatedly that true Christians will suffer intense persecution in the end time (see Luke 21:12-19; II Timothy 3:12-13; Revelation 6:9-11; 12:17; 13:7, 15; 17:6). To paraphrase our Savior, these incursions against our religious freedoms are just the beginning of sorrows.

A Sign of Moral Decline

As the week ground to a close, one of America's last bastions of nominally Christian morality succumbed to the forces of tolerance and liberalism. On Thursday, during the Boy Scouts of America's annual meeting of its National Council in Grapevine, Texas, not far from its national headquarters, 61 percent of the roughly 1,400 voting council members who cast secret ballots decided to admit openly homosexual boys into the association, which currently counts about 2.6 million boys as members. The policy change will take effect on January 1, 2014.

The measure, drafted by the National Council's Executive Committee, says that no youth may be denied membership "on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone." The Boy Scout's chief executive, Wayne Brock, calls the organization's decision "compassionate, caring, and kind," saying the goal of scouting is to reach out to as many boys as possible. Further, a statement released by the organization argues, "The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive and unresolved societal issue."

However, the change actually reveals the hypocrisy of its national leadership. They are required to pledge fealty to God, who does not in any way sanction homosexuality (see, for instance, the apostle Paul's unambiguous statement in I Corinthians 6:9-10). In addition, the new policy violates the part of their oath in which they promise to be "morally straight." At least the National Council refused to consider the considerably more contentious proposal to allow openly gay adults and leaders—though lawsuits may soon force the Boy Scouts to do so anyway.

John Stemberger, a conservative activist from Florida and a former scout, criticized the Executive Committee for its role in passing the measure:

What kind of a message are we sending to young people about being brave when its top adult leaders don't even have the courage to stand up to the pressure of a militant lobby when the bullies in Washington, DC, Hollywood or even some of their own renegade councils start pressuring and harassing them?

Christian and conservative members of the organization, who had lobbied tirelessly against the measure in the weeks prior to the vote, feel that the leadership ignored the beliefs of the majority of scouting families in order to fall in step with the sudden rise in public acceptance of homosexuality. Across America, there are more than 100,000 Scouting units, and a full 70 percent of them are chartered by religious institutions. Some of the largest sponsors are conservative denominations that have previously supported the broader ban of homosexuals, among them Southern Baptist churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many from these units are expected to quit the Scouts and form one or several alternative character-building groups for boys.

When asked why she opposed the inclusion of homosexuals as Boy Scouts, one mother of scouts responded frankly, "I am just as afraid of a gay boy tenting with my son as I would be if a straight 15-year-old boy tented with my 13-year-old daughter." While liberals would decry her fears as homophobia, Christians like this concerned woman would call it prudent parenting and fully in harmony with their faith.

Robert Schwarzwalder, a senior vice president of the Family Research Council and a father of two scouts in Northern Virginia, says: "The fallout from this is going to be tremendous. I think there will be a loss of hundreds of thousands of boys and parents. This great institution is going to be vitiated by the intrusion of a political agenda."

In reality, the move is simply the scouting leadership's attempt to "get on the right side of history," as they would consider it. The country's moral center has been steadily sliding to the left for many decades, and over the last few years, the pace of moral decline has drastically accelerated. According to a May 13, 2013, report from the polling organization, Gallup: "Just three years ago, support for gay marriage was 44%. The current 53% level of support is essentially double the 27% in Gallup's initial measurement on gay marriage, in 1996."

Young adults, aged 18-29, are leading the charge in changing Americans' views on gay and lesbian relations. Again according to Gallup, in 1996, 41% of Millennials supported same-sex marriage, while today, up to 70% of them do—a 70% increase over seventeen years. This group consists of the parents or potential parents of the next generation of scouts, and with this policy change, the Boy Scouts of America's leadership believes it is ensuring the future of the organization. The Executive Council thinks that, once this cultural storm passes, its brand of scouting will emerge on the other side stronger and with increasing numbers of members. Tolerance and inclusion are the wave of the future.

Additional polling data seem to support their belief. Another Gallup poll, this one from May 20, 2013, bears the headline, "In U.S., Record-High Say Gay, Lesbian Relations Morally OK." It is subtitled, "Americans' tolerance of a number of moral issues up since 2001." In summary,

Americans' views toward a number of moral issues have shifted significantly since 2001. Their acceptance of gay and lesbian relations has increased the most, up 19 percentage points in the past 12 years—to a record high of 59% today. Americans' tolerance toward having a baby outside of marriage is also now much greater, up 15 points since 2001, to the current 60%.

Americans have also become significantly more accepting of sex between an unmarried man and woman, divorce, embryonic stem cell research, polygamy, and cloning humans.

Such moral indifference can hardly be characterized as a wave; it is better described as a rising tide that sweeps all before it. Most younger Americans just have not been taught solid Christian values at home, and the public schools have done nothing but indoctrinate them to abhor discrimination of all kinds without moral distinction. Add in a constant media barrage of liberal ideas and feel-good "values," and the results are quite predictable: Anything goes.

Peter, quoting Psalm 34, gives some sage advice to those who still believe and follow the morality found in God's Word:

He who would love life and see good days, let him . . . turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the LORD are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers; but the face of the LORD is against those who do evil. (I Peter 3:10-12)

What Is Real Conversion? (Part One)

The world contains over a billion professing Christians—of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox creeds, not to mention the hundreds of denominations such as Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Coptic, Adventist, Messianic, and so forth. Beyond these, a significant percentage of these billion-plus souls is "non-denominational," all of whom consider themselves to be Christian nonetheless. Despite ecumenical efforts, the number of differing Christian groups is only increasing around the globe.

This plethora of Christian "faith traditions" exposes the open secret that Christendom is sharply divided along lines of both doctrine and practice. Not only do the denominations argue over the nature of God, law and works, abortion, and the afterlife, but they also squabble over church government, the ordination of women and homosexuals, liturgy, communion, and a host of other issues, big and small. Hardly any point or observance has not come under fire.

In fact, the bickering between rival faiths can be downright petty, as is illustrated in the silly rivalries among Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian Orthodox, and Ethiopian monks over who controls various areas of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Even today, a Muslim family holds the keys to the church's main entrance because the Christians do not trust each other. In the summer of 2002, eleven monks needed medical attention after a fracas that began when a Coptic monk moved his chair from its approved place to get out of the blistering sun!

Are these the actions of converted Christians? How does a converted person act? What determines whether a person is converted or not? And can just anyone be converted?

Perhaps the most basic question we can ask is, "Who can be converted?" If a person professes to be a Christian, saying that he has accepted Christ as his personal Savior, is he converted? Is that all it takes? If so, does it mean that all "Christians" are converted?

The Bible, specifically Romans 8:6-9, 13-16, answers all of these questions about who can be converted:

For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. . . .

For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." The Spirit [it]self bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

This passage lists four points about who is a true Christian—and thus, converted—and who is not. First, Paul says that a person who is still carnally minded—who has not submitted to God's spiritual way of life—is not subject to God's law, nor can be. Conversely, and more positively, a true Christian is subject to God's law. So if an individual claims to be converted but does not and will not keep God's law, then he is not converted.

Second, the apostle tells us that God considers a person His—that is, one of His children—if he has the Holy Spirit in him. When the Holy Spirit resides in someone, he is said to be "in the Spirit," and he will do or want to do all of the things that God desires of him.

Third, a person "in the Spirit" is trying to eradicate the ungodly deeds of the body. In other words, he is making great efforts to overcome sin. Human nature, goaded by the wicked influence of Satan the Devil (Ephesians 2:2), is essentially selfish or self-interested and in opposition to the way of God, which is based on love for others or outgoing concern. The converted Christian strives to change from sinfully self-centered to righteously God-centered, which means he has to deny himself the evil desires of his carnal nature.

Fourth, Paul writes in verse 16 that God's Spirit in the converted person bears witness that he is one of God's children. Put another way, the Holy Spirit produces testimony, proof, or fruit, that an individual is indeed a son or daughter of God. In effect, the true Christian exhibits the fruit of God's Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), removing all doubt about his conversion.

If someone claims to be converted yet does not fit these four attributes, he is not truly converted.

We need to grade ourselves on these points. Have we been baptized and received God's Spirit by the laying on of hands? Are we keeping God's law? Are we are overcoming the sins that so easily trip us up? Are we growing in God's righteousness and producing fruit? How far has the conversion process gone in us?

Two passages in Acts provide an additional point to consider, one that tends to cause confusion on the subject of conversion. Acts 2 records the details of the Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, when Peter speaks to the assembled multitude, telling the Jews that they had killed their Savior on Passover:

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call. (Acts 2:37-39)

Shortly thereafter, in Acts 3:19, Peter preaches at Solomon's Porch and says something similar: "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." Peter shows conversion to take place at a definite time and all at once. He says, "Repent and be baptized," and "Repent and be converted." It is like snapping your fingers. Just like that. So when we repent and accept Jesus Christ as our personal Savior, and are baptized and receive the Holy Spirit, we are considered to be "converted." We have forsaken our old way of life and embraced God's.

However, as mentioned briefly above, conversion is also a process, which Part Two will explain.

At the Father's Right Hand

Down through the centuries since the lifetime of Jesus Christ, despite the Bible's injunction against making images of God, artists have depicted probably every scene from the gospels. However, many of them have chosen to portray one of two vignettes from His life: Jesus as a baby in His mother's arms or as crucified Savior. In each case, they depict Him as needy and powerless—either dependent on His mother or dying or dead.

Much of modern Christianity follows the same dual-themed template in its preaching and worship. Each year we are barraged by the imagery of the baby Jesus in the iconography of the interminable Christmas season. While it is certainly wonderful to realize that God came in the flesh to dwell among men (John 1:14), this world's Christianity and its prolonged emphasis on Christmas tends to "freeze" Him in the position of a cute little baby for all time, ignoring His greater purposes and works.

In addition, the constant refrain, especially of the evangelical set, is "Have you been saved?" Again, their question is undoubtedly sincere, and it is hard to fault their missionary zeal. Yet, it seems that their only goal is to call as many people forward as they can to pray the prayer of salvation, accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. "Jesus Christ died to save you from your sins" is a true statement—and thank God that He did!—but He did not remain on the cross any more than He stayed in the manger. With those wonderful works accomplished, He has moved on to even better things.

The apostle Paul is eager to point this out in Romans 5:10: "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" (emphasis ours). Certainly, the Easter holiday—as paganized as it is with its use of fertility symbols like bunnies and eggs—proclaims the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but its impact on society and nominal Christians is feeble. About the most that those who call themselves Christians get from it—and even this is only partly true—is that Christ's resurrection opens the way for them to get to heaven and enjoy eternal life. So much for the meek "shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5)!

But notice carefully what Paul writes: "We shall be saved by His life." Most people seem to think that we are saved by His death, but that is a false concept! We are justified by His death; our sins are forgiven and we are proclaimed righteous once covered by the blood of Christ. Our salvation, however, hangs on the fact that Jesus Christ is now alive forever!

Imagine that Jesus, sinless and perfect, had paid for our sins through the sacrifice of Himself in our stead, yet He did not rise from the dead. What would have been the result? We would still have payment for our past sins once we accepted Him as our Savior, but that would be all. There would be no hope of a resurrection, no chance of eternal life, because, in this scenario, Christ never opened the way, never having become "the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29). He would never have conquered death and never have been crowned with glory and honor to share with other sons and daughters of God (see Hebrews 2:10-16).

Further, had Jesus remained dead in the tomb, never having risen to spiritual life or ascending to heaven to take His place at the Father's right hand (Hebrews 1:2-4; 10:12), mankind would still be cut off from God. We would have no opportunity to enjoy a relationship with the Father. Why? Because the living Jesus Christ is the Mediator between man and God (I Timothy 2:5). The author of Hebrews writes:

But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens. . . . (Hebrews 7:24-26)

Later, he urges us to enter the Father's throne room with boldness and "in full assurance of faith" by Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:19-22) for the purpose of strengthening our relationship with the Father. Paul explains, "It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us" (Romans 8:34).

On the night of His arrest, Jesus tells His disciples, "It is to your advantage that I go away [to the Father]; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send [it] to you" (John 16:7). Among His many duties, Christ is responsible for dispensing the Holy Spirit to God's people, giving them the power to understand God's will and to put it into practice. Hand in hand with this is His position as "head of the body, the church" (Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 5:23). He directs and controls all the works of the church, raising up servants to further God's purpose and prepare a people as "firstfruits of His creatures" (James 1:18; Revelation 14:4).

As Head of the church and our sinless Savior, He is also the perfect Judge of all men (John 5:27; II Timothy 4:8; I Peter 4:5), and now "the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God" (I Peter 4:17). In the book of Revelation, Christ writes letters of evaluation to seven churches, representative of all His people down through the ages (Revelation 2-3). These letters are His judgment of the major attitudes of God's people, especially those in the time of the end, for He makes frequent allusions to His return (Revelation 2:5, 16, 25; 3:3, 11, 20).

He begins the body of each letter with the words, "I know your works." Being alive and in power at God's right hand, He is intimately aware of what we are doing. Since He desires greatly that we attain eternal life in His Kingdom, He warns us through these letters to make the changes necessary to please God. His primary job is to bring each of us into the Family of God to share endless years of loving companionship and creativity with Him and His Father. So we will be saved by His life—because He lives, we will be given salvation. Jesus assures us, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:27-28).

Now that is good news!

Jesus and Paul

Modern critical scholarship of the Bible tends to lean heavily toward skepticism. Those who ascribe to the principles and methods of this so-called scientific approach to Scripture begin with the premise that what is written is not exactly what happened or was said. Instead, they say that the authors, writing years later, recorded what they remembered, but fallible human memory is neither perfect nor immune to ulterior motives. In this way, they conclude, the texts we read today as the Gospels and Acts are not true eyewitness accounts but individual, biased interpretations. Ultimately, they were written to advance a cause rather than give accurate accounts of the life of Christ and the early history of the Christian church.

This inherent skepticism among many modern critical scholars also extends to the epistles of the apostle Paul. Rather than being sincere letters of instruction, encouragement, and sometimes correction to real congregations experiencing the turbulence of Christian life, his epistles are considered parts of the "Pauline agenda." So Paul, rather than being what he claimed—an apostle of Jesus Christ, the Founder of the way of life that bears His name—becomes, in effect, the creator and architect of what we know as Christianity. Essentially, these scholars believe that Paul took the raw materials of the sketchy narrative of Jesus' life and His radical teaching, and through cunning rhetoric transformed a Jewish itinerant preacher of apocalypticism into the transcendent Son of God.

It is easy to see how a skeptic might conclude this. Jesus left no written record of Himself or His teaching; what has been canonized as Scripture was written a generation or two or three later, long enough that memory and the accuracy of oral transmission can be questioned. Further, to some, the early years of the Christian movement appear from the book of Acts to have been an ad hoc effort of Jesus' disciples and converts doing their level best to spread the gospel. Only when Saul of Tarsus, later known as Paul, is stunningly converted on the road to Damascus does the fledgling church seem to become organized and energized to compete with the established religions for the souls of the world.

Paul, along with Barnabas, arranges lengthy and arduous missionary journeys to Asia Minor and southern Europe, in which they not only preach and convert thousands, but they also establish congregations in major cities, ordain elders and evangelists, organize famine relief for Judean Christians, and challenge Jews and pagans to defend their beliefs. Paul himself, returning to Jerusalem, sways a conference of apostles and elders to his way of thinking on the subject of circumcision and keeping Jewish ritual law. In his fourteen letters, he sets out the doctrines of the church, arguing vociferously against justification through the law or any kind of work. His letters also instruct congregations in accepted practices and show individuals how to apply Christianity to their everyday lives.

To some, steeped in human nature's way of working, this sounds right. A person of Paul's intellect and abilities could, if he were of such a mind, shape and remake a new religion in his own image. A shrewd, learned huckster could speak, write, and cajole a gullible people into accepting his version over others' that were less appealing. Modern televangelists do it all the time.

But why? Why would Paul, "a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6; Philippians 3:5)—an avowed enemy and persecutor of the Way (Acts 8:1; 9:1-2; 22:4; I Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13)—want to make Jesus into the Son of God? Money? Fame? Security? If that were the case, he was tragically unsuccessful, having died a martyr's death in the AD mid-60s. Any other rationale for doing so borders on at least the egotistical and even encroaches on the maniacal. There is no sound reason for Paul's ministry of glorifying Jesus as God other than sincere belief, dedication, and zeal.

Although the modern critical scholars would deny its validity, being self-justifying, Paul's own words argue against any such ulterior motive or hidden agenda. In his earliest account of his conversion, in Galatians 1:15-17, written in the early AD 50s, he writes:

But when it pleased God, . . . to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and [after three years (verse 18)] returned again to Damascus.

The apostle's own testimony is that God converted him specifically to preach to non-Jews, and He did this by revealing the true nature of Jesus Christ as God's Son to him. In addition, he traveled to Arabia, a desert place, where he received a three-year spiritual re-education. This extended instruction in discipleship is perhaps what Paul means in I Corinthians 15:8, when he writes, "Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time." The several accounts of his conversion, in Acts 9, 22, and 26, as well as various remarks in his epistles, all make the same claim that Christ Himself chose him to preach the gospel, and further, opened Paul's eyes to the truth. In simple terms, Paul was merely a tool—albeit a significant one—that the resurrected Jesus used to help build and strengthen the church (see Ephesians 2:19-22; I Corinthians 3:6-9).

Besides, the Gospels and Acts, as well as certain Old Testament Messianic prophecies, proclaim the Son's divine nature, well before Paul came on the scene. Mark, considered by most to be the earliest of the gospel accounts, reads in its first verse, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1). Matthew, which may have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic earlier than the present Greek text, also claims divinity for Jesus in its first chapter by linking Him to the "Immanuel" prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, "which is translated, ‘God with us'" (Matthew 1:22-23). Earlier, Malachi had written: "'And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,' says the LORD of hosts" (Malachi 3:1). It is hard to deny that the prophet means that the God of the Old Testament would soon visit His people.

No, Paul did not "invent" Christianity or "transform" Jesus into Christ, the Son of God. God used him powerfully to write foundational texts to instruct Christians in God's way down through the centuries until Christ's return. He was, like Moses, a faithful servant in God's house, yet "this One [the Son] has been counted worthy of more glory . . ., inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house" (Hebrews 3:3-5).

Who Is Jesus?

Listen (RealAudio)

At the heart of Christianity is a central question, "Just who is Jesus Christ?" It may be astounding to some that such a question is still relevant after nearly two millennia of Christian activity, but as strange as it may seem, even Christians do not agree about the nature of the founder of their religion. This fact says a great deal about those who profess to be "Christian," which at its most basic means "follower of Christ." If Christians display such profound disagreement about Jesus Christ Himself, can they all really be following the same Person?

This subject becomes all the more important since, in its most common form, Christianity is proclaimed as a message about Jesus. What a person believes about Jesus, then, informs his understanding of the religion itself. We can see the result of this process in the thousands of Christian denominations in all parts of the world. While they all proclaim to be Christian, the individual sects emphasize different aspects of Jesus in their teaching. For instance:

• Baptists name themselves after Jesus' practice of baptizing converts, and they traditionally stress conformity to certain behavioral rules: no drinking, no card playing, no dancing. Jesus, to them, is a great moral Teacher.
• Pentecostals, on the other hand, call themselves after Jesus' promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit, which was fulfilled on the Feast of Pentecost after Jesus' death and resurrection. They are known for their great desire to express the gifts of the Spirit, particularly being able to speak in tongues. In other words, their Jesus is a Miracle Worker.
• Seventh-day Adventists take their name from the seventh-day Sabbath, which Jesus is plainly shown to have kept, as well as from His promise to come again. They promote Jesus as the bringer of the soon-coming rest of God.
• Methodists are so called because John Wesley emphasized a structured, methodical approach to Bible study and Christian living, teaching that believers must exercise their free will to come to Christ (as opposed to being absolutely predestined to salvation). Thus, they highlight Jesus' many commands for the individual to be actively involved in his own salvation and Christian growth.
• The Reformed Churches, descendants of the teaching of John Calvin, underscore the necessity of grace through faith in Christ, a reaction to abuses of the medieval Catholic Church's doctrine of works. In this way, they see Jesus as a gracious Redeemer.

Most denominations can be characterized—some would say caricatured—by identifying their concepts of Jesus Himself. He is Christianity's central figure, so how one views Christ determines what one believes and the religion he follows.

This confusion about Him actually began during His own life—even among those who had known Him all His life:

When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, "Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?" So they were offended at Him. (Matthew 13:54-57)

It seems that there was general disagreement in Judea over just who He was:

• When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." (Matthew 16:13-14)
• And when He had come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, "Who is this?" So the multitudes said, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee." (Matthew 21:10-11)
• Now some of them from Jerusalem said, "Is this not He whom they seek to kill? But look! He speaks boldly, and they say nothing to Him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is truly the Christ? However, we know where this Man is from; but when the Christ comes, no one knows where He is from." (John 7:25-27)

Of course, His enemies had questions about Him to

• And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Luke 5:21)
• And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" (Luke 7:49)
• Therefore some of the Pharisees said, "This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath." Others said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?" And there was a division among them. (John 9:16)

However, Matthew 16:15-17 provides us with the best starting point, confirmed by Christ Himself, in answering the question, "Who is Jesus?"

He said to [His disciples], "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

The God-revealed answer is that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the literal Son of the Supreme Being of all the universe. Of course, He is a great deal more than this, but these two facts are the most foundational to our spiritual understanding of this wonderful Being. They give us the basis of His relationship to us and our future, as well as His relationship to Deity, fixing Him as the bridge between man and God. From this foundation, we can begin a deeper consideration of the biblical Jesus.

Dangerous Believers

What would you consider to be the most dangerous element in society? Al Queda? Gangs? Hezbollah? Private militias? Chechen terrorists? Environmental militants? Rogue nations? AIDS and other STDs? Hamas? Drug cartels? Neo-Nazis? Pollution?

Not according to former Clinton-era Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich. In "The Last Word: Bush's God" (American Prospect, July 2004, subscription only), he writes that the thing we need to be most concerned about is you and me—those who believe in God:

The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.

Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review Online, summarizes what Reich means in his article, "Robert Reich's Religion Problem":

It is a denunciation—as a graver threat than terrorists—of people who believe that the world to come is more important than this world, or that all human beings owe their allegiance to God.

Many millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious believers will reject Reich's witless rhetorical oppositions.

Let us hope Ponnuru is right, but Reich's sentiments are becoming more commonly uttered in public by leading progressives in academia and government. The central theme is that America's social and political problems would simply disappear if those with Judeo-Christian values would just shut up and go away. They gripe that religious people keep dragging up "anti-modern," "traditional," "backward" ideas, beliefs, values, and methods and injecting them into the modern or post-modern world where they just do not fit! For instance, according to such people, the "archaic" belief in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman may have suited society in earlier centuries, but it is today outmoded, unnecessary, and overly restrictive.

Even if Christians and Jews hold such old-fashioned notions, why do the Robert Reichs of the world consider believers dangerous? Do they not realize that truly devout people are usually the last to resort to violence, terror, and offensive action? To whom are they a danger? Simply put, they are a danger to the Robert Reichs of the world! They are a danger because they hold the principled, ideological sword that threatens to dethrone progressives and their liberal views from the powerful positions they have held. Thus, liberals must tar and feather believing Jews and Christians and run them out of society on a rail because it is far easier to advance one's agenda if no opposition exists. (By the way, Reich is currently promoting his latest book, Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America.)

Over the long haul, Reich's comments are nothing to get excited about, but they do point out a growing trend to sideline those who believe God. In time, if rabid liberals gained political power (note that by their voting records, Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards are the first and fourth most liberal Senators in that august chamber), marginalizing could lead to persecution—and even to governmental restrictions on worship. In the short term, they will continue to coarsen the culture and take victories where they can on such issues as gay "marriage," welfare, military (un)preparedness, diversity, education, sexual freedom, and separation of church and state. These are the frontline issues, and each minor victory enhances their power.

Paul gives us some sound advice for these times:

Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (II Timothy 3:12-15)