A Review of Jesus: His Life

Each Monday leading up to holy week, the History Channel is airing a docu-series called Jesus: His Life. The show awkwardly mixes in dramatic reenactments of the story of Jesus with commentary from an assemblage of (mostly liberal) Bible scholars.

The trailer to the show says that this is the life of Christ "told through the eyes of those who knew Him best." History has never done very well with the story of Jesus. Their mini-series The Bible (more accurately termed The Bobble) was terrible. In addition to biblical inaccuracies, it just wasn't entertaining. Jesus: His Life is equally dull. The mix of drama with commentary doesn't work. The thematic scenes fail to be captivating, and the theotwits do not add any life to the program.

Given that the show is flat and fallacious, I don't know why you'd want to bother with it enough to even read my review. But I offer this up anyway! The following is a play-by-play of the first episode, examining the life of Jesus though the eyes of Joseph. The time stamps are according to the video stream I watched on History's website, sans commercial breaks. And away we go!

1:00 — Oh, hello Joel. Yup, Joel Osteen is the executive producer of this little number, so he's one of the "experts" who will be popping up every now and then.

2:00 — The introduction is very "This is the story of how Jesus changed the world." This is not going to be about how Jesus was sent by God and died as an atoning sacrifice for those who will believe in Him. This is going to be about how Jesus bucked the status quo and brought about a revolution of social change. This show will not present the gospel. Phrases like "Savior of the world" might come up, but they'll never be explained. They'll be framed in a social context, not a gospel one.

6:30 — Aside from some questionable theotwits, the information so far has been factual for the most part.

7:45 — When Gabriel appears to Mary, he says, "Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God. If you choose to accept His plan, you will conceive in your womb and give birth a son." Not only does this make the announcement to Mary staunchly Arminian, it's also pro-choice! Mary got to choose to have a baby. In Luke 1:31-32, Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus."

9:00 — Mary asks Gabriel, "Why has He chosen me?" Gabriel replies, "You are pure of heart and soul." According to the story in Luke 1, Mary did not ask that question, nor was Mary told that was the reason she was chosen. Gabriel said to her, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" When Mary was troubled, Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God." She was favored because God chose her, not because she merited worthiness.

9:30 — James Martin says, "Notice that when she says yes to the angel, she doesn't ask her husband or her father. She says to it on her own. So this is a very strong woman." The feminism is strong with this one.

11:00 — Dr. Otis Moss III says, "When Mary says, 'I'm pregnant, and you're not the father,' Joseph probably reacted in a typical male fashion. That's why I love the story because it does not sugar-coat it as making Joseph holier than thou." That's why you love the story? Because of your own conjecture? Not because it's about the birth of the Savior of the world? The show then portrays Joseph losing his temper, breaking stuff apart and throwing it around the house he had been building for him and Mary.

13:00 — Several teachers are cited as saying that if Joseph outs Mary publicly as having sex outside of wedlock, she could be killed under Jewish law. "Adultery is a crime punishable by death," according to Dr. Robert Cargill. That's true (Deuteronomy 22:20-24), but it's unlikely Mary would have been put to death. The Jews couldn't exercise capital punishment without permission from Rome. The Bible gives us no sense that Mary's life was in danger. The only people being stoned to death at that period of time were those who would preach the gospel (Acts 7:59).

13:30 — Ah, Michael Curry, the Love Bishop.

14:30 — Joseph is seen cleaning up the house he trashed after his rage fit. I've been waiting to see if anyone will actually quote the Scripture itself. No one has. Matthew 1:18-19 says:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Being a "just man," he knew what the law said concerning unfaithfulness. Being "unwilling to put her to shame," he was not going to make a public spectacle of Mary. He knew the law was on his side. Rage-trashing his house is not divorcing her quietly.

16:30 — An angel speaks to Joseph in a dream and tells him the child in Mary's womb is from the Holy Spirit. When Joseph goes back to Mary, I have to admit, I found the interaction between them rather touching. But then this lovely scene was interrupted by silly commentary.

20:00 — Dr. Cargill explains, "There are two major problems with the census described in the gospel of Luke. The first is that the census takes place about a decade after Jesus has already been born. The second problem is that Roman censuses did not require people to return to their ancestral home. Most scholars think that Luke used this census as a device to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem because the prophecies say that the Messiah will be born in the city of David, in Bethlehem of Judea."

I covered this in my book 25 Christmas Myths and What the Bible Says. There are no problems with the census in Luke. The explanation is simple. Luke does not give an exact time reference to when the census took place. He said, "In those days," which is an unspecific period of time, and "this was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria." All Luke is pointing to is that these events were part of the same drama, not that they all happened at exactly the same time. There was no reason to use "a device to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem." Matthew didn't use such an explanation in his gospel.

The dates often used by historians for the Christmas story are based on the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. But sometimes Josephus was off by as much as a decade. Why are scholars so quick to villify Luke but justify Josephus? Luke under the appointment of the Holy Spirit is spotless in the telling of the gospel. Oh, and contrary to Dr. Cargill's claims, people did return to their lands when a census was taken.

21:45 — Ben Witherington III says, "[Joseph and Mary] barely got [to Bethlehem] before it was time for Mary to give birth." Not true, but that's a minor point. I appreciate that the show does correct the myth that Jesus was born in a barn. He wasn't. He was born in a house filled with family.

23:30 — Professor Nicola Denzey Lewis says, "Millions of women died in childbirth." Millions of women in Judea died in childbirth?

25:00 — Shut up, Joel.

25:30 — Whenever an angel appears to someone in this show and says, "Do not be afraid," they're just kind of like, "Who are you?" No one is actually afraid.

27:30 — The show continues the myth that there were only three wise men. Except they made the black wise man the lead guy now instead of the token sidekick.

28:00 — Right before the commercial break, Dr. Cargill says of the magi, "Meeting Herod the Great must have been terrifying." They probably had no idea who he was. But gotta keep the viewers in suspense!

29:00 — The show has the magi arriving at night. There's no commotion in the city. Yet the Bible says they came to Jerusalem asking, "'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star when it rose and have come to worship Him.' When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him" (Matthew 2:2-3). The number of magi and the size of their caravan were enough to alert all of Jerusalem and earn the magi an audience before Herod. This was a big deal. In fact the question they asked, "Where is the King of the Jews," was asked of Jesus by Pontius Pilate over 30 years later.

30:30 — The magi say, "We followed a star. Our charts tell us it heralds the birth of a messiah." No, they knew the star was leading them to the Messiah because they had the Jewish Scriptures.

32:30 — Joseph tries to refuse the gifts of the magi. That was weird.

33:00 — The Love Bishop says love things.

34:00 — Right before the commercial break, Joseph rebukes the magi for coming because they've put Jesus's life at risk. Oh, good grief. Drama for the sake of drama.

35:30 — The Love Bishop says, "Joseph keeps getting these dreams in Matthew's gospel. He gets the dream that tells him the child is a miracle of God. Then he gets the dream telling him to flee Palestine and go to Egypt." Joseph wasn't listening to dreams. He was obeying God. Matthew 2:13 says, "An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Rise, take the child and His mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy Him.'" The show doesn't depict that. Instead, the show portrays Joseph having a vision of Herod giving the order to kill baby boys in Bethlehem.

39:30 — Joseph and Mary barely elude the guards and get Jesus out of Bethlehem during the massacre of the innocents. (I really thought I'd done a WWUTT video on the massacre of the innocents. Apparently not. I'll get on that for next Christmas.)

40:30 — Joshua Dubois, Faith Advisor to President Obama, says, "The holy family become refugees." These comments are always more politically loaded than they are biblically accurate. A refugee is someone forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or have been displaced because of a natural disaster. Yes, Joseph and Mary fled Judea to escape the wrath of Herod, but they never left the Roman empire. They would have gone to the Jewish settlement in Alexandria, Egypt. There they were quite secure among their own people, and they had the gifts from the magi to pay for their stay. This was not like we would consider a modern-day refugee.

41:00 — Dr. Moss points out that Joseph protected his wife and a child who was not his own. "Joseph becomes a beautiful model for fatherhood today. Where would we be if we had more men who operated like Joseph?" I appreciate the sentiment. But the question is better asked, "Where would we be if more men obeyed God?"

Part 2 examining the life of Jesus through the eyes of John the Baptist coming at a later time... Maybe. If I think I can stomach more of this.

Francis Chan Defends His Friendship With False Teachers

Yesterday, Francis Chan responded to the harsh accusations that he has been aligning with heretics. A recent article published at The Cripplegate was entitled Farewell Francis. The author Jordan Standridge warned that Chan "is sharing the stage with false teachers who will spend eternity in Hell (Gal. 1:6-9)." He pleaded for Chan to repent and "come back to your first love!"

Chan has been on a steady decline over the last few years. Preaching with Mike Bickle at the International House of Prayer may have been a head-scratcher, but it wasn't enough to denounce Chan as developing an alliance with the enemy. Maybe Chan didn't know that Bickle claimed to have gone to heaven and had a personal audience with Jesus. Maybe Chan didn't know Bickle teaches that we bring about Christ's return through prayer (according to what Jesus personally told him). Maybe Chan didn't know that Bickle has claimed there will be new apostles preaching things you will not be able to find in the Bible, and they will be superior to the biblical apostles. But Chan continued his association with IHOP, never arriving at a knowledge of the truth about this false church.

Everything came to a head last month when Chan preached at a conference in Orlando known as The Send (formerly known as The Call), featuring some of the worst teachers out there—Benny Hinn, Heidi Baker, Todd White, Rodney Howard Browne, and Bill Johnson to name a few. Following The Send, pictures started emerging of Chan being buddies with these charlatans. He embraced them as brothers and praised them for being bold men and women of God. This has prompted many, including myself, to warn people to stay away from Francis Chan. He is no longer trustworthy.

Questions have been raised for a few years regarding Chan's associations, but Chan has remained silent (except for claiming that he loved Mike Bickle). Finally he responded this weekend in a blog entitled A Response to Some Concerns by Francis Chan. I won't post the entire thing word for word—you can read it for yourself by clicking the link. I will highlight some critical points, and then my response will follow.

Chan wrote:

From what I hear from friends and critics (I stay away from social media, etc), there have been a lot of conclusions drawn from my decision to speak at The Send conference as well as other venues. Some people have questioned my willingness to take pictures with anyone who asks for a picture with me. So I thought it might be helpful to explain some of my theological beliefs which have come under scrutiny as of late, as well as some of my practices/decisions. I realize there are many questions, but let me at least clarify a few things.

What do you believe regarding the "Prosperity Gospel"?

My understanding of that term is that it refers to teachings which imply that if you follow Jesus, He will make you healthy and wealthy. It is often used to attract people to make a decision to follow Jesus so that they can spend the rest of their lives in health and prosperity. I believe this is a dangerous teaching for several reasons. First and foremost (in my opinion) is that it contradicts the teachings and example of Christ and the apostles. Jesus taught His disciples "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matthew 16:24). It was not a call to come and prosper but rather the opposite—a call to come and suffer.

Chan goes on in his repudiation of the prosperity gospel. I am not in disagreement with him here. Prosperity theology is a lie from the pit of hell. It's precisely because of Chan's views regarding health-and-wealth teaching that he has become a hypocrite in his ministry partnerships. He preaches with the worst of the worst among prosperity charlatans. Teachers like Hinn, Johnson, White, and Heidi Baker preach exactly the false gospel Chan condemns!

In a video of a Bethel Church service from March 25 of last year, their pastor Bill Johnson is seen leading his church in an absurd prayer which he called "a decree and confession." Before praying aloud together, Johnson said, "I want your faith to be recognizable in your volume. No small task." He then led the congregation to recite the following, the audience practically yelling it as they proclaimed:

As we receive today's offering, we are believing the Lord for jobs and better jobs, raises and bonuses, benefits and sales and commissions, favorable settlements, estates and inheritances, interests and income, rebates and returns, checks in the mail, gifts and surprises, finding money, debts paid off, expenses decrease, blessing and increase. Thank you, Lord, for meeting all of my financial needs that I may have more than enough to give into the kingdom of God and promote the gospel of Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!

Bethel Church teaches you have the power to speak things into existence, especially your health and your wealth. By praying such a prayer, they are taught that they will have all of their professions.

Do not be fooled by Bethel's intention to "promote the gospel of Jesus Christ." Bill Johnson preaches a false gospel. He thinks the gospel is miraculous healing and has taught heretical things about God. Astonishingly, Chan has said, "Prosperity preachers often promise greater wealth if their listeners will give more to their ministries. This is never promised in Scriptures. We can never hold God to something that He has not promised." Yet that's exactly what Johnson was doing in that prayer!

What would it take for Chan to recognize Bill Johnson and others who spoke at The Send actively advance the thing Chan condemns? Yet Chan has preached that if you criticize these teachers, you are taking a sledgehammer to the house of God, and you will have to answer for that before God. He referenced 1 Corinthians 3:17 which says, "If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple." My friends, Bill Johnson's "gospel" is anything but holy. Calling out Johnson's heresy is not taking a sledgehammer to the house of God—Bill Johnson is taking a sledgehammer to the house of God. Chan is defending these guys and making people fear calling them out. That's deceptive, whether or not the intention of his heart is to deceive.

Chan's blog continues:

Why do you sometimes accept speaking engagements in places that tolerate theology that is different from yours?

I speak at events almost every week of the year. Often times, it’s more than one event a week. I don’t really enjoy it—I hate the travel, but try not to complain about it. Despite the toll it can take on myself and the family, it is always an honor to preach the Word. I believe it is my calling. Some question my choice to speak so often, but my best discernment and the discernment of the elders of our church is that it is still a part of my calling in this season.

I am asked to speak at approximately 500 events a year. I decline approximately 90% of the requests. It’s a difficult thing to do. Often times, I decline because other speakers will be at the event who believe almost exactly what I believe. My reasoning is that it may be a waste of Kingdom resources for all of us to be there, speaking largely to people who already agree with us. It seems more effective to speak where there is less Bible teaching. It has not been my practice to ask who will share the platform with me and to research the other speakers. While some may be dear friends, there are many that I know little about. This current experience has caused me to consider exercising more caution and to develop a team to help me research. That being said, I speak in many places where I am not in alignment theologically. I actually believe that is where I can be most effective, as long as they give me freedom to address anything I believe the Lord wants me to address.

I recognize, now more than ever, that sometimes my participation can give the impression that I align with every other speaker at the event. I’m not sure what to do about that other than to tell you that I don’t. Unless the elders of my church direct me differently, I will continue to be found preaching in venues with those I disagree. I will preach in just about any kind of setting if I’m given freedom to preach from any passage of scripture. The elders and I are trying to come up with more safeguards for future events to hopefully prevent misunderstandings. Pray for us.

From what it sounds like, Chan is going to be developing a team to help him decide whom he should preach with and whom he shouldn't. I appreciate that, and it will be interesting to see where this goes. Will there be change? Will Chan realize he's been teaching with liars and apologize? Or will Chan use this group he's assembling to validate his alignment with false teachers? Time will tell.

That aside, how is Chan's reasoning regarding where he preaches biblical? He gave numerous biblical references in his condemnation of the prosperity gospel—he gave no biblical references with regard to which speaking invitations he accepts. He says, "Often times, I decline because other speakers will be at the event who believe almost exactly what I believe." Does Chan think there is little to no value in preachers gathering together in doctrinal unity? Psalm 133:1 says, "Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" Isn't it a better witness for laypeople to see teachers in one accord and not in discord?

Now, even at events like the Shepherds Conference or the Ligonier Conference, both held in just the last couple weeks, not every teacher is doctrinally aligned at every point. Some preachers are Baptists and some are Presbyterians—there's doctrinal disagreement right there. But those preachers rejoice in that while they may disagree on secondary issues, they are exactly the same on their love for the true gospel. They love the word of God and pursue Him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

When Francis Chan preached at The Send, he aligned with heretics who do not speak truth. There may have been no true gospel presented except what Chan preached. But Chan was not there in a Matthew 23 moment calling out sons of hell that produce more sons of hell. He called Todd White "a bold, bold man of God." Todd White is a con-artist and self-professed faith healer who said his father in the faith was Kenneth Copeland. Chan did nothing to call out these charlatans before a gullible audience. Rather, Chan's alignment with them makes them appear more credible to the less discerning.

Manipulation is the M.O. of almost every teacher at The Send. Bill Johnson's Bethel Church is known for pouring gold dust in the ventilation system and calling it a glory cloud from God. As with IHOP, teachers from Bethel claim to have face-to-face conversations with Jesus Christ as well as God the Father, whom the Bible says no one can see and live (Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1 John 4:12). Lo and behold, Chan has preached against such claims of seeing God in His glory: it would be more credible to say you went walking on the sun! Yet Chan wants to be in unity with guys like Bickle and Johnson who have boasted that they have seen God and lived?

Romans 16:17-18 says, "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive."

The Apostle John warned, "Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works" (2 John 1:9-11).

There's simply no excuse for Chan's ignorance. If Chan is so busy that he cannot do even a little bit of research, then he needs to say no to some of his speaking engagements and free up time to "test everything" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). This is his responsibility. It's on him, especially as a teacher. For the Spirit of God says, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).

Does Chan need a team of people to tell him Benny Hinn is a charlatan? If Chan simply watched the documentary American Gospel, he would receive so much insight into the false gospel these "friends" of his have preached and the damage they are causing. Chan knows the documentary exists. He was interviewed for it because of his outspokenness against the prosperity gospel. However, he was dropped from the final cut because the director of the film recognized the inconsistency in Chan's witness.

In his blog response, Chan continues:

Why did it take so long for you to write a response?

Early in my ministry, I had a professor warn, "Don't spend your time defending yourself. Let God defend you and those closest to you defend you. You can spend your whole life dispelling rumors." I have followed that advice for the past 30 years. I hope this response doesn’t sound like a person who is trying to save his reputation just for the sake of saving his reputation. My hope was to bring clarity to those who might trust my life and preaching and assume that my being in a picture or on a stage with someone means that I align with them. In regards to pictures, I live a very strange life. Most people take pictures with their friends and family. I end up taking thousands of pictures with complete strangers who ask to take pictures with me. I have struggled over the years with whether it is wrong to sign books or take pictures with people. I would be perfectly happy to never take another picture or sign another book. It just feels rude and discouraging to say no. My intention was never to show allegiance with those who request selfies.

First of all, I can appreciate not wasting your time defending yourself against critics. I don't. Dozens of videos have been made denouncing what I've preached. I've never responded to a single one of them. A pair of former members of my congregation once wrote a 9,000-word diatribe against me and posted it on Facebook. They lied about me in just about every way they could. But I did not type a single word in response—to them or anyone else (until just now, I suppose).

But this is not a trifle criticism over some idle comment Chan made. This is Chan aligning with heretics on a digression that keeps getting worse and worse. I have made several public appeals for anyone close to Chan to reach out to him and alert this brother to what he's doing. He just doesn't get it, and he still doesn't get it.

The criticism regarding Chan's associations has never been about selfies—not even in the last few weeks since images and comments have emerged following The Send. He's not merely taking selfies. He's heaping adulation and praise onto ministers of Satan. He's standing shoulder to shoulder with them and calling them friends and brothers and men of God. Through pictures we're seeing with our eyes what we've been hearing with our ears. It's alarming! I'm not trying to spread rumors and gossip. I want Chan to repent!

This is serious—deadly serious. James 4:4 says, "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." Chan recognizes that the prosperity gospel is worldly, yet he calls those who teach it his friends. I pray the Lord will open his eyes to whom he is playing with.

Chan concludes:

Another reason I took so long to write this response is because I read Paul’s defense of his ministry. He was able to do it out of love for people and the furtherance of the gospel. I needed a little extra time to make sure I wasn’t responding out of anger, pride, hurt, or cynicism- things that I have been guilty of. I think my heart is in a good place now, and I am writing because I believe I have a calling to proclaim the gospel and preach unpopular truths in a crooked generation. Though some are trying to deter people from my ministry altogether, I believe God has given me a calling to teach His Word. I plan on teaching faithfully until I die. I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was written.

One final thought—We should all be careful to guard against false teaching of any kind. In the process of refuting false teachers, however, we can unintentionally falsely accuse good teachers. That might be equally harmful to His Kingdom. God desires unity in His body, so it is no small crime to bring division into the church.

"As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him." Titus 3:10

"Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple." 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

Jesus deeply longed for unity amongst His children. This should not come at the expense of truth. There are times when the truth will divide. Let’s all humbly beg for wisdom from the Holy Spirit to know how to love our brothers without compromising truth. As we diligently confront false teaching, let’s show equal fervency in defending those who are truly our brothers and equal zeal in confronting those who unnecessarily divide the body.

Truly, it is weird to read Chan call for unity when he said in the same blog that he tries to preach in places where he is not in unity with other preachers. Maybe Chan needs to offer a definition of what he thinks biblical unity is supposed to look like. The guy abandoned his church instead of shepherding them as a pastor should, so I have my doubts about his understanding of unity or even his role as a pastor. Titus 1:9 says that a pastor "must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also rebuke those who contradict it."

Chan didn't rebuke anyone in his blog except those who have been rebuking. Exactly who are the "good teachers" Chan thinks we are accusing of being false? He refuses to name names. He's still putting himself between the wolves and those trying to warn the flock. He's being deceptive even if his intention is to tell the truth. Until he can be more discerning, we have to dismiss Chan as lacking credibility. He will lead others into believing the false prosperity gospel even while he condemns it. People will be confused about what the prosperity gospel is and isn't when they see him aligning himself with those who preach it.

We cannot force unity. It cannot be manufactured by human will. We must be obedient to the truth, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom (Colossians 3:16), according to the full counsel of God. God will provide the growth. Chan made a reference to 1 Corinthians 3:17. Here's what that passage says in verses 18-23:

"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their craftiness,' and again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.' So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."

Upcoming Blog: Like Chan, Beth Moore also partners with preachers of the prosperity gospel, a teaching she has also condemned.

CORRECTION: In the first edit of this blog, I had incorrectly stated that Francis Chan had spoken at Bethel Church in Redding, CA. Chan spoke at Bethel in San Francisco, which is a different church. In that message (also linked above), he made a reference to Pastor John upstairs. I thought I heard him say "Pastor Johnson." A few paragraphs were rephrased to cite the information correctly.

What is the Song Bohemian Rhapsody About Anyway?

Last week, Bohemian Rhapsody was released on DVD, the Oscar-winning film about the band Queen and their lead singer, Freddie Mercury. The movie is titled after the famous song of the same name, a six-minute suite blending elements of rock and opera. It's only fitting that the album from which the song came was called A Night at the Opera, released in 1975. The star track Bohemian Rhapsody is considered by many to be Mercury's magnum opus.

With the success of the film, I thought I'd revisit the lyrics of Bohemian Rhapsody. What is this song about anyway? Plenty of legendary rock songs are nonsense (since a lot of these guys were probably on drugs when they wrote them), but Mercury was a meticulous and brilliant lyricist. A friend of mine recently said, "Sometimes a movie is just a movie." Well, sometimes a song is just a song. But there's more going on in Bohemian Rhapsody than meets the ears.

In order to understand the underlying message, we need a little background. Freddie Mercury was born Farrokh Bulsara in a British territory of Zanzibar on the east coast of Africa. His parents immigrated from British India and were Parsis, meaning that they practiced Zoroastrianism; a pantheistic, free-will religion that teaches you must have "good thoughts, good words, good deeds." Though Zoroastrians believe in a version of heaven and hell, ultimately everyone will be "saved" whether they did good or bad, and they will be reunited with the "Wise Lord" in immortality. When Mercury died in 1991, his funeral was conducted by a Zoroastrian priest at Mercury's request.

As a boy, Mercury was sent away from his parents to St. Peter's Church of England School, an all-boys boarding school in Panchgani, India; later to finish at St. Joseph's Convent School in Zanzibar. It was in boarding school that he was given the more English-sounding nickname Freddie. A violent revolution rose up in Zanzibar in 1964, so Mercury fled with his family to England, where he attended a liberal arts college and graduated in 1969 with a degree in graphic art and design. Mercury incorporated these skills into designing Queen's logo and his performance costumes.

In 1970, Mercury wrote a song called My Fairy King. Toward the close of the song, he mentioned "Mother Mercury." He later said, "I am going to become Mercury, as the mother in this song is my mother." In the film Bohemian Rhapsody, Mercury was criticized by his father that the Bulsara name was "not good enough." The likelihood though is that it simply never mattered to Mercury. Consider the very last line of Bohemian Rhapsody: "Nothing really matters to me."

If you knew nothing else happening in the lyrics to this song, that line would tell you all you need to know: Freddie Mercury believed, "Nothing really matters." His worldview was not driven by secularism or born out of irreligion—this was his religion. Mercury's music was a hodgepodge of religious subtext, which the movie only barely touched on.

Mercury received his primary education through Anglican and Catholic schooling, all the while underscored by his family's Zoroastrianism, a religion that preaches do what you think is right and everyone is going to the same place anyway. Therefore, "Nothing really matters."

As we dissect the lyrics, let's start with that title. What is a Bohemian rhapsody? The term "Bohemian" was coined in western Europe in the 19th century in reference to gypsies who were thought to have come from Bohemia. The word would later be used to describe any person rich or poor who lived an unconventional lifestyle. A Bohemian's interests were outside the norm, particularly when it came to expressions of art, music, literature, or spirituality.

A "rhapsody" is a single-movement piece of music or an epic poem with highly contrasting themes. So by the title alone, we might expect Bohemian Rhapsody to be a musical epic about an unconventional person. Queen's guitarist Brian May said, "Freddie never explained the lyrics, but I think he put a lot himself into that song."

The song begins by asking if life is "real" or a "fantasy" we're unwillingly "caught in" from which there is "no escape." Here are the opening lyrics, sung acapella at first, then underscored with piano:

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
Open your eyes
Look up to the skies and see

I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy
Because I'm easy come, easy go
A little high, little low
Anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me

Having mentioned the closing line, the song ends the same way it begins: "Nothing really matters to me." This was Mercury's approach to life. In his 1985 interview with David Wigg, Mercury was asked, "How do you want to be remembered when you die?" Mercury replied, "Dead and gone. Who cares?"

The song continues and gradually elevates in strength:

Mama just killed a man
Put a gun against his head
Pulled my trigger now he's dead
Mama, life had just begun
But now I've gone and thrown it all away 

Mama, oh-oh
Didn't mean to make you cry
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow
Carry on, carry on, as if nothing really matters

Now we get more religious. In several of Mercury's songs, Mama represented the feminine or nurturing side of God. This opinion about God was influenced by Zoroastrianism. The Persian prophet Zoroaster referred to their god Ahura Mazda in both masculine and feminine terms interchangeably, depending on the attribute of god he was referring to.

It's interesting to note the opening line of this segment begins, "Mama just killed a man," rather than, "Mama, I just killed a man." We would be led to think Mama was the one who put a gun against a man's head until the singer sings, "Pulled my trigger now he's dead." This was intentional. What Mercury was conveying here was that God tempted me with all these things He then called evil. They pleased me, but they displeased God. Why then did God give them to me? God put the gun against my head, but I'm the one that pulled the trigger.

Since Mercury referred to what he characterized as the effeminate side of God, the singer apologizes and says he "didn't mean to make you cry." But "carry on, as if nothing really matters." Mercury thought God didn't care about anything that happened. If He did, He wouldn't allow the people He created to be tempted by the evil that He would eventually judge them for. Ultimately, according to Mercury's worldview, there is no divine mercy, nor is there lasting punishment for evil. Therefore, "Carry on, as if nothing really matters."

The "man" who was killed in the song was Mercury himself, but this doesn't mean he was thinking of committing suicide. He was singing about a series of personal yet destructive decisions that would eventually kill him. This was not unlike Mercury to write of such things. In his song Great King Rat, he sang about a man who died of a sexually transmitted disease at the age of 44. This was somewhat prophetic considering Mercury died of AIDS brought on by his homosexual perversion at the age of 45.

It's in Great King Rat that Mercury sang, "Don't believe all you read in the Bible," and "Don't listen to what Mama says," but instead, "Put out the good and keep the bad." You already know what's best for you: "I'm not going to tell you what you already know." (In the aforementioned 1985 interview, Mercury was asked whom he turned to whenever he had a problem. He said, "I have a lot of mirrors.")

When you live the way you want to live, "Very soon you're gonna be his disciple," a disciple of the Great King Rat. Through the voice of Mercury, Satan whispers, "Don't follow God. Follow me!" All these little decisions for yourself are "dirty," and will eventually kill you. Again, it's a slow death, not a sudden suicide, as Mercury notes next in Bohemian Rhapsody:

Too late, my time has come
Sends shivers down my spine
Body's aching all the time
Goodbye everybody, I've got to go
Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth

Mama, oh-oh (anyway the wind blows)
I don't want to die
Sometimes I wish I'd never been born at all

The singer is slowly killing himself and he knows that, but he doesn't really want to die. A part of Mercury understood that after death comes judgment, hence why the singer thought it would have been better if he'd "never been born at all." Mercury lived his life feeding his sensuous appetites, but none of it ever brought him any fulfillment—even in 1975 when Bohemian Rhapsody debuted and Mercury was hardly 30 years old. As rich and as famous as he was, he was always unsatisfied and wanted more.

Zoroastrians see life as a battle between two spirits: Spenta Mainyu, the good spirit or the "Bounteous Principle," and Angra Mainyu, the chaotic spirit or the "Destructive Principle." Mercury identified himself with the destructive spirit since "nothing really matters." Though a person who lived destructively might go to the Zoroastrian equivalent of hell, all of creation is eventually renovated by a savior-like figure, and everyone returns to Ahura Mazda, the "Wise Lord," in immortality.

In Mercury's 1985 interview, Wigg asked him, "Do you think you're going to get to heaven?" Mercury replied, "No, I don't want to. Hell is much better. Look at the interesting people you're going to meet down there?" He only thought so flippantly of hell because Zoroastrianism taught him hell was just a hang-out until immortality is granted to everyone. But the Bible is clear hell is eternal punishment for those who rejected Christ and followed the devil.

From here, Bohemian Rhapsody picks up tempo and we enter into the operetta section. Likewise, the lyrics get more intense as well:

I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramouch, Scaramouch, will you do the Fandango
Thunderbolt and lightning very very frightening me
Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, Figaro, Magnifico

Lyrics like this have led many to conclude that the song is mostly nonsense, but these lines are very revealing. The singer sees but a shadow of a man, a "little silhouetto," someone who doesn't make a great impression and is easily vanquished as a shadow disappears when someone turns on a light. A "scaramouch" is a stock clown character in Italian theater. So he's singing of someone (himself) who is of no consequence but gives everyone a few laughs for a while.

He then sings, "Will you do the Fandango?" The Fandango is a Spanish dance. It's a euphemism for hanging himself—again, keeping up the motif of slowly killing himself with the life choices he makes. "Thunderbolt and lightning" means God is displeased with how he lives his life. With that in mind, "Galileo" is not a reference to Galileo Galilei, the Italian astronomer, at least not entirely. (As a winking aside, Galileo was the first astronomer to observe the planet Mercury through a telescope.)

Galileo Figaro Magnifico in Latin means "Make great the Galilean's figure" or image. Galilean is the Roman name for Jesus Christ. Maybe the singer could break the cycle of his meaningless comedy if he were to call upon Jesus (and maybe Mercury himself was asking Jesus to search him out just as Galileo found Mercury).

Of course, this is if "Figaro" was spelled figuro instead of like the character in the opera The Barber of Seville by Gioachino Rossini. In the opera's most famous piece Figaro's Aria, Figaro sings of "a good life! What pleasures there are." He calls out his own name multiple times, but toward the end of the aria, he's so popular that he's unable to meet the demands of all his adoring customers.

In Bohemian Rhapsody, the singer calls upon Jesus multiple times to save him from the meaninglessness of life and possibly the wrath of God. But if the inference of Figaro's Aria is to be considered, Mercury thought of Jesus as being too too busy or He just didn't care—He can't meet the demands of all His adorers (Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice made this same criticism of Christ in the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar, which preceded the release of Bohemian Rhapsody by several years).

Here's where the lyric goes next, still in an operatic style:

I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
He's just a poor boy from a poor family
Spare him his life from this monstrosity
Easy come, easy go, will you let me go
Bismillah, no, we will not let you go, let him go
Bismillah, we will not let you go, let him go
Bismillah, we will not let you go, let me go
(Will not let you go) let me go (never let you go)
Let me go (never let me go)
Oh oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no

The singer says he's someone of no consequence no one really cares for. Being a "poor boy" means he was too immature to know that his decisions were so destructive. The accompanying choir repeats his prayer as though angels or saints (considering Mercury's Catholic influence) are also praying for him: "Spare him his life from this monstrosity." It's as though the singer is saying, "I came into these things easily; will you let me off easy?" and also, "I'm of no consequence; why bother with me?"

Then comes the line, "Bismillah, no, we will not let you go." I first heard this song a few years after it was made popular in America by the 1992 film Wayne's World. Even at a young age, the word "Bismillah" clued me in to recognizing there was more going on in the song than random lyrics. No one says "Bismillah" just because. "Bismillah" is the first word in the Quran, and it means, "In the name of God," also called, "most gracious, most merciful."

Three times it is sung, "Bismillah, no, we will not let you go." Mercury was presenting what he thought of as the personality of the Muslim god and the Christian Triune God together as the same god, whom Mercury did not think of as gracious and merciful. "Bismillah" is sung harshly. The angelic chorus pleads, "Let him go," and instead "Bismillah" curses the singer and denies him relief from cravings of his flesh: "We will not let you go."

The opera portion concludes with this:

Oh mama mia, mama mia, mama mia let me go
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me
For me, for me

Again, "Mama" was Mercury's effeminate title for God. "Beelzebub" is another name for Satan (from Matthew 10:25, Mark 3:22, and Luke 11:18). Since God is not going to relieve the singer of his lusty appetites, Satan is waiting in the wings with a devil to keep the singer company while he gives in to indulging in the passions of his flesh. The demons are better fellowship for the singer than God.

Mercury blamed God for the temptation he experienced and the sins he committed as if God was the one who caused them. He was no different than Adam in the Garden of Eden, when Adam said to God, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate" (Genesis 3:12). If only Mercury understood the words of James 1:12-15, when he said:

"Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love Him. Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."

God is not guilty of your sin—you are. You have no one to blame but yourself. If indeed Mercury prayed to God and asked to be delivered from temptation, the reason God didn't grant his request was because he asked with wrong motives. He only wanted his guilt taken away—he didn't actually want to honor God with his life or stop doing what he was doing. James 4:3 goes on to say, "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly to spend it on your passions."

At this point, the song leaves the opera and goes hard rock. Whatever your opinion is of rock, it is often an angry genre of music, and Mercury is straight-up spiteful as he sings:

So you think you can stop me and spit in my eye
So you think you can love me and leave me to die
Oh baby, can't do this to me, baby
Just gotta get out, just gotta get right outta here

Singing "baby" and saying "so you think you can love me and leave me to die" sounds like grief over a woman who broke his heart. But nothing else in the song has set the tone for that. The singer has taken on the persona of a hard-rocker singing of his broken heart when he expresses his hatred toward God for not caring about him.

From the singer's perspective, if God truly loved him, God wouldn't let him die like this. Threats of punishment against the evil-doer are not enough to stop the singer from indulging in his temptations. He's "just gotta get out" of the cycle of temptation and guilt he can't seem to find relief for. But instead of repenting of his pride and blasphemy and finding peace with God through Jesus Christ, he relieves himself by hardening his heart and giving in.

Then the song calms way down into a ballad again, and it ends the same way it began:

Nothing really matters
Anyone can see
Nothing really matters
Nothing really matters to me
(Anyway the wind blows)

Nothing really matters which anyone can see. Just like in Great King Rat, you know what's good for you. Do what thou wilt, for nothing really matters anyway.

Songwriter Tim Rice said he knew the secret of Bohemian Rhapsody. "It's fairly obvious to me that this was Freddie's coming out song," Rice said. "This is Freddie admitting that he is gay." One of Mercury's homosexual partners agreed. "Bohemian Rhapsody was Freddie's confessional," said hairdresser Jim Hutton. "It was about how different his life could have been, and how much happier he might have been, had he just been able to be himself the whole of his life."

Brian May denied it: "What's it about? None of us know. Freddie never talked about it to my knowledge and didn't want to and that's the way it should be. He had something in his mind and he loved to spin these little pieces of magic. A little bit of reality and little bit of fantasy. If anyone tries to unravel it, they'll never manage it, because they'll never know what went into those lyrics."

I searched multiple websites and read several dissections of the lyrics of Bohemian Rhapsody. None of them considered the influence of religion on Freddie Mercury. He feared judgment for his sins, and the honesty of his tormented soul came out in his most famous work. But instead of repenting of his sins, he blasphemed God and pursued worldly pleasure and treasure. In Luke 4:7, the Devil said, "If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours." Freddie Mercury fell for it, and it killed him.

When a person believes nothing we do in this life has eternal significance, then "nothing really matters." When a person believes everyone receives eternal life and no one gets eternal punishment, they will do whatever they want expecting the outcome will ultimately be the same for all. But the Bible says that those who persist in sin will "be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thessalonians 2:12). Jesus said, "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:46).

Everything matters. You were made to glorify God. Do not sell your eternal soul for the fleeting pleasure of sin, leaving you empty and leading to judgment. Know the gospel of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross as a sacrifice for sins and rose again from the grave, so that all who believe in Him will receive His eternal life. Turn from your sin and follow Jesus. He will clothe you in His righteousness. You will be received by your Father in heaven. And you will live in His kingdom forever.

Next Week: My son met Mary Sue, and he hated her.

Why the Virgin Birth Matters: Responding to William Lane Craig's Interview in the New York Times

Permit me to begin by plugging my book 25 Christmas Myths and What the Bible Says, which came out on Christmas Day at Amazon.com. Yes, I'm such an expert marketer, I released a book on Christmas Day instead of well beforehand, which would have been smarter. You can click here to order it in print, or click here to download it to your Kindle. In the book, I address in greater detail some of the things I'm going to respond to here in this blog.

On Saturday a week ago, The New York Times published an interview between Pulitzer prize winner Nicholas Kristof and apologist William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig is a world-renowned theologian, scholar, and an expert debater. He's the founder of the ministry Reasonable Faith, giving a defense of biblical Christianity. The first question asked of Craig was if it's reasonable to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, and other theological questions follow. I present the article in full with Kristof's questions and Craig's answers in bold, and my responses follow.

Kristof: Merry Christmas, Dr. Craig! I must confess that for all my admiration for Jesus, I’m skeptical about some of the narrative we’ve inherited. Are you actually confident that Jesus was born to a virgin?

Craig: Merry Christmas to you, too, Nick! I’m reasonably confident. When I was a non-Christian, I used to struggle with this, too. But then it occurred to me that for a God who could create the entire universe, making a woman pregnant wasn’t that big a deal! Given the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe (for which we have good evidence), an occasional miracle is child’s play. Historically speaking, the story of Jesus’ virginal conception is independently attested by Matthew and Luke and is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism. So what’s the problem?

Now, that's certainly reasonable. If you can believe Genesis 1 and 2, you have enough reason to believe the rest of the Bible. I love the point Craig made that the virgin birth "is utterly unlike anything in pagan mythology or Judaism," contrary to the claims of those pushing the Horus and Mithras myths. But why should I believe it? What difference does it make if I believe the virgin birth or not? Why believe in God at all? These are some of the questions Craig rarely ever answers, and he doesn't answer them in this interview either.

Kristof: Why can’t we accept that Jesus was an extraordinary moral teacher, without buying into miracles?

Craig: You can, but you do so at the expense of going against the evidence. That Jesus carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcisms is so widely attested in every stratum of the sources that the consensus among historical Jesus scholars is that Jesus was, indeed, a faith-healer and exorcist. That doesn’t prove these events were genuine miracles, but it does show that Jesus thought of himself as more than a mere moral teacher.

Well, Jesus wasn't a faith healer—there's no such thing. Jesus didn't need faith, and sometimes the people He healed didn't have faith (see John 5:1-9). The miracles that Jesus did attested to whom He is—God incarnate. That was the reason He did miracles—to show that He is the eternal Son who was sent by the eternal Father to redeem His people from their sins.

Jesus is the Word who put on human flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). He came to lay down His life and take it up again, dying on the cross for our sins and rising again from the grave, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but will have everlasting life. He was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit, and therefore free from the sin of Adam. If Jesus was not virgin born, then He can't be the spotless Lamb of God who takes away our sin. All who are born of Adam by natural generation are born into sin (Romans 5:12). But by being born of a virgin, Jesus was born without sin. He alone lived a sinless life, and He alone can take away our sins. This is why the doctrine of the virgin birth matters.

When a young man asked Jesus, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus replied to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:17-18). Jesus wasn't saying He wasn't God. He was challenging the young man's motives, as if to say, "Do you understand who I am?" If Jesus was not virgin born, He is not good. If He is not good, He is not God. It doesn't matter if He was "an extraordinary moral teacher."

Kristof: You don’t believe the Genesis account that the world was created in six days, or that Eve was made from Adam’s rib, do you? If the Hebrew Bible’s stories need not be taken literally, why not also accept that the New Testament writers took liberties?

Craig: Because the Gospels are a different type of literature than the primeval history of Genesis 1-11. The eminent Assyriologist Thorkild Jacobsen described Genesis 1-11 as history clothed in the figurative language of mythology, a genre he dubbed “mytho-history.” By contrast, the consensus among historians is that the Gospels belong to the genre of ancient biography, like the ‘Lives of Greeks and Romans’ written by Plutarch. As such, they aim to provide a historically reliable account.

Here is an example of where Craig's "reasonable faith" is inconsistent. He said at the beginning, "For a God who could create the entire universe, making a woman pregnant wasn’t that big a deal!" So that reasoning can explain the virgin birth, but it can't explain the Garden of Eden, the Great Flood, or the Tower of Babel? Notice that he's just deconstructed the very platform he was standing on to defend the virgin birth—I should believe the virgin birth because of Genesis 1-2, but if Genesis 1-2 is mythological, how does it defend the virgin birth?

Craig's "reasonable faith" needs better theology. Facts are important, but if they're not backed by biblical orthodoxy, facts are just pieces of a puzzle laying in a box. What good is having all the facts if you don't know how they fit together? Craig is great at defending the facts (well, unless it's Genesis 1-11), but he doesn't do as great at helping people see the big picture. He's said of his own ministry, "We're not doing theology. We're doing apologetics" (Reasonable Faith Podcast, March 26, 2017).

Jesus said, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). If you know the Bible, you know the facts. You've got all the pieces of the puzzle. Now what are you going to do with them? You must repent of your sin and worship God.

Kristof: How do you account for the many contradictions within the New Testament? For example, Matthew says Judas hanged himself, while Acts says that he “burst open.” They can’t both be right, so why insist on inerrancy of Scripture?

Craig: I don’t insist on the inerrancy of Scripture. Rather, what I insist on is what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity,” that is to say, the core doctrines of Christianity. Harmonizing perceived contradictions in the Bible is a matter of in-house discussion amongst Christians. What really matters are questions like: Does God exist? Are there objective moral values? Was Jesus truly God and truly man? How did his death on a Roman cross serve to overcome our moral wrongdoing and estrangement from God? These are, as one philosopher puts it, the “questions that matter,” not how Judas died.

If inerrency doesn't matter, the Bible doesn't matter. If the Bible doesn't matter, "mere Christianity" is a cuckoo bird chirping in a clock shop. You will ask, "Does God exist?" the rest of your days and never find the way to God, Jesus Christ, according to the Bible. You will ask, "Are there objective moral values?" and not know what they are because you have no objective moral authority outside of yourself that dictates what is true—the Bible.

You won't even bother to ask, "Was Jesus truly God and truly man?" because no one asks such a question unless they've heard what's written in the Bible. You will not care how His death on a Roman cross overcomes our estrangement from God because the answer to that question is only found in the Bible. If the Bible errs, God errs. If God errs, He is not God. But there is no error with God, and His word is true. It meets every challenge and has been proven to be reliable.

That said, Matthew and Acts don't contradict each other concerning the death of Judas. Matthew 27:5 says that Judas returned the silver he was paid for betraying Jesus by "throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple... and he went and hanged himself." Acts 1:18 merely says Judas fell "headlong into a field and his bowels gushed out." Acts is clear that he fell, not that he threw himself over the cliff. He fell because he was already dead. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together, Judas hung himself by a rope over a cliff, and then his body fell into a field. It's as simple as that.

Kristof: Over time, people have had faith in Zeus, in Shiva and Krishna, in the Chinese kitchen god, in countless other deities. We’re skeptical of all those faith traditions, so should we suspend our emphasis on science and rationality when we encounter miracles in our own tradition?

Craig: I don’t follow. Why should we suspend our emphasis on science and rationality just because of weakly evidenced, false claims in other religions? I champion a “reasonable faith” that seeks to provide a comprehensive worldview that takes into account the best evidence of the sciences, history, philosophy, logic and mathematics. Some of the arguments for God’s existence that I’ve defended, such as the arguments from the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of the universe, appeal to the best evidence of contemporary science. I get the impression, Nick, that you think science is somehow incompatible with belief in miracles. If so, you need to give an argument for that conclusion. David Hume’s famous argument against miracles is today recognized, in the words of philosopher of science John Earman, as “an abject failure.” No one has been able to do any better.

Again, Craig does great with defending the facts, but how is he helping people come to faith? There must be truth, but there must also be exhortation—repent and believe the truth. The truth is so compelling that it changes your life and you obey what it says. Craig's answers are like he's spilling pieces of a puzzle on a table and grinning over them, but he's not telling you what to do with them or giving you the boxtop so you know how they fit together.

The Bible addresses those other faith traditions Kristof asked about. In Exodus 20:3, the Lord said, "You shall have no other gods before me." In Isaiah 44:6-7, He said, "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me." In 1 Kings 18, Elijah, a prophet of God, challenged the priests of Baal to a duel—whoever's God lights their altar with fire from heaven, He is the true God. Guess who won?

All other gods are false gods made by human hands. They cannot nor have they ever produced the evidence that has been shown to us by the one true God—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus is that one true and living God. All of this is attested to by the eyewitness accounts of thousands upon thousands of people who were there when these things were written down for our benefit and instruction.

Peter said, "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts" (2 Peter 1:16, 19).

Kristof: You’re an evangelical Christian, and let me acknowledge that religious people donate more to charity than nonreligious people and also volunteer more. But I’m troubled that evangelical leaders have sometimes seemed to be moralizing blowhards, focused on issues that Jesus never breathed a word about — like gays and abortion — while indifferent to poverty, inequality, bigotry and other topics that were central to Jesus’ teachings.

Craig: Yes, I hear you. I sometimes cringe at the people that the media trot out as spokesmen for Christianity. The media shun intelligent and articulate Christians in favor of inflammatory preachers and televangelists. Just know that the Christian church is involved not only in defending the sanctity of life and marriage but in a whole range of social issues, such as combating poverty, feeding the homeless, medical care, disaster aid, literacy programs, fostering small businesses, promoting women’s rights and drilling wells, especially in the developing world. Honestly, Christians have gotten very bad press.

In Matthew 15:19, Jesus said, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander." There's abortion and homosexuality addressed in one verse. (To elaborate further, watch this 90-second video on Jesus and the sanctity of human life, and this video and this video on what Jesus said about homosexuality.)

Central to Jesus' teaching was to, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17). Everyone will stand in judgment before the throne of God. Only those who believed in Jesus Christ and did the will of His Father will be saved and enter into eternal life. Those who did not believe and did the works of Satan will be cast into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. You have the facts. Now what are you going to do with them?

A Jesus Calling for Christmas Special

Hey, Pastor Gabe

We are looking for your "Jesus Calling" responses and can't find them for some reason. Can you help?

Rob, FL

Sure thing. In fact, I'll share everything I've written after reading through Jesus Calling, the flagship title of Sarah Young's bestselling devotional series. Publisher Thomas Nelson recently rolled out their latest title, Jesus Calling for Christmas, joining others in the series like Jesus Calling Morning and Evening, Jesus Calling for Kids, Jesus Calling for Little Ones, Jesus Calling Bible Storybook, Jesus Calling for Graduates, Jesus Calling for Athletes, Jesus Calling Devotional Bible, and Jesus Calling: Deluxe Edition with teal imitation leather. Spin-offs and sequels have included Jesus Always, Jesus Today, Jesus Lives, and an assortment of Jesus Delicious candy bars.

A Tale as Big as a Kite

At the start of the year, I posted a blog about the book God Calling by Two Listeners, Sarah Young's chief inspiration for her bestselling devotional. The two anonymous women behind God Calling likely never existed—author A.J. Russell invented them to give his own writing the appearance of being verified by the testimony of two or three witnesses. Nevertheless, Young followed the method for receiving messages from God detailed in the introduction to God Calling.

Like Russell and his two anonymous women, Young said that she did not feel whole with simple Bible study and prayer. Those were ways you know about God, she thought, but it's not how you get to know Him intimately. She wanted something more. Young had a specific room where she would go and listen for God to speak to her. She started by praying that her mind would be protected from any distractions, distortions, or deceptions. She only wanted to hear the voice of Jesus and understand clearly every single word He meant for her to receive. She said, "Help me, Holy Spirit." Then she sat patiently and listened.

Phrases and sentences began coming to her mind, and she wrote them down. It was Jesus speaking! Er, calling! Or something! She would later clarify, likely in response to criticism, that this was not an audible voice she heard—she "heard" Him in her mind (to the best of my knowledge, she's never explained how the voice of Jesus sounds different than her own thoughts). During these sessions, she would take breaks and read what she'd written, encouraged by such fresh, new words from the Lord.

"This new way of communicating with God became the high point of my day," Young wrote. She had changed her prayer time from monologue to dialogue—she said something to God, and He said something back to her. Which she just had to write down and get published, right? Her writings became the bestselling daily devotional Jesus Calling. And then Jesus Lives. And then Jesus Today. And then Jesus Always. Et cetera, ad nauseum. (By the way, you knew I was kidding about the Jesus Delicious candy bars, right? Don't get any ideas, Thomas Nelson.)

But as with God Calling, when tested with the Scriptures, there's no way Jesus Calling could be the voice of Jesus. Someone might say, "Well, maybe Sarah didn't actually hear Jesus's voice, but at least the content is still biblical, right?" No, it's really not.

Do You Hear What I Hear

Just like God Calling, most of Jesus Calling is spiritual marshmallowy fluff: "Shimmering hues of radiance tap gently at your conscience, seeking entrance" (January 8). "Your prayers and petitions are winged into heaven's throne room when they are permeated with thanksgiving" (February 25). "I speak to you in love-tones, lifting you up" (March 19). "Take time to rest in the Love-Light of My Presence" (May 12). "Sit quietly in my Love-Light while I bless you with radiant Peace" (June 3).

Then there are passages that are downright weird. Consider these quotes from July: "As you spend time soaking in My Presence, you are energized and lightened" (July 1). "Throw off this oppressive burden with one quick thrust of trust" (July 15). "As you listen to birds calling to one another, hear also my Love-call to you" (July 25). "Let My Love seep into the inner recesses of your being... Wounds that you shut away from the Light of My Love will fester and become wormy" (July 28). July was apparently a very strange month for Young.

Apart from the bizarre, what really does the book in are its theological issues. The most obvious problem (at least it should be the most obvious) is that Young believes she heard the voice of Jesus. This places her on the level of the prophets and the apostles who gave us the Scriptures. Bet let's set that point aside for now. Just taking at face-value the theology she presents in her writing, problems abound. Since Young claims these are the words of Jesus, we must ask, "Would Jesus actually say that?" and test Young's words with the Bible.

Not the "Jesus Calling Devotional Bible," as seen on the far right.

Young's Jesus said, "I am your Father-God. Listen to me" (July 6). No where in the Bible does Jesus refer to Himself as Father-God. This is flirting with heresy. It's way too close to the false teaching of patripassianism, which claims that God the Father and God the Son are the same person within the Godhead (I've addressed that particular false teaching here).

Now, in the footnotes to that July 6 devotional, Young included the reference to Isaiah 9:6. You probably hear this verse a lot around Christmastime: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (emphasis mine).

This is not the same as calling Jesus our Father-God. Isaiah was illustrating that the coming Messiah, Jesus, will be King. As King, He will be our Wonderful Counselor who makes wise plans; our Mighty God which is the title of the Lord Himself; an Everlasting Father, meaning that He is our federal head in place of Adam; and Prince of Peace, meaning that He is the ruler who will destroy His enemies and make peace.

My point is this: if Jesus had actually spoken to Young, He would not have referred to Himself as Father-God. If Young had a doctrinal point to make, she should have made it in her own voice. Writing as though her words were Christ's words causes confusion, and God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Maybe Young isn't a heretic. Maybe she does believe God is Triune, and Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. At best, her reference to Jesus as Father-God is heterodoxy, meaning that she distorts sound teaching concerning an essential biblical doctrine like the Trinity of God.

Young's Jesus said, "I look for persistence—rather than perfection—in your walk with me" (June 23). Again, this is not something Jesus would have said. What He did say was, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). As Christians, we have been given a righteousness that is not our own, and we are to pursue that righteous perfection and make it our own. Paul said, "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own" (Philippians 3:12).

Young's Jesus said, "Stop judging and evaluating yourself, for this is not your role." On the contrary, we are instructed, "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!" (2 Corinthians 13:5). Paul also told the Corinthians, "Let a person examine himself," and he told the Galatians, "Let each one test his own work."

Do You Know What I Know

Young's Jesus said, "I abhor the use of guilt as a means of motivation among Christians. Some pastors try to whip their people into action with guilt-inducing sermons" (September 7). Again, this is not something Jesus would say. In fact, it's contrary to what Jesus said and did. Gospel-preaching pastors preach to convict the heart of sin because Jesus preached that way, addressing both believers and unbelievers.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told His disciples, "Everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire" (Matthew 5:22). He said, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). Yet wasn't Jesus loving and gracious when He preached such things?

John Piper addressed this in his book The Supremacy of God in Preaching. Regarding the doctrine of hell, Piper referenced the great puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards who said, "This doctrine is indeed awful and dreadful, yet 'tis of God." Piper added, "Edwards could not remain silent where Jesus was so vocal. Hell awaits every unconverted person. Love must warn them with the threats of the Lord" (Pg. 92).

The Apostle Paul's letters to the Corinthians confronted specific sins in a body of believers to bring them to guilt so they would repent. Paul said, "This is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything" (2 Corinthians 2:8). Convicting sermons that warn about the fires of hell are a loving test of obedience. In chapter 7:8-11, Paul went on to say:

For even if I made you grieve with my letter, I do not regret it—though I did regret it, for I see that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. 

For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter.

Let me shoot straight with you—when I preach about sin and judgment from the Bible, I want my hearers to feel guilty so they would stop sinning and know the grace of God! I want them to feel bad about the evil that they have done. It's not because I enjoy making people feel miserable. I do it out of love. And I don't try to make anyone feel like dirt. My responsibility is to preach the gospel of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts concerning sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8). I desire that none should perish but that all should reach repentance.

James said, "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you" (James 4:7-10).

What makes Jesus Calling all the more objectionable is not just in what it says but also in what it doesn't say. Young does not confront any kind of serious sin in her book. She addresses things like being prideful because you skipped your quiet time with Jesus, or because you spend more time planning your day instead of reading a page of Jesus Calling (so much for "I abhor the use of guilt"). But sins like murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, and slander, which Jesus did confront in the hearts of his hearers (Matthew 15:19), are never mentioned.

Listen to What I Say

Young's Jesus said, "Your gravest danger is worrying about tomorrow" (February 27). Seriously? Your gravest danger is that you worry about tomorrow? That's what people go to hell over—they worried about tomorrow too much? Young's Jesus also referred to worry as "wolves" (March 4). The real Jesus reserved the word "wolves" for false teachers and the wicked who are out to devour the flock of God. He said, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:15, 10:16).

In the voice of Jesus, Young said, "I will have no other gods before me" (June 5). Specifically, the commandment says, "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). For Jesus to say "I will have no other gods before me" doesn't even make sense—there are no other gods (Isaiah 45:5, 14, 18, 21-22). The command is addressed to you so you would worship God and Him alone; with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. Do not make an idol of anyone or any thing by desiring it more than God.

John Calvin said, "Man's nature is a perpetual factory of idols" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter XI, Section 8). It is in our nature to worship something other than God. Whatever we value more than God, that becomes an idol—which is why the Apostle Paul said that even coveting is idolatry (Colossians 3:5). Do not dare soften the truth of the nature of your heart, lest you fall into the devil's snares. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you (James 4:7-8).

Jesus Calling appeals heavily to the self-centered nature of the reader. Young's Jesus said, "Because I am omnipotent, I am able to bend time and events in your favor" (February 10). And, "Because I am infinite, I am able to love you as if you and I were the only ones in the universe" (September 29). No, God does not bend time and events in your favor, and He doesn't love you as if you were the only person in the universe to love. I hear statements like this all the time, but it's not at all the reality of God's plan of redemption.

Jesus said, "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18). The Bible says Jesus gave Himself for us to purify for Himself a people, plural (Titus 2:14). By His death, we've been reconciled not only to God but also to the people of God (1 Peter 2:9). The bride of Christ is the church, not you by yourself (Ephesians 5:25). We are to strive to excel in building up the church, not puffing up ourselves (1 Corinthians 14:12).

Jesus intends for you to be in regular fellowship with other Christians. Yes, Christian, you have to go to church, and you are to build others up that we all may grow in maturity together. Paul prayed for the Thessalonians, "May the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, so that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints" (1 Thessalonians 3:12-13).

On every page of Jesus Calling, there's a looming sense of irony that the book is never able to shake. Young's Jesus said, "You must learn to discern what is My voice and what's not" (March 3). Right, take your own advice, Sarah! Her Jesus said, "Your pretense displeases Me, especially when it is in my ‘service'" (July 22). Pretense is an attempt to make something appear true that isn't.

Young's Jesus said, "I have instructed you to trust in Me, not your own understanding" (August 7). Yet when tested with the Bible, it is evident Jesus Calling is not the word of Jesus, but it comes from Young's own understanding. She wrote, "Many voices proclaim, 'This is the way for you to go,' but only My voice tells you the true way" (November 17). Young listened to one of those "many voices," not the voice of Christ.

Finally, Young's Jesus said, "Bookstores abound with books about 'taking care of number one,' making oneself the center of all things" (October 26). Young's voice is the center of Jesus Calling, not God's. Her own words condemn her. Jesus Calling has failed its own test. None of Sarah Young's books should be sold in any Christian bookstore anywhere.

Pray for Peace People Everywhere

Someone might say, "But Brother Gabe, there are good parts of the book, are there not?" No, there are not. "You mean to say it's all bad?" Yes, that's exactly what I mean to say. "But what about where she quotes Jesus saying, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.' Isn't that true?"

In the context of Jesus Calling, it doesn't matter. As John Owen said, "If private revelations agree with Scriptures, they are needless. And if they disagree, they are false" (J.I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness, Pg. 86). So if someone says they've received a vision or a voice from God, and we test it with the Bible, and we find that it contradicts God's word, it's a lie, throw it away. If we find that it is in God's word, you can still throw away this person's special revelation because we don't need it—we have it in the Bible.

This is a very serious issue, so I have to be this harsh, but I say it in love—Sarah Young is blaspheming God with every word she writes in the pages of Jesus Calling. She is taking the Lord's name in vain. She is claiming to speak the thoughts of God that are not the thoughts of God. Therefore, none of it is good. It should all be discarded.

I will give you another example. On July 11, in the voice of Jesus, she says the following:

Worship me only. Idolatry has always been the downfall of My people. I make no secrets about being a jealous God. Current idols are more subtle than ancient ones because today's false gods are often outside the field of religion. People, possessions, status, and self-aggrandizement are some of the most popular deities today. Beware of bowing down before these things. False gods never satisfy; instead, they stir up lust for more and more.

Now, that all seems true, right? God is a jealous God, and we can make anything into an idol, exalting to the place of God something that we value above God. Here's the looming, unshakable irony: Young is lampooning idolatry in the voice of a god of her own making! If Young had said this in her own voice, it would have been fine. But it wouldn't have been a bestseller. The reason Jesus Calling has sold umpteen million books is precisely because it's written in the voice of Jesus. Remember, Young doesn't do that for mere flare—she believes and has claimed these are the words of Jesus given to her.

There are millions of Christians who will eat this up because they feel the same way that Young does: "Bible study and prayer just don't do it for me." These are the gifts that God has given us for communicating with Him: He speaks to us through the Bible, we speak to Him through prayer. But for some, that's just not good enough: "My thoughts are just as good as God's thoughts. After all, He gave them to me, right?" Yeah, flip to Numbers 12 and see how God responded to Miriam, Moses's sister, when she said something similar.

This attitude of exalting one's own thoughts is born out of a failure to understand that the human heart is selfish and corrupt. Jeremiah said, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) Jeremiah calls the human heart "deceitful." It deceives us. It deceives us into thinking that we can think thoughts as high as God's thoughts. But God said, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9).

The only way our thoughts can be conformed to the mind of God is by reading the word of God. But Young has all but outright rejected that part from her meditation. I know she said Jesus Calling is supposed to be read with your Bible open, and she confessed the Bible is the only inspired word, but she does not believe it's sufficient. She said herself that Bible study wasn't enough, and she presented her book as the inspired word of Jesus. As far as Jesus Calling is concerned, she does not demonstrate that she truly believes the Bible is the only divinely inspired word of God.

In fact, Young is so not satisfied with God's method that she's resorted to mysticism. Remember, Young quietly meditated with pen in hand, waiting for something spiritual to come into her mind and being guided to write down whatever she "heard." This is exactly the practice of automatic writing. It's new age, akin to fortune telling or interpreting omens. A Christian using tarot cards is still practicing paganism, even if they call them "destiny cards" and claim that Jesus is speaking through them.

Young is not listening to Jesus. She is listening to herself, and claiming her thoughts are the thoughts of God. Those thoughts have clearly been influenced by years of Christian teaching and missionary work. Fragments of the Bible are scattered throughout Jesus Calling. But those clippings are often taken out-of-context or she has altered the wording—other sure signs that this word of hers is not the word of Christ.

He Will Bring Us Goodness and Light

Now, I might sound overly cynical with this last point. You may dismiss it as my own opinion, but I promise this statement is relevant. Here it is: Jesus Calling is a really, really, really boring book. It is the same thing over and over and over again. Though not a very long book, it was a bear to read. I had a difficult time getting through it.

Why is that a significant argument? Because remember, Sarah Young was unsatisfied with Bible study and prayer. So were the two anonymous women who wrote God Calling, so was A.J. Russell, and so was Dr. Frank Buchman who inspired him. If Jesus Calling is supposed to be a step-up from regular Bible study and a time of prayer, why are the results so terrible? Why so dull and lifeless? Why so flat and repetitious? And why is the theology so stinking bad?

The book of Hebrews begins, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe by the word of His power. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:1-4).

I find that news neither dull nor unsatisfying. That is the most exciting thing you could ever tell me on any day of the week! God Himself put on flesh and dwelt among us, "and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). The Apostle Paul wrote, "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:6).

I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). Love His word. Delight in His word. Rejoice in His word. And accept no imitation.