*Recovering Civility

A session of the British Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, can be almost hilarious. Speakers there are frequently interrupted with hissing, booing, and other forms of caustic disagreement, but through it all a kind of strange (and hypocritical) courtesy exists between the MPs. One of them might thoroughly demolish another's ideas, crushing his proposals with sledgehammer blows of ridicule, all the while calling him "our Distinguished Colleague" or "the Learned Gentleman." It is a strange mixture of courtesy and near-hatred.

In America, we have something similar in talk radio. Depending on the host, the atmosphere ranges from amiable to vicious. Every once in a while, even on the normally placid shows, someone calls in with venom dripping from his or her voice, and a verbal melee ensues. If the two sides were in a ring, it would be a death-match. On talk radio, everybody hates something and feels the need to vent it in public. It is refreshing to hear the rare caller who respectfully pitches his side of the argument and then takes his leave to let someone else have a turn.

And of course, we are thankfully near the end of another mudslinging political campaign. Politicians drag the country through the muck and the mire every election, something they have done for more than two centuries. They always begin by declaring to campaign cleanly and only on the issues, and it always ends up that they really focus on the other candidate's determination to take away Grandma's retirement or to sell the nation down the river. The electorate often chooses the candidate with the lesser amount of mud still sticking to him.

Such incivility filters down to all levels of society. When was the last time you heard a kid other than your own say, "Yes, ma'am," or, "No, sir"? When was the last time you saw a young person give up his place in line or his seat to an older person? When was the last time you noticed a young person not sullen or disrespectful to any authority figure like a policeman?

The April 26, 1996, issue of US News and World Report published a cover story by John Marks titled "The American Uncivil War: How crude, rude, and obnoxious behavior has replaced good manners and why it hurts our politics and culture." It featured a then-recent poll that revealed that 90% of Americans thought incivility was a serious problem, and almost half considered it extremely serious, "evidence of a profound social breakdown." The article continues:

More than ninety percent of those polled believe that it contributes to the increase of violence in the country; eighty-five percent believe that it divides the national community; and the same number see it as eroding healthy values like respect for others. 

Talk to Americans, and a picture emerges of a nation addicted to the pleasures of an unruly society with emphasis on individual expression, flouting convention, and its free vent of emotion, but shocked at the effect of this unruliness. Americans feel embattled in their personal and professional lives by a rising tide of nastiness. 

Says Martin Marti, a philosopher of religion who has written on this subject, "The alternative to civility is first incivility and then war."

It is good to remember the principle that if a thing happens in the world, it will eventually find its way into the church. Human nature will find a way to rear its ugly head. Living in the culture day by day, we find it difficult not to absorb its attitudes and behaviors and begin to practice them. We have to be especially concerned about this in terms of our children, who often encounter the world in full force at the nation's godless school and on the playground.

The apostle Paul calls these evil attitudes and behaviors "works of the flesh," listing a number of them in Galatians 5:19-21:

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

We will cull out five of those mentioned in verse 20: hatred, contentions, outbursts of wrath, dissensions, and heresies. A few short explanations from commentator William Barclay in The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians will help us grasp what kind of attitudes these are.

He writes, "The idea [of 'hatred'] is that of a man who is characteristically hostile to his fellow men; it is the precise opposite of the Christian virtue of love for the brethren." Hatred, then, is the exact counterpart of philadelphia love, love of the brethren. It is 180° removed from what God wants us to show in our lives. How can we love God if we hate one another (I John 4:20)?

"Contention" or "variance" (KJV), Barclay says, "more commonly . . . means the rivalry which has found its outcome in quarrellings and wrangling." It is competitive arguing, fighting another verbally to prove who is best. It is quarreling to win, to have the last word. Such contention occurs on talk radio every day, and sometimes our doctrinal "discussions" mimic it.

On "outbursts of wrath," which could be translated as "uncontrolled temper," he comments, "The word Paul uses means bursts of temper. It describes not an anger which lasts but anger that flames out and then dies." Normally placid individuals can be provoked to explode in fury and live to regret what their lack of self-control produced.

Of "dissensions" or "seditions" (KJV), Barclay says, "Literally the word means a standing apart. . . . Dissension describes a society . . . where the members fly apart instead of coming together." This word portrays a person who goes off on his own because he holds a different opinion than the group does. In this way, the group, community, or church fragments. Sound familiar?

Finally, Barclay writes, "[Heresies] might be described as crystallized dissension. . . . The tragedy of life is that people who hold different views very often finish up by disliking, not each others' views, but each other. It should be possible to differ with a man and yet remain friends." Unfortunately, "crystallized dissension" is the state of the church right now. One member will never again talk to another because they no longer agree on some point of doctrine. So we see many factions and a hardened and unbending party spirit. It is like the Hatfield-McCoy feud where the positions have concretized to the point that little chance of reconciliation remains.

These carnal behaviors reside at the roots of our society's incivility, creating the division and disunity that are hallmarks of our time. As II Corinthians 13:5 advises, we need to ask ourselves if, in the press of our daily battles, we have allowed some of these fleshly works to creep into our lives. A little more civility could go a long way in restoring unity among God's people.

No Good News Here

A recent sensation in the world of New Testament studies is the "presentation to the world" of the supposed "Gospel of Judas." National Geographic, an organization renowned for its progressive views on social, environmental, historical, and even religious subjects, gave the 1,700-year-old papyrus document a lavish premier with an hour-long and heavily advertised special and its own interactive mini-website. Considering all the hoopla, one would have to be forgiven if he thought an original autograph had been found, written in the disciple's own blood. However, this "Gospel" is nothing of the sort.

The docudrama special, shown in prime time on the National Geographic Channel, unfolded the mystery of the ancient codex's journey from Egypt through a maze of antiquities dealers to its modern discovery in the New York bank vault. In poor condition due to neglect, the document was rigorously tested to determine its authenticity as a second- or third-century manuscript. Carbon dating placed it well within those parameters, proving it was not a forgery. Then, of course, a team of top Greek scholars painstakingly translated it, although, because the papyrus is in such bad shape in places, only a partial translation is possible. (If interested, one can read it here.)

Several of the scholars National Geographic chose to comment on the "discovery" of this document are well known within theological circles to be religiously open-minded. Perhaps foremost among them is Elaine H. Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University. She has written numerous books, most of which focus on Gnosticism in relation to early Christianity. This quotation provides the flavor of her views on the "Gospel of Judas":

Whether or not one agrees with it, it's an enormously interesting perspective. Like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and other ancient texts that remained virtually unknown for nearly 2,000 years, the gospel of Judas offers startling new perspectives on familiar gospel stories: These discoveries are changing the way we understand the beginnings of Christianity.

Another major contributor to the special's academic lineup is Bart D. Ehrman, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. His specialty is ancient Christian history, emphasizing the clash between orthodoxy and heresy. Here is a long quotation from him on this new manuscript.

The reappearance of the Gospel of Judas will rank among the greatest finds from Christian antiquity and is without doubt the most important archaeological discovery of the past 60 years. What will make this gospel famous—or infamous, perhaps—is that it portrays Judas quite differently from anything we previously knew. Here he is not the evil, corrupt, devil-inspired follower of Jesus who betrayed his master; he is instead Jesus' closest intimate and friend, the one who understood Jesus better than anyone else, who turned Jesus over to the authorities because Jesus wanted him to do so. This gospel has a completely different understanding of God, the world, Christ, salvation, human existence—not to mention of Judas himself—than came to be embodied in the Christian creeds and canon. It will open up new vistas for understanding Jesus and the religious movement he founded.

Note that he calls this a "reappearance of the Gospel of Judas," which is exactly right. As the television special itself mentioned:

Around A.D. 180, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in what was then Roman Gaul, wrote a massive treatise called Against Heresies. The book was a fierce denunciation of all those whose views about Jesus and his message differed from those of the mainstream church. Among those he attacked was a group who revered Judas, "the traitor," and had produced a "fictitious history," which "they style the Gospel of Judas."

Irenaeus is thought to have been a student of Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of the apostle John in Ephesus. Among the more conservative of those considered to be "Church Fathers," Irenaeus argued that only the Four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were authoritative, and the so-called Gospel of Judas, which he had evidently read, was not only clearly heresy but also absolutely apocryphal. Judas had killed himself before committing anything about himself to papyrus.

A skim through the translated text makes it plain that the teaching of this purported Gospel is far from Christian. It contains elements from Christianity—Christ, the disciples, the Last Supper, the betrayal—but its main themes are entirely Gnostic and pagan. It includes references to a number of Gnosticism's pantheon of emanations, gods, and demiurges, as well as allusions to the "god" within. In fact, the bulk of the text teaches the "mysteries" of gnosis.

The "Gospel of Judas" is no Gospel; it is not even Christian. As for being "good news," it fails on that score too. It turns the revelation of God in Christ through His disciples' writings on its head, making good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20). It entirely ignores the true message of the gospel of the Kingdom of God, touting instead the corrupt mystery religion of spiritual self-actualization through mystic knowledge. It is frankly profane.

The early church soundly rejected it as heresy in the late second century, and the true church today heartily concurs. It should have been left to disintegrate completely to dust in that New York bank vault.