#biblical and theological project topics

[projectchampionz]

SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES AND TOURISM DEVELOPMENT AT THE NATIONAL MUSEUM IBADAN AS A STUDY AREA

SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES AND TOURISM DEVELOPMENT AT THE NATIONAL MUSEUM IBADAN AS A STUDY AREA ABSTRACT This research explores the role of sustainable practices in tourism development, with a focus on the National Museum Ibadan, Nigeria. The study investigates the current sustainable practices at the museum, their impact on tourism development, the challenges faced in integrating sustainability, and…

[cgcgs43046]

Call to all Multifandom Writers 🗣🔥

Welcome to my corner of the woods! Here, we’re reshaping and enhancing the Hellaverse by rewriting key moments, giving beloved characters a fresh look, and adding mythological, biblical, and theological depth to the lore. We’ll also explore personal rewrites of the core themes that drive the story.

This community is now also space for roleplays, sharing fics, AUs, and creative re-imaginations. You can showcase your work, discuss it with readers, share ideas, and recommend fics. And is now also multifandom.

We're seeking writers, artists, and concept designers to join in. While writing is the main focus, all contributions are welcome. I’ve drawn inspiration from creators like LovesArt23, Kaldeya, and others, and I’m blending in my own characters and lore.

Animators and concept artists won’t have too much work since this project focuses on writing, but fresh visuals are always appreciated!

This server is strictly 18+ due to the nature of the original show. If you’re underage, you’ll be banned for safety reasons. Once you're 18, you're welcome to return!

Rules below:

NO MINORS

This server is intended for individuals who are 18 years old or older. If a minor is found using this server, they will be banned. It is illegal for underage individuals to access adult content. Please adhere to this rule for your safety and the safety of the adults involved. If you are underage and are caught using this server, there could be legal consequences for both you and us. Please be honest about your age, and thank you!

Always engage with fellow server members respectfully and kindly. This server is a community built on mutual respect and collaborative spirit. Any form of bullying or disrespectful behavior will lead to an immediate ban.

No slurs or derogatory language will be tolerated under any circumstances.

Engage in communications that uplift and respect all individuals.

Please keep the server focused on media critique and related discussions. If you wish to engage in political discussions or other potentially divisive topics, kindly do so through direct messages (DMs) rather than in public channels.

Explicit NSFW content is allowed. Artistic expressions such as nudity in art, pinups, and sex-related jokes are permitted as well but must provided they are preceded by a clear content warning to respect the sensibilities of all members or with a spoiler tag.

Engage freely, share your interests, and have fun! This is a space for you to enjoy and feel part of a welcoming community.

P.S.:

As more people join this server, everyone needs to maintain a civil and respectful environment. I don't want this space to become a breeding ground for negativity or hostility. Over time, I've learned to engage more thoughtfully with those who hold differing opinions.

To clarify, there are generally four types of individuals in any fandom:

Antis: Actively dislike a show, often vocal about its flaws, and criticize its fanbase.

Critics: Provide balanced reviews, acknowledging both strengths and weaknesses without personal attachment.

Fans: Enjoy the show and appreciate its characters and story while being open to minor criticisms.

Stans: Deeply dedicated to the show, defend it passionately, and often overlook flaws.

Personally, I consider myself more of a critic than a fan. While I may occasionally critique strongly, I don't want to hurt anyone.

If you're interested in participating in the writing process, please read this document carefully to understand my criteria. If you believe this aligns with your skills, send me a direct message so we can discuss it further. Make sure you fully understand the content before reaching out.

The document above is a work in progress. New disclaimers and specific information will be added periodically.

If you’re not interested in actively writing, that’s perfectly fine! Feel free to simply observe and enjoy the writing process. If you’re an artist and feel inspired, you can also draw your own interpretations of my character redesigns based on the descriptions I provide. Feel free to explore ideas, backgrounds, props, or anything else that brings the characters to life. And please don’t worry about perfection. This is your interpretation of my description, and people have different ideas—that’s totally fine! So relax and have fun with it. :)

Looking forward to working w/ you guys :)

Byeeee~ :D

Oh, and here's the link to the actual fic:

[jaedenmooremedia330]

10) Question Planning

I have started putting together a list of general questions and topics that will be applicable to each of the interviews I have on the podcast. While these are written out in full here, I will decide in planning for each episode what the most relevant questions will be and how to weave them well into the conversation.

General Creativity & Faith

How does your faith influence your creative process as a filmmaker?

Can you describe a moment where you felt God’s direct guidance in a creative project?

What are the challenges of balancing artistic expression with biblical principles?

How do you discern if your creative ideas are aligned with God's guiding?

Inspiration & Process

Where do you draw inspiration for your films, and how does that align with your spiritual life?

Do you have a specific way you pray or seek God before starting a new creative project?

Can you share a time when you had to rely heavily on your faith to overcome creative blocks or challenges?

How do you stay true to your creative vision while also considering the spiritual message you want to convey?

Impact & Audience

How do you hope your films impact both Christian and non-Christian audiences?

What role does storytelling play in sharing the gospel through your work?

How do you navigate the tension between creating art that’s accessible to everyone but also deeply rooted in your faith?

Collaboration & Influence

How do you approach working with others who may not share your faith? How does that impact the creative process?

Are there any filmmakers or other artists, Christian or otherwise, that have had a significant influence on your work?

Theological & Ethical Questions

How do you handle difficult themes or topics that might challenge traditional Christian views in your films?

Do you ever feel pressure to compromise your beliefs for the sake of creative or commercial success? How do you handle that?

Closing Reflection

What advice would you give to aspiring Christian filmmakers or creatives who want to stay true to their faith?

What do you believe is the unique role of Christian artists in today's culture?

[ear-worthy]

The Nightingale Of Iran: A Podcast About Identity, Belonging, And Music

What if I told you that a Jewish singer was a national celebrity in the nation of Iran? You'd probably scoff and head to a fact-checking service to confirm my inaccuracy. With the socio-political and religious events in the 40 years, you'd be right in answering, "impossible"

However, politics is like the weather in its capriciousness and shifting winds. Back in the 1950s, Tehran under the Shah was a cultural center of the world and called the Paris of the Middle East.

It was a golden age for Jews in Iran. In the 1950s, a religious Jew – Younes Dardashti – became a national celebrity, singing at the Shah’s palace and on the radio. In the 1960s, his son Farid became a teen idol on TV. They were beloved by Iranian Muslims. 

 Younes Dardashti was so famous that he was known as The Nightingale Of Iran. The nightingale is the official national bird of Iran. In medieval Persian literature, the nightingale's enjoyable song has made it a symbol of the lover who is eloquent, passionate, and doomed to love in vain. In Persian poetry, the object of the nightingale's affections is the rose, which embodies both the perfection of earthly beauty and the arrogance of that perfection.

But at the height of their fame, Younes Dardashti and his Farid left the country. Why? Why would a revered entertainer and his teen idol son leave a nation? Would Taylor Swift bolt from the U.S. for Sweden or France? Not without Travis Kelce!

It has always been a mystery to host Danielle Dardashti and her sister Galeet. Danielle and Galeet are the granddaughters of The Nightingale Of Iran.

Why did their family leave Iran at the height of their fame? Now, in an enthralling documentary podcast series, the sisters reveal painful secrets unspoken for generations. I've listened to a pre-release of the first episode, and I can promise this. The Nightingale of Iran is a story that will resonate with listeners because every family has secrets that are buried.

As Danielle Dardashti says in the first episode, "It's a story about identity, belonging, and music." Their investigation promises to reveal painful secrets unspoken for generations.

Danielle Dardashti is an Emmy Award winner and Moth StorySLAM champion. She runs dash. - a consultancy that helps companies tell stories. She's a former on-air TV reporter, a documentary producer, and is co-author of the Jewish Family Fun Book series. Danielle was a fellow in the 2023 Digital Storytellers Lab. 

Galeet is the leader and vocalist of the edgy all-female Mizrahi band Divahn, Dardashti’s “sultry delivery spans international styles and clings to listeners long after the last round of applause,” according to The Jerusalem Report.

Galeet's acoustic/electronic solo project The Naming, supported by a Six Points Fellowship and a Hadassah-Brandeis Institute Fellowship, draws inspiration from the musical and cultural landscapes of the Middle East and some of the provocative yet unsung Biblical women who lived there. The Huffington Post called the album "a heart-stopping effort." The Naming album launched in September 2010. Galeet also holds a Ph.D. in anthropology, specializing in cultural politics and contemporary Middle Eastern/Arab music in Israel. She is currently Assistant Professor of Jewish Music and Musician-in-Residence at the Jewish Theological Seminary, and she has published widely on her work. She offers residencies, lectures, and workshops on her artistic and academic work.

Danielle is clearly an excellent narrator, and, in the first episode, she tells her family's story with patience, a slowly building crescendo of mystery, family secrets, and political and religious upheaval.

At one point in the first episode, Danielle says to listeners, "I feel as if we are interrogating our parents." As the daughters question their parents about the family's past, their parents become increasingly uncomfortable with the questions and the topic.

Check out The Nightingale Of Iran. It's a superbly crafted podcast documentary that focuses on a family and its long held secrets, while balancing a tale of geopolitical forces that flow like a hidden current through the crevasses of culture and art. 

It's an exploration by two women, Danielle Dardashti and her sister Galeet, of their family roots, mysteries, and events left unspoken for decades.

[cult-research-account]

Hi There Discerning Tumblr Citizen!

If you're here, it's probably because I reblogged something from you. Maybe even left a little reply (you know, as a treat).

I'm currently researching for an art project that involves the following topics:

Cults and Cult Psychology

Traditional Ideas of Femininity

Biblical Womenhood

Radical Feminism and Misandry

Christian Nationalism

Fundamentalist Christianity

If any of these topics might trigger you, please block this account.

The posts I reblog are not criticism or approval of their original posters. I am completely aware that some of the users I reblog from are normal people while others are completely wackadoodle.

Asks are ON, submissions are OFF. Please submit an ask if you want to help me find content or have resources you'd like to share.

Tag List:

Sunday School: educational materials

Home Ec: home making and related materials

Bible Study: theological stuff

Social Studies: social stuff

About: about the project

Admin: admin stuff, most likely related to document formating and web design

[thesynaxarium]

Today we also celebrate the Holy Hierarch Peter the Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna. Saint Peter is known as the “Doctor of Homilies” for the concise but theologically rich reflections he delivered during his time as the Bishop of Ravenna. Pope Sixtus III appointed Peter as Bishop of Ravenna circa 433, apparently rejecting the candidate whom the people of the city of Ravenna elected. At that time Ravenna was the capital of the West, and there are indications that Ravenna held the rank of metropolitan before this time. People knew Peter Chrysologus, the Doctor of Homilies, for his very simple and short but inspired sermons, for he was afraid of fatiguing the attention of his hearers. His piety and zeal won universal admiration. After hearing oratory of his first homily as bishop, Roman Empress Galla Placidia supposedly gave him the surname Chrysologus, meaning "golden-worded." His sermons are historically significant in that they reveal Christian life in fifth-century Ravenna. The Emperor's mother, Galla Placidia, patronized many projects of Bishop Peter. In his extant homilies, Bishop Peter explained Biblical texts briefly and concisely. He also condemned Arianism and Monophysitism as heresies and explained the Apostles' Creed, the mystery of the Incarnation, and other topics in simple and clear language. He dedicated a series of homilies to John the Baptist and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Peter advocated daily reception of Eucharist. He urged his listeners to confide in the forgiveness offered through Christ. May he intercede for us always + Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Chrysologus (at Ravenna, Italy) https://www.instagram.com/p/CgnRJ9zPXDB/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[leftovercuriosity]

A little something on Demons: an(extremely) informal essay of sorts. Which is mainly going to be my opinions/beliefs.

Hey! You're probably wondering who I am, and why I've decided to sit down and write about my own, personal, beliefs on this subject. So, let me introduce myself:

My name is Alexandria, please feel free to call me Alex! I'm a 17 year old lesbian, who doesn't know what label to put on myself in terms of spirituality. Or, if I even want to label that!

Am I an expert in this topic? No.

Am I a psychic medium? Well... if you count having the ability of Anthroposomancy; then yes. I am.

Am I a professional/have I fully, 100%, developed my skills of Anthroposomancy? Absolutely, positively, not!

But! I see a whole heck of a lot of misinformation being spread on the topic of Demons! And, I would like to hopefully help beginners, or even some advanced peeps out with giving out some true information, rather than garbage.

Let's get started!

“A 1997 newspaper poll in Great Britain showed more than 90 percent of adults admitted to believing in the paranormal. But because this phenomenon is elusive, preferring to lurk on the fringes of real life and almost never turning up for appointments in laboratories, the paranormal has been denied for decades.”[1] This is a quote by Uri Geller, I'll be linking sources at the end of my post for further reading(if you feel so inclined).

These same paranormal forces have basically been the pioneers of religion and society possibly long before anceint history was a thing! But, they do not officially exist in the minds of those who wish to control other people; be it for money, power, or simply by fearing if others don't believe as they do, their own stability will be lost. Sound familiar?

Before we go any further, I just want to point out that I am an ex-catholic; and I am by no means trying to steer people away from any branch of Christianity. All I'm doing is pointing out what happened in the church I went to, and comparing it to how I thought about these topics in the past, and what my own research has lead me to believe.

So, whether you want to believe it or not; Christianity is a fear-based religion.

But Allie! Christ literally said: “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Lk 12:32). So, how can this religion be based around fear?

"Sometimes, however, Christians have an inordinate fear of losing the things of this world. This is a fear that comes from unbelief. ..."[2] There is, in fact, more to that quote; but I will start by explaining this part in particular. I have a BIG problem with the people who cherry pick out their "O so sacred book," if it was their father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom, then why did he flood the world?

Moving on to my original topic so I don't get heated in this post; what I'm trying to say is that all these religions that try to hide knowledge, or only give you a select few bits and pieces of knowledge... They are possibly the root of all "evil," in a spiritual sense.

Why?

Let me give you an example of the demon who is the first duke of the power of the east; his name is Agares.

And no, I'm not saying we should all worship/summon demons; I'm well aware of the mayhem that would cause. But! Where do we find demons? In the dark. Why are most of us afriad of the dark? You can't see anything/it represents the unknown. What if I told you that "the dark" has more knowledge than the word of a preacher? What if I told you that this is the very same darkness that the world was subjected to before God theirself blinded the inhabitants with his "holy light"?

So, why did I bring up Agares? He is what is known as a fallen angel and the second of the 72 Spirits of Solomon. Prior to his fall, Agares was a member of the angelic order of Virtues.

What is a biblical Virtue? "Virtue has been defined as “conformity of life and conduct with the principles of morality.” The virtues are thus the practical attitudes and habits adopted in obedience to those principles. ... To these four, Christianity added the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and love."[3]

But, if we are talking about demons, darkness, and knowledge... Why would a demon want to share knowledge? Why is darkness scary? Why is knowledge in the dark?

Why would an all loving and all knowing God kick out the angles that THEY CREATED, for not obeying his every word and command? Or better yet, for questioning him? Why would this all loving God not want to show their face(s)? We don't have a clear picture of what they even look like! Heck; we think Jesus is a white dude! He grew up in the MIDDLE EAST!

But, demons on the other hand!! They have knowledge. And they are willing to share it. If we are talking specifically about Agares you can...

"Seek Agares for wisdom in friendship and to make your garden grow. He also gives advice on financial matters with regard to projects.”-From the Daemonolatry Goetia ( 2010 ) – Written by S. Connolly

But! I think I've babbled on for far too long. let me know if you peeps have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer!!

LINKS:

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller

2: https://founders.org/2017/11/16/fear-and-the-christian/#:~:text=Christians%20can%20feel%20faithful%20fear%2C%20or%20anxiety%2C%20about,his%20child%20runs%20out%20into%20a%20busy%20road.

3: https://www.britannica.com/topic/virtue-in-Christianity

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

Hello! I was wondering if you know an edition of the Bible that is annotated/ contains discussions of the context of the different books and chapters or a supplement that does the same? Something that would have explanations for the different symbols, the references the different NT books make to OT books and such. We studied the Bible this way in literature class and I miss it as I've honestly learnt more about the Bible in literature class than in religious studies. Thank you!

Hiya, sorry for the delay in responding! It’s super hard to read the Bible without good commentary explaining the context, so good on you for seeking that out. 

The study Bible I recommend most strongly for the “average person” (aka, you’re not a religious studies major or seminarian) is the Common English Study Bible. 

All my other study Bibles are made more for seminarians and thus the language is a little more “jargony” and made for a higher reading level, while this study Bible does its best to be accessible to people of all education levels. 

The CEB translation was created by a collaboration of several denominations, so that’s also cool!

Some stuff it contains along with book introductions, outlines, and footnotes:

Over 200 illustrations, maps, and charts

Lots of cross references (e.g. it’ll tell you if another part of the Bible sounds real similar to the part you’re reading)

Some pages have lil green squares that define words, explore theological themes, examine problematic passages, etc. For example, there’s a section on “Family conflict in Genesis” and another on “God’s Kingdom.”

Near the end there are some easy-to-read essays on “The Authority of Scripture,” “The Bible’s Unity,” “How We Got the Bible,” and “Guidelines for Reading the Bible” -- these essays are such a great place for the average Bible reader to start considering questions of “inerrancy” and “inspiration,” cultural context and canon. 

Finally, select concordance at the back that lets you search for a topic, name, or theme

The study Bible I personally use most often is the New Interpreter’s Study Bible, just because it’s the one my seminary classes required. 

It’s got similar content to the CEB study Bible but written in less accessible language -- if you’re interested, I think you’d still get a lot of use out of it, but might have to google stuff if a footnote throws words like “soteriology” and “theodicy” and “eschatology” at you and you don’t know wtf they’re talking about. 

The same goes for the Catholic Study Bible, second edition -- 

of these three options, it has the most commentary and tons of essays on who wrote the biblical books and when and why and all that stuff, but the language is super duper scholarly. 

So if that’s not your style, don’t get this one; if it is your style and you wanna just have a whole avalanche of commentary, then do get this one!

_______________

So yeah, if nothing else, get yourself a study Bible like one of the three I describe above. They can be pricy, which is why I linked to them on amazon -- I know amazon is Evil and Bad but dang are Bibles expensive, and so getting a used copy is many people’s only option. 

But if you do have enough money or access to a library with good Bible books, you can also consider the following resources...

If there is a specific book of the Bible you really wanna dig into, commentaries are great! 

A standard commentary will provide cultural context for the biblical book and tell you what scholars know about who wrote it and when and why; it’ll explain symbols and delve into theology and how the book is applied today...The issue is, commentaries are usually expensive.  

If you live in a large-ish city, it’s very possible that there’s a seminary somewhere near you where you can explore commentaries to your heart’s content! You can probably enlist a librarian’s help in finding just what you’re looking for, too. 

Two series of commentaries that I recommend are Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (mostly accessible language but still uses some jargon you might have to look up) and the Anchor Bible series (an older series so more scholarly and occasionally sorta outdated but still pretty good). 

__________

Now let’s talk about some free resources you might find useful, because golly do I wish biblical materials were all free so everyone could access them...

Working Preacher is a site that a lot of progressive-leaning pastors reference when crafting weekly sermons. It’s not gonna give you a super detailed account of the cultural context of a Bible chapter or too much about who wrote it, but if you want to reflect on applications for today, this is a great place to start! There’s a scripture index so you can look up whatever book and chapter you’re interested in and see if anyone’s written a little article about it. 

So I don’t personally agree with all the theology shared in the Lumina Bible, but it’s a great resource for the average Bible reader who doesn’t know Hebrew or Greek to get some help figuring out what the original language said. There’s often a lot of good cultural context stuff too! So yeah, that’s my recommendation for an online Bible with quality footnotes.

The Bible Project is such a cool resource, with timelines and posters and videos for each book of the Bible that offer a really easy to understand, well-organized overview of that book. I don’t personally agree with all their theology either, but if I want to jog my memory about what a certain book of the Bible is about and the context surrounding it -- when it was written and why, what the main themes are, etc. -- I hop on over to YouTube and watch the Bible Project’s short video on that book. So helpful, and entertaining too. 

__________

I hope this helps; let me know if you have questions!

Does anyone else have a study Bible or other good resources they’d recommend for anon?

[a-modern-christian]

A-Modern-Christian Bible Study: An Introduction

As part of my mission in my public ‘coming-out’ (so to say) as a christian, I am seeking to represent the religious and theological background my own christian identity is rooted in.  As I am addressing my own lack of knowledge about the wider spectrum of christianity by seeking out the experiences and perspectives of christians from more conservative and fundamentalist christian denominations, I am also learning that there seems to be a similar lack of knowledge about progressive christianity within those communities. As the topic of biblical interpretation has often come up in the conversations I’ve had with christians whose readings of the texts included in ‘The Bible’ are different than my own, I figured it might be interesting to launch my own public bible study as an example of how biblical interpretation functions in my religious tradition.

My understanding of how ‘The Bible’ functions within christian practice is wholly informed by my upbringing in a progressive* Congregational* church, so it is very likely that it will not align perfectly with how many prospective readers are used to ‘The Bible’ being discussed. Because of this, I will start this project by defining my approach below so that my content can be interpreted in an informed manner:

I was taught that ‘The Bible’  was a product of its time that it should be read “seriously, but not literally”. Because of that, when I read ‘The Bible’, I do so with the lens that it is a text written and constructed by men at certain times in history to represent christianity as they sought to have it understood rather than the literal and complete ‘word of God’.

I was taught that one’s relationship with christianity, as a whole and the individual aspects of christianity in-and-of-themselves, is individual and personal, so when I interpret text from ‘The Bible’, I do so from my own individual perspective, not from a position of universality. 

Because of these two major aspects of my own perception of ‘The Bible’s position within christianity, the approach I tend to take when engaging in biblical criticism is a reader-response* approach. That is the primary approach I will be taking during this bible study. If/when I bring other critical approaches into my interpretation, I will plan to explicitly introduce them.

I will be interested to hear, as I take this project on, how my interpretations relate to others’ interpretations - especially those who are approaching biblical study from different frameworks and critical approaches.

*  if you are not familiar with those terms, I have linked the Wikipedia pages for them so that you can easily access a basic overview/find source links to learn more about them

[revelation19]

So I don’t think I mentioned it on here, but last year I undertook the challenge to read 100 books in a year. I figured I’d drop the list of books that I read here. Almost all of them were good books that I’d encourage you to read. It’s a pretty wide range of topics. Some Sci-Fi, some Fantasy, some History, some Politics, some Economics, some Philosophy, some Theology, etc. 

-Starship Troopers — Robert Heinlein

-Foundation — Isaac Asimov

-Herman Bavinck on Preaching and Preachers— James Eglinton

-Foundation and Empire — Isaac Asimov

-Second Foundation — Isaac Asimov

-Left, Right, & the Prospects for Liberty — Murray N. Rothbard

-Democracy: The God That Failed — Hans Herman Hoppe

-The Forever War — Joe Halderman

-Forever Free — Joe Halderman

-Wolverine, Volume 3: Wolverine’s Revenge — Jason Aaron

-Slaughterhouse-Five — Kurt Vonnegut

-A Separate War — Joe Halderman

-Foundation’s Edge — Isaac Asimov

-The Prince — Niccolò Machiavelli

-Nemesis — Isaac Asimov

-Citizen of the Galaxy — Robert Heinlein

-Hatching Twitter: A True Sotry of Money, Power, Friendship, and Betrayal — Nick Bilton

-Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep — Phillip K. Dick

-The Religious Life of Theological Students — B.B. Warfield

-Out of the Silent Planet — C.S. Lewis

-The Great Divorce — C.S. Lewis

-Behold a Pale Horse — William Milton Cooper

-Confessions of an Economic Hitman — John Perkins

-The Abolition of Man — C.S. Lewis

-Geerhardus Vos: Reformed Biblical Theologian , Confessional Presbyterian — Danny Olinger

-Foundation and Earth — Isaac Asimov

-Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God — Jonathan Edwards

-A River in Darkness: One Man’s Escape from North Korea — Masaji Ishikawa

-Annihilation — Jeff Vandermeer

-Authority — Jeff Vandermeer

-Acceptance — Jeff Vandermeer

-Commentary on 1 Corinthians — John Calvin

-Education, Christianity, and the State — J. Gresham Machen

-Machinery of Freedom: Guide to Radical Capitalism — David Friedman

-The Federal Reserve Conspiracy — Anthony Sutton

-A Book of Five Rings: The Classic Guide to Strategy — Miyamoto Musashi

-Apology — Plato

-Odd and the Frost Giants — Neil Gaiman

-The Universe in a Nutshell — Stephen Hawking

-Prelude to Foundation — Isaac Asimov

-Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Autobiography of Kim Jong Il — Michael Malice

-America before: The Key to Earth’s Lost Civilization — Graham Hancock

-The New Right: A Journey to the Fringe of American Politics — Michael Malice

-The Enchiridion — Epictetus

-The Punisher MAX, Vol 1: In the Beginning — Garth Ennis

-The Machieavellians: Defenders of Freedom — James Burnham

-End the Fed — Ron Paul

-Serenity: Those Left Behind — Joss Whedon

-Ego and Hubris: The Michael Malice Story — Harvey Pekar

-The Art of War — Sun Tzu

-A Renegade History of the United States — Thaddeus Russell

-The Prose Edda — Snorri Sturluson

-My Hero Academia, #1 — Kohei Horikoshi

-My Hero Academia, #2 — Kohei Horikoshi

-Tokyo Ghoul, Tome 1 — Sui Ishida

-Selections from the Table Talk of Martin Luther — Martin Luther

-Animal Farm — George Orwell

-Pointiac: The Life and Legacy of the Famous Native American Chief — Charles River Editors

-Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Project that Brought Nazi Scientists to America — Annie Jacobsen

-Neuromancer — William Gibson

-The Last Wish — Andrzej Sapkowski

-Sword of Destiny — Andrzej Sapkowski

-Better Days and Other Stories — Joss Whedon

-The Stranger — Albert Camus

-Christianity and Liberalism — J. Gresham Machen

-Count Zero — William Gibson

-Blood of Elves — Andrzej Sapkowski

-Tokyo Ghoul 2 — Sui Ishida

-The World That Couldn’t Be — Clifford Simak

-The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and Other Essays — Richard Ebeling

-Anarchy — Errico Malatesta

-Anarchism and Other Essays — Emma Goldman

-No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority — Lysander Spooner

-Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind — Noam Chomsky

-The Time of Contempt — Andrzej Sapkowski

-The Communist Manifesto — Karl Marx

-Mona Lisa Overdrive — William Gibson

-The Metamorphosis — Franz Kafka

-The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love — Augustine

-The Structure of Scientific Revolutions — Thomas Kuhn

-The Dunwich Horror — H.P. Lovecraft

-The Machine Stops — E.M. Forster

-Rip Van Winkle — Washington Irving

-The Screwtape Letters — C.S. Lewis

-Self-Reliance — Ralph Waldo Emmerson

-Perspectives on Pentecost — Richard B. Gaffin Jr.

-Wanted: 7 Fearless Engineers! — Orlin Tremaine

-Norse Mythology — Neil Gaiman

-The Whole Armor of God: How Christ’s Victory Strengthens Us for Spiritual Warfare — Iain Duguid

-Bushcraft 101: A Field Guide to the Art of Wilderness Survival — Dave Canterbury

-God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God — K. Scott Oliphint

-Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West — Cormac McCarthy

-Why I Believe in God — Cornelius Van Til

-Paul at Athens — Cornelius Van Til

-Astrphysics for People in a Hurry — Neil DeGrasse Tyson

-Real Dissent: A Libertarian Sets Fire to the Index Card of Allowable Opinion — Thomas E. Woods Jr.

-City of Glass — Paul Auster

-The Articles of Confederation — Continental Congress

-The Temptation of Our Lord — John Bale

-Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan — Scott Horton

[squishfacestudio]

Issey Fujishima Interview

Issey Fujishima is a German-Japanese comic artist based in Melbourne. He worked on his first graphic novel The Reign of God for three years, finally completing it in 2017.  

Issey Fujishima had not always wanted to be a comic-artist. Originally, he had wanted to be a filmmaker. However, life was not all it seemed. After graduating, he did work in the Japanese film industry, but soon realized that it did not fit according to his ideals. He realized that the film industry was mostly motivated by money, and conflicted with his values. Furthermore, as an artist, he found he did not have an individual means of expression. Therefore, it was because of this he decided to leave.

He decided to go into comic-making as comics “was film but with a pencil-and a piece of paper.” The transition for Issey was not difficult as before film-making, Issey always had an interest in comics. For Issey, the content he was interested in had never changed, but rather its medium. This is shown through the first graphic novel he had created The Reign of God.

When I asked what inspired Issey to create The Reign of God. He said he was inspired by his political beliefs about the bible, as well as the political climate during the time of the Bush administration. He mentioned, as a Christian, he was upset about the way the Bush administration was using theological terms lightly such as “crusades”, to justify going to war with Iraq. In addition to this, he was also inspired by snippets of everyday life, as well as another documentary film Iraq in Fragments. Originally, Issey said that he wanted to make The Reign of God into a series of documentaries, but finding that he had changed his medium he had decided to create The Reign of God into a comic instead.

One of the issues that Issey had while creating The Reign of God was organizing his research. Issey had to read a lot of books ranging from history, theology, culture to research papers, as well as a trip to Israel and Palestine, to determine what information was suitable or not. Issey, through the The Reign of God, aimed to create a story of Jesus that was more human, and much more political than he thought earlier. A major challenge he found was integrating the information about religion, society, and culture, as at the time he found the three topics were more intertwined.

It is through Reign of God, Issey aimed to create a less conventional outlook on Jesus as a character.  Instead of standard biblical doctrines, Issey aimed to focus on Jesus’s struggles, as well as the character drama involved behind each of the characters in the bible.

After completing The Reign of God, Issey mentioned that he had learned a lot about Jesus on a personal level. He was also surprised about the depth and broadness of people’s research into Christianity. Opinions ranging from one side of the spectrum to another. Concluding, he says, he has also learnt about the comic-process a lot more in general compared to when he has started his 30-page pilot on Reign of God years ago.

In the future, Issey plans on completing his Reign of God project that he plans to be a series of 7-8 books.

This article was written by Sabine Kwan, an intern at Squishface Studio. To see more of his work, feel free to visit his website.

[r4ct]

Habermas’ Minimal Facts Of The Resurrection

Habermas’ Minimal Facts Of The Resurrection by Eric R, simpleprofundity.com March 31st 2013 (On this Easter morning, I thought I’d give you a repost from last May. Enjoy.) On Sunday, I preached from Acts 2 on the events surrounding Pentecost. During the sermon, I discussed Dr. Gary Habermas’ 12 Minimal Facts approach to proving the historical reality of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Habermas has studied the resurrection for nearly 30 years, and most scholars consider him to be the world’s leading expert on the topic. He is well-known in philosophical circles, and is a recognized scholar. In 2000, Habermas, a professor of philosophy at Liberty University, decided he needed to update his bibliography. As he was working through his material, he began to notice a pattern. There were certain perspectives that everyone he was reading shared, and this started him on a project of cataloguing all the material discussing the resurrection of Jesus written since 1975. The research included everything written in French, German, and English. It included sources written by scholars from all across the theological and philosophical spectrum: Evangelicals, liberal Protestants, Catholics, and atheists. Five years, and 2400 sources later, Habermas has compiled a list of 12 minimal facts related to the resurrection on which 95% of all scholars agree. 1. Jesus died by crucifixion. Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not really die by crucifixion. They argue that somehow Jesus survived being crucified and appeared to the disciples a few days later. The problem with this argument is that there is absolutely no record of anyone ever surviving being crucified. There is a single recorded incident of two men surviving a crucifixion. They suffered greatly, and the emperor felt pity and had them brought down from the cross. He provided them with the best medical treatment available, but they died a few days later from their injuries. No one has ever survived being crucified. Further, if Jesus had survived, he would’ve been so badly beaten, there is no possible way the apostles would’ve mistaken him for a resurrected Messiah. 95% of all mainstream scholars agree that Jesus died, really died, on a Roman cross. 2. He was buried. Some have argued that Jesus was never actually buried, but that some of is were led to believe he was. 3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. Essentially everyone agrees that the disciples really believed Jesus was dead. They were hiding from the authorities believing their own lives might be in danger. 4. The tomb was empty. This is the most contested of the 12 facts at about 75% agreement. Still, that’s 75% of over 2,000 sources. So again, most scholars agree that the tomb was empty when the women came to care for Jesus’ body. 5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. This is possibly the most important proof, and 95% of all biblical scholars, historians, and philosophers agree that the disciples believed the Jesus they saw was a real, physical Jesus. The disciples did not believe they had a hallucination. In fact, the objection that the disciples were having a grief induced group hallucination has been thoroughly debunked. First, there is absolutely no record of group hallucinations where every person involved saw the same thing. The few hundred witnesses saw Jesus at different times and places. They did not all see him at the same time. Imagine the likelihood that we would all come together, pop a little LSD, and all have exactly the same vision. That just doesn’t happen. Some want to argue that this was grief induced. However, research shows that grief induced hallucinations happen almost exclusively to the elderly who have lost a spouse, and only about 7% of those hallucinations are both audible and visual. Grief hallucinations on the scale required to fool so many witnesses do not happen. There is no classification for grief hallucinations in the DSM-IV. There is no evidence for mass grief hallucinations because they do not happen. Lastly, the apostle Paul claimed to have seen the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul was a persecutor of the church, he was no friend of Jesus, and his seeing and hearing Jesus can not be explained as a grief hallucination. 6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers. Everyone agrees that whatever happened, it radically changed the disciples. Peter’s sermon on Pentecost is a prime example of this phenomenon. Peter stands in front of some of the very people responsible for Jesus’ death, accuses them of killing the chosen Messiah/King sent by God, and challenges them to repent. A man in Peter’s position does not do this unless he is convinced he has seen the risen Jesus. Everyone agrees the disciples were convinced proclaimers. 7. The resurrection was the central message. Studying the sermons in Acts, teachings of Paul in the epistles, and early church fathers, everyone agrees that the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus was the core teaching of those early Christians. This fact indicates that they believed in the physical and historical event, prompting them to faith in Christ. 8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem. Everyone agrees that Peter and the apostles preached the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem at Pentecost and subsequent to it. They may not affirm the miraculous aspects of the Pentecost event, but everyone agrees that Christianity was born in Jerusalem among Jewish converts. That devout Jews, who traveled from all over the Roman world, would come to Jerusalem and be converted to follow a dead Jewish rabbi is extremely unlikely unless they were certain that rabbi was no longer dead. 9. The Church was born and grew. Historical fact. It happened. 10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship. Devout Jews would not do this, as it was forbidden in the Law of Moses, unless they were certain that Jesus had fulfilled the law, and a new covenant was instituted by the resurrected Messiah. 11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus. It is an accepted fact that James was skeptical of Jesus. However, it is also accepted fact that he later was leader of the church in Jerusalem. The most plausible explanation is that he didn’t accept his half-brother’s claims about himself until after he witnessed the resurrected Jesus. 12. Paul was converted to the faith. Here again we have Paul, the persecutor of the early Christians. He was an important figure, a Jew among Jews, and a young man on the rise among the important people in Israel. Then – quite suddenly – he chucks it all, endures beatings, jail, threats, illness, and shipwreck for the sake of preaching the message of the resurrected Jesus. This is accepted by everyone as historical fact. So, after looking at these 12 facts that 95% of all scholars agree upon, Habermas argues that though none of these individually is proof of the resurrection, when taken as a whole, they point strongly to the high probability that Jesus did in fact come alive again by some supernatural means. It is simply more probable, in light of the accepted facts, that Jesus did rise from the dead. Note: Philosopher William Lane Craig affirms Habermas’ research, and agrees that in his experience as the preeminent Christian apologist/debater, the vast majority of his opponents agree with these 12 facts. Craig has argued that the historical fact of the resurrection is also strong evidence for the existence of God. It follows that since Jesus did rise from the dead, someone must have acted upon him to make that happen. I have read reports stating that after a debate with Habermas, longtime atheist stalwart Antony Flew renounced his atheism. Original Page: http://simpleprofundity.com/2013/03/31/habermas-minimal-facts/

[hollowlandsstuff]

Cain and Abel in text and tradition : Jewish and Christian interpretations of the first sibling rivalry / by John Byron. Pt. I

The story of Cain and Abel is a story of firsts. Readers of the Bible are accustomed to hearing that the first ever recorded murder happened in Genesis 4. But that notorious act was only one among a number of “firsts” in biblical history that are located in Genesis 4. The mention of Cain and Abel’s activities as farmer and shepherd is the first time that human beings chose their occupation (4:2). The account of the brothers’ sacrifice is the earliest presentation of deity worship in the Bible. It is also the first ever account of God rejecting a worshipper’s offering. While Adam and Eve both clearly disobeyed God by partaking of the forbidden fruit, their act is never labeled as “sin.” The first appearance of the word “sin” is in Gen 4:7 when God imparts a warning to Cain. Genesis 4 is also the first time a human being dies. The first person to die is Abel at the hands of his brother, which is also the first time that blood is mentioned in the Bible (4:10–11). Strangely, the first murder is accompanied by the first promise of divine protection that allows the murderer to go off, raise a family and build the first recorded city (4:15–17). The Cain and Abel story provides the genesis for a number of biblical topics.

On the other hand, the story generates more questions than answers. The initial, perhaps most puzzling question is: Why did God reject Cain’s sacrifice? What was it about Abel’s offering that pleased God more than that of Cain? Following upon that question would be the mystery of why Cain killed Abel. While commentators ancient and modern suggest that it was because Cain was jealous of Abel, the Bible provides no more a specific reason for the murder than it does for what makes Abel’s sacrifice better than Cain’s. The Bible simply is silent on both of those topics. Even when details are provided, they often raise questions rather than provide answers. For instance, why should the first murderer receive divine protection and be allowed to marry, raise a family and initiate a monumental building project? How, in light of the crime, is this justice for murdered Abel? Even more significantly, what does this say about God and the way that the affairs of the world are handled by the divine?

The more one digs into these questions the more theological dilemmas appear to bedevil the interpreter. Moreover, these are questions that are formulated by a mere cursory reading of the text. A critical analysis of the story, with the aid of the original languages, reveals a host of problems. Gaps in details, unusual terminology, and tortured syntax add to the confusing mix one encounters when trying to read, let alone interpret and understand, this story. One would think that such an important story detailing the origins of so many things from sex to city planning would have been put together rather more carefully.

[solatgif]

TGIF: ROUNDUP FOR NOVEMBER 15, 2019

What is SOLA Network? We exist to influence the emerging generation with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We provide Gospel-centered resources through annual conferences, our digital platform, connecting leaders, and more. Watch our brand new banner video on Facebook.

Christians must think critically about current events, and this week our articles focused on Paula White in the White House, John MacArthur and Beth Moore, Kanye West, and poverty. I encourage you to give each of them a careful read.

Our TGIF roundups are a great way to stay connected with SOLA. Get them delivered straight to your inbox by subscribing via email. And if you have something to share with our readers, tweet me @musicgoon or email me at aaron@musicgoon.com.

LINK ROUNDUP

1. P. J. Tibayan: When is a Church “Revitalized?” Pt. 2

Writing for The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) Mathena Center for Church Revitalization, P. J. Tibayan calls us to healthy Christ-shaped and Christ-centered churches.

2. Joe Carter: 9 Things You Should Know About Cohabitation in America

The Gospel Coalition on cohabiting couples - a topic that I find especially relevant for collegians and young adults.

3. Jenny G. Zhang: The Rise (and Stall) of the Boba Generation

Writing for Eater.com, staff writer Jenny G. Zhang reports on how identity, image, and iconography are all bound together in bubble tea.

4. Leo (pseudonym): A Key Way that Christians around the World Can Contribute to Gospel Growth in China

ChinaSource reports on how returnees and restrictions combined with large numbers of those in positions of leadership and influence are contributing to gospel growth.

5. Andrew Jacobs: Behind Hong Kong’s Protesters, an Army of Volunteer Pastors, Doctors and Artists

A look at the people behind the headlines by Andrew Jacobs for The New York Times.

WEEKEND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Center for Biblical Studies at Midwestern Seminary Podcast: Mentoring the Next Generation of Scholars

“Dr. Andreas Köstenberger and Jimmy Roh continue their conversation with Dr. Tom Schreiner to discuss his thoughts on mentoring the next generation of biblical scholars along with his forthcoming publications.”

2. TGC: Should Churches Have a Separate Ministry for Single Young Adults?

“Alex Choi, Michael Lee, and Steve Bang Lee talk life-stage ministries, community, preferences, and preaching to people who aren’t in the room.”

3. TGC: Effective Ministry to Asian Americans

“Stephen Um, Alexander Jun, and Julius Kim address dangers for churches to avoid when ministering to Asian Americans as well as the need to disciple “Gospel Rich Asians.”

4. SBTS: Albert Mohler Heritage Week Chapel

Albert Mohler takes the pulpit at the 13-minute mark with thoughts on church architecture and reflections on 1 John 1:5.

5. Aaron Lee: Book Reviews

This week I reviewed Don’t Lose Heart by Jason Meyer and God’s Word for Today by John Stott with Tim Chester.

FROM SOLA

1. Oh Young Kwon: 3 Lessons to Empower Your Church’s Neighborhood Outreach

“We end up defining the poor and the downtrodden according to their condition, not their potential. We view them as burdensome projects at best and at worst, irreparable debacles. Although humanitarian effort and generous donations are essential, God wants His people to go beyond what the world can mimic as we maximize the potential of local missions.”

2. P. J. Tibayan: Why Kanye West Needs the Local Church

“Kanye West claims to be a Christian and declares Jesus is Lord, Savior, and King. Some exclaim, ‘Praise the Lord for our new brother!’ Others mutter, ‘Let's wait and see if he is a real Christian.’ As Christians, we want to honor Christ and love Kanye West as our neighbor, but what do we do with his public profession of faith?”

3. Soojin Park: A Letter to my Complementarian Brothers

“In the last few weeks since the John MacArthur and Beth Moore incident, I’ve wrestled with a lot of thoughts and emotions as I grappled with what I heard and read. For those of you not yet aware of what happened, at his recent Truth Matters Conference, MacArthur was asked to give a gut-reaction response to current-day topics. One of the prompts was simply, ‘Beth Moore’ — a speaker and Bible teacher who has come under fire for some of her public ministry, particularly in the context of gender roles.”

4. Michael Agapito: Paula White and the Prosperity Gospel Isn’t New, and it’s Hurting Christians Now

“Last week, prosperity gospel preacher Paula White officially joined the Trump administration as the head of the White House’s ‘Faith and Opportunity Initiative.’ White, who acts as Trump’s spiritual advisor and claims to represent the interests of ‘evangelical’ Christians, is a known proponent of what is known as ‘prosperity theology’ — the belief that God promises a life of health, wealth, and abundance to people based on their piety and their offerings. But far from being representative of evangelical Christianity, White and the ‘prosperity gospel’ she promotes is antithetical to it.”

5. Thank God It’s Friday: Weekend Roundup

In case you missed it, here are some headlines from last week: What the Church Can Learn from Sesame Street, Why I Dropped Out Of An Ivy League College Just 3 Weeks Into Freshman Year, My Advice to Struggling Artists - Seek First God’s Kingdom, and One Family Built Forever 21 - and Fueled Its Collapse.

[catholiccom-blog]

In September 1996 I resigned my ministry as a Protestant pastor to enter the Catholic Church.

It was a decision that was easy for me to make in that I was convinced Catholicism was true and that the Catholic Church was my spiritual home. It was a decision that was nearly impossible to make in that I understood the implications of that decision. I knew what it would entail in practical terms.

This was made beautifully manifest, shall we say, when three months after leaving the ministry I was standing in the kitchen of the restaurant where I was then working as a waiter. I was folding napkins and thinking about Martin Luther when I suddenly heard someone yelling about something. I looked up and saw my manager standing in the doorway. She was literally screaming at me to fold the napkins faster.

I remember mumbling an apology, cranking up the speed and thinking to myself, What the hell have I done?

But then, there were reasons for doing what I did. I didn't leave Protestantism, the Protestant ministry, my career and only source of income because I liked the smell of incense. There were reasons, and one of the most important had to do with the topic we've been on for quite a few blog posts now: sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura had been the very foundation of my worldview as an evangelical. It was the very atmosphere breathed at the Bible college I attended, in seminary, in every church I'd been a part of or pastored. And then the time came when I was challenged with the questions: is sola scriptura really the teaching of Scripture? Was it really the belief and practice of the early Church?

Over time I came to believe it wasn't.

But that wasn't all. I also came to believe that sola scriptura is unworkable as a mode of operation for the Church.

And I don't mean simply that it doesn't work well and that we need to work harder to accurately interpret the Bible and pray harder for the guidance of the Spirit in order to make sola scriptura work. What I mean is that even in principle it does not—and indeed cannot—work.

Since the time of the Reformation, the practice of “Scripture alone” has served as a perfect blueprint for theological anarchy.

It can’t be what Jesus intended for his Church.

The Catholic view of authority

At the time of the Reformation in the sixtennth century, the Church’s position on the issue of authority was essentially the same as it had been since the time of the early Church Fathers: authority was seen as residing in the inner working of Scripture, apostolic Tradition and an authoritative magisterium.

One Christian might say this and another that. Debates might rage between various theologians and schools of thought. Great doctors of the Church might wrangle and dispute. But when the time comes that a decision must be made, and the Church examines the light of the inspired word of God through the lens of Sacred Tradition, and through its ordained leadership formally defines a matter of faith or practice, what Catholics believe is that the Holy Spirit leads the Church so that the conclusion it comes to can be trusted as true. The Church can say what it said at the conclusion of its first council in Jerusalem: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28).

The Catholic view of how Scripture, Tradition, and magisterium work together to provide a basis of authority for the Christian is beautifully summarized in the Vatican II document Dei Verbum:

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God, which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone….Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.  It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully (DV 9).

The origin of sola scriptura

At the time of the Reformation Luther and the other Protestants were teaching doctrines that contradicted what Tradition and the magisterium had established as true.

Luther said, in essence, “The Church is wrong on this issue." (The specific issue doesn’t matter at this point.) The Church said, in essence, “No, you’re wrong.” Luther said, “No, you're wrong.” The Church said, “But what you're teaching contradicts the formal teaching of the Church on this issue.”

With this the foundational issue of authority was raised, and Luther faced a watershed: what did he believe about who has authority to decide what the true teachings of Christianity are? Did the Church have authority when, having examined Scripture and Tradition, it made formal ruling on an issue of doctrine or morals?  

Or was it up to each Christian to decide?

Luther really had only two options: he could stand with the authority of the Church and say, “You know, it sure seems to me that this is what the Bible is teaching, but I must be missing something. I must be wrong.” Or he could abandon the authority of the Church and stand on his own interpretation of the Bible, whatever the cost.

We all know what Luther did. He stood before the Diet of Worms and said:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scripture or by evident reason . . . I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis. My conscience is captive to the word of God.

It is nearly impossible to exaggerate the profound meaning of this moment in the history of Christianity. At the moment Luther spoke those words, the foundation of the Catholic worldview, its very basis of authority—the light of Sacred Scripture, seen through the lens of Sacred Tradition, interpreted by the teaching office of the Church—was rejected, abandoned, set aside. And the foundation of the Protestant worldview was laid: Scripture is the Christian's sole and sufficient infallible rule of faith and practice.

Practical implications

So what are the implications of saying that Scripture will function as my “sole and sufficient infallible rule of faith and practice”?

It means that whatever the Fathers of the Church may have said, whatever Church councils may have decided, on whatever popes and theologians and pastors and teachers may have insisted, in the end I am going to be bound only by what I determine the Bible to be teaching.

The primary and inescapable practical implication of sola scriptura is what is called the “right of private judgment,” or the “right of private interpretation.” It's the right of each Christian to read, study, and decide for himself what he believes the true teachings of Christianity to be.

Of course, Catholics also believe in the right of private interpretation. It's just that we hold this to be a limited right, a right practiced within the limits of what the Church has already formally defined to be true.

As Catholics, we're like children at the playground. We're free to swing and slide and sit in the sandbox of Scripture, throwing biblical texts into one another's eyes. But there's a fence around the playground that keeps us from wandering out into the street and being run over by every passing theological fad.

Luther ripped out that fence. He took what had been a limited right and made it an absolute right. "Unless I am convinced." In other words, in the final analysis, I don’t care what popes have said! I don’t care what the councils have said! I don't care what the Tradition of the Church has been. Unless I am convinced from Scripture and evident reason . . . “Unless I am convinced . . .”

And when you think about it, in the absence of the kind of Church we see functioning in the New Testament, a Church with the Spirit-given ability to pronounce authoritatively on the true teachings of Christianity—the kind of Church the Catholic Church claims to be—what is left but to say that each Christian has to right to decide for himself?

Luther put it like this: “In these matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself pope and church”(Werke, 5:407, 35)

In his “Reply to Sadoleto,” John Calvin stated the same belief in these words:

We hold that the word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment. . . . Fathers and councils are of authority only in so far as they accord with the rule of the word (emphasis added).

Sounds good, but of course there's a hitch: the word of God has to be read and interpreted. All of the material of revelation may be there in the pages of Scripture, either stated or implied. But someone has to pull together the many strands of scriptural evidence, draw out those implications, and come to conclusions about what is being taught. Someone has to interpret Scripture.

So when Calvin says, "Fathers and councils are of authority only in so far as they accord with the rule of the word," what he's really saying is, "Fathers and councils are of authority only in so far as what they say accords with what I determine the Bible to be teaching."

The unraveling of the Church

It’s easy to project what would come of this.

As soon as Luther and Calvin and the others began preaching sola scriptura and the right of private interpretation, immediately there was an explosion of interpretations of Scripture and with this an explosion of divisions within Protestantism. The immediate result was doctrinal chaos.

It’s easy to see this in the current situation where Christians assume it is their right and duty to determine whether the Baptists are right or the Presbyterians or the Methodists or the Lutherans or the Seventh-day Adventists or the teaching of some independent teacher or denomination.

But listen to what one prominent Protestant theologian and professor was saying within a couple years of Luther’s launching of the Reformation:

Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the gospel better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers. . . . There is no smearer but when he has heard a sermon or can read a chapter in German, makes a doctor of himself and . . . convinces himself that he knows everything better than all who teach him.

And in another place:

There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit, and he himself a prophet

Interesting quotes. Especially when you know these are the words of Martin Luther himself.

Conclusion

It makes sense that sola scriptura and the right of private interpretation would lead to doctrinal chaos among Christians, and in terms of the simple facts of history, it seems obvious that it has. It also makes sense to think that Jesus would want to establish his Church with some method for authoritatively deciding matters of faith and practice, Doesn’t it make sense to think he wouldn’t simply toss a pile of books and letters into our laps and say, “Do your best!”?

I remember the day I read the following passage from Vincent of Lerins and thought, “Yes this is how it must be”:

Here someone may ask: since the canon of Scriptures is complete, and is in itself adequate, why is there any need to join to its authority the understanding of the Church. Because Holy Scripture, on account of its depth, is not accepted in a universal sense. The same statements are interpreted in one way by one person, in another sense by someone else, with the result that there seem to be as many opinions as there are people. . . . Therefore, on account of the number and variety of errors, there is a need for someone to lay down a rule for the interpretation of the prophets and the apostles in such a way that it is directed by the rule of the Catholic Church (see Alister E. McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 50-51).

To be continued . . .

[wutbju]

So in response to Professor Swamidass' measured call for transparency and oversight in the creation science curriculum, Answers in Genesis' own Ken Ham has a winner of a retort. Rhetoricians call it "cunning projection." Notice how Ken Ham refuses any difference of opinion at all. On anything. And, in the end, he manages to sneak in "critical race theory."

It's always about white supremacy. It's always BEEN about white supremacy. It's never been anything different for this crowd. Ever.

Should Christian colleges be held to a “higher academic standard”? Well, before I answer that, let’s discuss what that question means. Most people reading it might think “well, of course, if Christian colleges are being held to a lesser standard than other colleges, they should be held to the same academic standards as everyone else.” But is that really what the question was asking? (And this really matters, so read on!)

So a researcher at Washington University recently wrote an opinion piece (which I have read in full) that has been shared widely. Consider the following headline from a Christian news publication that reported on the commentary:

The researcher who wrote the opinion piece is an ardent defender of evolution and also a professing Christian. He claims he believes Adam and Eve were real people, but he doesn’t mean anything close to what you would think he means when he writes that.

He claims he wants schools that deviate from the “national norm” to be held to “higher academic standards.”

Okay, here’s the context for why the researcher is writing this opinion piece. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is considering whether or not to continue the accreditation of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), which itself accredits Christian colleges and schools. He claims he wants schools that deviate from the “national norm” to be held to “higher academic standards.” So what does he mean by that? Well, his piece is extremely deceptive. The way he writes it and what he means by much of what he says is deceptive. He claims that he’s for Christian schools and “academic freedom.” but that’s not really what he means.

Here’s some of what he stated as a “compromise” for Christian colleges:

Credit from courses that include creation science should not be used toward science degrees, nor should they be eligible for transfer to secular institutions.

So, within the context of the full opinion piece, what he means by “national norm” is “teaching evolution.” And by “higher academic standards” he means “teaching evolution.” In his commentary he’s ultimately saying that Christians can have the “academic freedom” to believe what they want but, really, they should be required to teach evolution as fact. And, if they’re going to teach creation (he specifically singles out young earth creation) to students, those classes should be “prominently disclosed, tracked and reported,” including on students’ transcripts. Such an approach would harm students who studied at a Christian college from being able to transfer to a different school (e.g., for grad work) and would require them to take more classes since their hard-earned credits wouldn’t transfer to “secular institutions.” So he’s not really “for” Christian colleges or academic freedom whatsoever!

This researcher fundamentally misunderstands two things. One—there is no neutrality. “Secular” institutions aren’t really secular at all—they are religious (every person has a worldview and thus is religious, even the atheist).

This researcher fundamentally misunderstands two things. One—there is no neutrality. “Secular” institutions aren’t really secular at all—they are religious (every person has a worldview and thus is religious, even the atheist). If you don’t have the foundation of God’s Word, you explain everything without God. That’s the foundation of naturalism which is based on atheism. Evolution is a religion grounded in naturalism and atheism! So the author really insists Christian schools teach the foundation of atheism in the classroom . . . but, don’t worry, teachers and students can have their own personal beliefs on the side.

The second thing the author misunderstands is the nature of science itself. There’s really two kinds of science—observational and historical science. Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It is what drives medical and technological innovation. Historical science deals with the past. It’s not directly testable, observable, or repeatable. Evidence must be interpreted. And what you believe about the past (evolution and millions of years vs. the history given to us in God’s Word) provides the framework, the worldview, through which you interpret the evidence.

Ironically, the author sets up the argument as “science vs. religion” while saying that there isn’t really “a tension between religion and science” because what he really means is: evolution and millions of years and the Bible are compatible (which they are not, as documented here and here). But the battle actually isn’t “science vs. religion”—it’s “religion vs. religion.” Will we start with the foundation of naturalism (man’s word) or will we start with the Word of God? That’s the ultimate battle.

It’s worth pointing out that this researcher isn’t qualified to even write on the question of creation science in the classroom or to “recommend” anything pertaining to, what he calls, young earth creation science because he really doesn’t know the creationist arguments well at all and frankly doesn’t know what he is talking about. What do I mean? Well, he has already demonstrated that he really doesn’t know what biblical creationists (young earth creationists) believe. He has written on the topic but makes no attempt to engage any of the scholarly creationist literature published on Adam and Eve, either scientific or theological, and his numerous attacks on biblical creation science are nothing more than strawmen.

In his piece, the researcher singles out Bob Jones University, a school that teaches biblical creation because they start with God’s Word as their authority. They offer excellent science courses in biology, geology, chemistry, etc. because they teach observational science (just like any other school). But when it comes to origins science, they start with God’s Word so they teach a different perspective. Here’s what the president of BJU, Steve Pettit, said, calling this researcher’s claims “misleading”:

Our students, while adhering to biblical viewpoints on the origin and diversity of life, must be fully conversant with, and able to think critically about both models . . . [This] ‘compromise’—excluding credit from courses presenting evidence for multiple models—would marginalize outstanding scientists with biblical viewpoints about origins.

I was recently interviewed about this commentary for a Christian radio program and I was asked if I agreed with someone who had called the researcher’s ideas “dangerous.” I said “absolutely, he’s dangerous because he’s hiding what he’s really trying to do behind academic-sounding words, and people who are Christians will think he’s on side with these colleges. But he’s not at all. It’s all deceptive.”

In this radio interview, I also shared that this is dangerous because secularists are the majority in this country (there’s more on the broad way than the narrow), and when they see him—a professing Christian and a scientist—coming against Christian colleges like this, they will love it, and it will give them even more impetus to attack these colleges. (And, of course, why would the policing of what’s taught be limited to just science classes? What about schools that don’t teach critical race theology, or intersectionality, or “pro-choice” or any of the other “national norms” of our day?). In today’s environment if you’re a political conservative, you can be fired from your job or from teaching. His ultimate aim is to make sure students from these colleges that teach creation can’t get higher degrees or find jobs. He wants to stop these colleges from doing what they are doing, all the while appearing to be on their side. It’s rather like the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” Jesus mentioned in Matthew 7:15.

It’s very sad to see it coming from someone who professes Christ—someone who should start his thinking with the Word of God, from the very first verse, and not with outside ideas.

Yes, this is a dangerous and deceptive way of thinking and it’s very sad to see it coming from someone who professes Christ—someone who should start his thinking with the Word of God, from the very first verse, and not with outside ideas.

Ironically, his personal blog claims to be about “peaceful science” and yet he is consistently “picking fights” with biblical creationists (this article on Christian colleges is just another example), while refusing to engage honestly with what we actually believe and teach! I would urge him to repent of his compromise towards God’s Word and his dishonesty, believe the Bible from the very first verse, and stand for actual religious and academic freedom and diversity of thought in this nation.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken