Why no Christian should be Caught Dead Voting for Donald Trump

"I give this book to all the girls in my strip clubs!"

Let me not puss-foot around in this post. If you vote for Donald Trump for president, you are voting for a man who has proven by his record that he stands against all the central truths of the Christian faith.  Trump has, indeed, acted out some of the most villainous roles in the Bible, in defiance of the Word of God.  You are enabling an abuser of women, a thief, an exploiter of the young, a profligate liar, someone who takes the name of God in vain in the worst way (by waving a Bible he doesn't give a damn about to get the votes of gullible Christians), a pornographer, moral reprobate of the lowest stripe, and a shameless, unrepentent God-hater who considers you to be a fool and surely laughs at you behind your back.  And if you vote for him, he's probably right. 

Here's what you're getting into, in biblical terms. 

(1) The prophet Nathan famously told King David, "You are the man!" when he pointed to David's most terrible sin by telling the story of the rich man who stole a lamb from his poor neighbor to host a visitor. 

Donald Trump is also that man.  He brags about stealing mens' wives from them, in his autobiography.

(2) But don't think, "Ah-hah!  So Trump is like King David, eh?   And wasn't he one of the most successful of Israel's rulers?  So if Trump commits David's sins, perhaps he, too, will be a great ruler?"

Never mind the abysmal logic of that "argument," you have overlooked the word "brags."  David never bragged about stealing Bathsheba from her lawful husband.  Even as king, he hid his crime in shame.  Then when called on it, he repented in tears.

But Donald Trump says he has never asked God for forgiveness.   Observe the smirk that almost never leaves his face: he does not appear to think he needs to repent. 

But you will need to repent, if you knowingly vote for a man like that to lead the United States of America.  Because you will be sharing with Trump the sins he models, and in so  modeling, yet receiving votes from 37% of "evangelical Christian Republicans," in effect tells the rest of the country that God is now OK with those sins.  Clinton taught America's youth new sins, and new defenses of their sins.  Martin Luther King, for all his virtues (which Trump does not share, like forgiveness), probably harmed the black community by offering a secret example of a profligrate sexual life.  Now you're doing the same thing, if you support so shameless and immoral a reprobate to lead the United States of America.  You're telling the country, "Tom-catting, serial marriages, selling sex, these are all no big deal for Christians," never mind that family breakdown is tearing the nation's children apart, and robbing the joy of stable family life from millions of innocent children. 

So by voting for Trump, you are lowering the Gospel, and the notion of family, into the mud, in the eyes of non-Christians.  Why should they take us seriously about sin, after we vote for a man like that?  You'll probably never meet a more shameless and successful sinner than the man you're putting into the White House.   And that's BEFORE he gains ultimate secular power. 

(3) David's kingdom was broken in two as a consequence of his sin, and his children carried on that tradition.  Don't imagine God is now ready to be mocked if we put a far more shameless stealer of mens'  wives into the White House. 

(4) Nor is David the only Old Testament parallel.  Remember Ahab and Jezebel?  They were among the most evil of Israel's rulers. 

Ahab was having a pity-party because his neighbor refused to sell him the vineyard that had been in the family for generations.  Jezebel told him, "Aren't you the king?  Just use eminent domain -- it's not just for bridges and railways, you know -- kill the little SOB, and grab his grapes and build yourself a nice limosine parking lot for your new casino." 

Well, that's what Trump did, only the neighbor was a widow, and he didn't have the actual power to have her killed, just seize his land for a parking lot so rich people could gamble more conveniently. 

Would you have voted for Ahab and Jezebel for president?  Well here's your chance.  Pull the lever and find out what God thinks about the abuse of power to oppress the weak for personal ends when you explain your choice to Him on the Judgment Day. 

Or have we forgotten that God does not smile on the exploitation of the weak?   Do you imagine all that is a joke, which fills the prophetic works of the Old Testament? 

(5) Speaking of which, Christians used to see casinos as evil, predatory, showing lack of trust in God.  How many stories did we tell about those who have lost their life savings to this "sin?" 

Those old Christians were right.  Trump made a living out of seducing the gullible and greedy, and peddling lust of the flesh and the pride of shallow, flashy "life." 

(6) Donald Trump calls himself a "strong Christian," and even has the gaul to claim that the IRS has audited him, not because he is a crook (see 8), but because of his "strong Christian faith."

Doesn't that make you gag?   And don't give me that "Only God sees into peoples' hearts" nonsense.  "By their fruit you will know them," said Jesus, and the fruit of this man's life is more than obvious if you open your eyes. 

So what does Trump, a shameless liar, think about Christians who support him?  Does he respect you?  Did he respect all the women he cheated with?  You can know the answer to that question, by considering how long he stayed with them after he had his way.  Unless a tiger can change its stripes (Donald himself admits he's not interested in repentance, though), don't think that you're not being screwed, too. 

(7) C. S. Lewis called pride the "Great Sin."  Have you ever met a man more full of himself than Donald Trump?  Nothing is more obvious, than that Donald Trump is a raging egomaniac.  Like Alexander the Great he calls everything he makes by his own last name -- "Trump Tower," "Trump Air," "Trump University."  Why would you want to willingly, knowingly put a man possessed by the deepest sin, the sin "that made the devil the devil," as Lewis put it, in the White House?  What is going on between your ears?  

No wonder Trump has no time for God -- as proven by the fact that he has never confessed his multitude of sins.  "A man who spends all his time looking down at others has no time to look up." 

(8) Speaking of Trump University, would you use your good name to give ambitious students the shaft, lying fluently to coax them out of their hard-earned money, as Donald Trump did? 

Do you like that in a president? 

(9) Paul advises us, "Whatsoever things are honorable, noble, of good report, think on these things." 

Would that be like, paying women to take their clothes off for money?  Trump sold sex for a living -- strip clubs.  Is that the kind of man eminent Southern Baptist pastors should be supporting?  Or are Trump's "honorable" thoughts more centered on mocking the disabled?  (Yes, he did, don't be gullible.)  Or mocking a war veteran who volunteered for dangerous flight missions, broke his arm and leg being shot down over Hanoi, and refused to be repatriated, accepting torture rather than a life of ease at home for his country?  (While you were getting a deferment for a bone spur -- you forget in which leg?)  ,

Oh, but McCain criticized Trump, so he had it (scurilous lies) coming!  And Megan Kelly asked him tough questions (as she does with everyone), so she deserved to be called a "bimbo!"  And everyone else Trump mocks and spits bile at, all deserved it for they punctured the godhood of this man-child. 

What are you getting out of it when Trump roasts someone he  hates on a verbal grill?  Do you find it "entertaining?"  Are you vicariously glorying in, and enabling, this man's calumny and lies?   

Noble?  Honorable?  Good report?  There is much to be said about many of the men and women who ran for the Republican Party nomination.  But all that has been sucked up and blown away by those who choose to think only evil of anyone who looks at Donald Trump and sees him for the perverse, self-centered little wounded demigod that he is. 

Where are the "fruits of the spirit" in this man's life?  If you can't point to any (and you know you can't), what lie are you telling yourself, to see someone that vile who calls himself a "strong Christian," as anything but the most shameless panderer? 

(10) Amazingly enough, Trump is being promoted as a "straight shooter."  Like many liars who maybe do, after all, feel some covert shame, he covers that shame by pointing the finger at others and calling them "liar."

I am not a great fan of Ted Cruz, at least not as a presidential candidate.  He does seem overly ambitious, and may cut a few corners.  But Donald Trump does not cut corners with the truth, he has been lying like one speaking his native language, for years.   

(11) Aside from crudity, most of Trump's insults are unrelated to truth, or are even designed to protect himself from the truth.  For example, is Megyn Kelly really a "bimbo?"  I know of no evidence for that.  But if "bimbo" means "a person who engages in loose sexual behavior," then Trump himself is the true offender. 

(12) Not only to God, but to others as well, Donald Trump seems unable to say, "I was wrong" in the sense of "I sinned."  That is what Jesus accused the Pharisees of -- they "claimed to see" which is what made them truly blind. 

This is not merely a moral failing, it is dangerous character flaw, especially in a leader. 

(13) And Trump does, indeed, seem to be surrounded by syncophants and yes-men. 

No doubt Trump, as a successful businessman, has learned to listen to some experts, to engineers and bankers, for instance.  But he does not seem able to say when he was rebuked and admitted his error.  When David was confronted by Nathan, he listened, if too late to escape dire consequences for Israel and himself.  Abraham Lincoln was a strong president, but he was also one who listened even to his harshesh critics, and seemed to recognize his faults. 

Evil sometimes hides in cracks and crevices, seeking darkness for its cover.  At other times, it glories in the light of day.  The Aztecs built their pyramids like Trump built his towers, in the central squares of their cities, to sacrifice the innocent (if there were any, in such a civilization) before gods that gloried in murder, depredation, and cruelty.  They mocked God openly, until He sent a cruel tribe from a distant peninsula, covered in armor and loaded with plagues, to strike that nation down in a few  shortmonths.

If you vote for this man, you are voting for lies, calumny, sexual perversion of the lowest order, and the state of mind that makes man out to be a god, that builds Towers of Babel to heaven, to be erected in the central temple of the American civil religion - the White House. 

A vote for Donald Trump may not be a vote for the anti-Christ, but it is a vote to place the anti-Christ state of mind, at the heart of American culture. 

And no, he won't build the damn wall and make Mexico pay for it -- as if that silly and impossible lie (sell your birthright and you don't even get the stew!) were worth the soul of American Christianity. 

(That's all I have time for today, folks.  I may add more tomorrow -- the list of this man's villainies seems inexaustible.  The Christian sociologist George Yancey has been chronicling many of them over the past few weeks, and I haven't even gotten to his links, yet.) 

Are the Gospels Trustworthy? 47 errors at Academic Atheism

I'm writing a book now that, among other things, rebuts bold claims that Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, and Matthew Ferguson have made about the historical Jesus.  Ferguson is not nearly as well-known as Ehrman or Carrier, but he seems to be growing in popularity.  As you may know, I've already dedicated several posts here to rebutting some of his arguments, as for instance his notion that the Gospels much resemble an ancient book called The Contest of Hesiod and Homer.  (Follow "Matthew Ferguson" label to link.) 

Today my attention was drawn to an article at "Academic Atheism" that leans almost exclusively on the work of these three skeptics to argue that Jesus was nothing like what the Gospels say, and probably never lived. 

The author does not seem a deep or original thinker.  Such arguments seem to be catching on, though, so perhaps they are worth rebutting.  Certainly they provide an object lesson for how not to think about the Gospels or history in general. 

I'll quote what I find the more interesting parts of the article below, and detail close to four dozen errors which come of uncritically following untrustworthy guides to history. 

The Gospel According to John (Marshall)

The plastic donut days of yore: three generations

I returned to China a few days ago, and finished reading my first biography of Alexander the Great.  Despite all the innocent people he murdered, and a few delusions of grandeur that crept up on him (pretty understandably), I have to say I like him better than Donald Trump.  (Who also likes to name things after himself.)  Mainly he just had a bug to travel, fight, fight, and WIN!  Alexander was like a big puppy dog, who might bite your leg off if he's in the mood for a scrap -- which he always was -- but might well lick your hand afterwards. 

After finishing that book, I happened to notice another,much shorter biography lying around.  It was my only biography so far, which I wrote three years ago.  It told of a  man who was not great in the normal sense of word, who didn't conquer or name any cities, who was happy with one wife, and whose construction projects were of more modest proportions.  In most ways, he was a simple, ordinary man.  But  having known him, I have no doubt that he was a better man than either headline Alpha Males.  This is the little biography I wrote of Dad  just after he passed away, and distributed a few copies to family and friends.  But the font in the printed booklet is small, and reading it over this afternoon, I think some others who did not receive copies, might be interested. 

Hector Avalos and the Laziness of the New Atheism.

One of the defining traits of the New Atheism is that it turns every debate about truth into personal attacks even more quickly than is the norm in the Internet Era.  After The Truth Behind the New Atheism came out, I have been subject to numerous attacks.  What has struck me more than anything is not only that few of my harshest atheist critics bothered to read my books before attacking them, but how utterly divorced their attacks were from who I am.  I have plenty of vices, but instead of calling me on them, the critics attack me for strange and wonderful crimes, things that had never entered my head, and generally the polar opposite of what less-fevered observers recognize.  That is because the purpose of the criticism is not to "speak truth to power," but to distract people from the facts, to which they have no answers, and which, as a class, I have come to feel that they care little about. 

Iowa State Religious Studies professor Hector Avalos is a prime exemplar of this fundamentally lazy drive to turn substantive discussions into personal attacks.  In most of his debates, at least those I have observed, Avalos turns eagerly from facts and interpretation, to the lamentable credentials of his opponents: their poor linguistic skills, inferior education or teaching positions, their alleged failure to read as much and as deeply as himself.  Another of Avalos' favorite tricks is to micro-focus on some extremely petty  point, or point within a point, and over-awe his fans with an irrelevant display of erudition on that point, wildly at tangent to any relevant issue.  For example, when I cited numerous scholars who recognize a surprising awareness of God in cultures around the world, Avalos latched on to just one -- Emile Durkheim -- and then spent many pages critiquing, not my general thesis, nor even Durkheim's general observation about God in Australia, but on just one of the 20 or so sources Durkheim quoted.  His discussion of that one source, on which he wielded all his scholarly apparatus, was obscure to the nth degree and of almost no relevance to my thesis -- but proved impressive as all get-out to his fans. 

100 Lies by Donald Trump (1-30)

"Clowns to the left of me -- jokers to the right!' 

We are often told, usually by Donald Trump himself, that Trump is a "straight-shooter," a uniquely honest man wading through a cesspool of political hacks, interest groups, and liars.  In fact, in the recent Republican debate, Trump called several people liars, including both junior Bushes and Ted Cruz.

I think, though, of all the present candidates for president, no one has such difficulty telling the truth as Donald Trump -- with the exception of Hillary Clinton.  If you want a straight-shooter, Donald Trump is one of the last people you should choose.  

Here I plan to give 30 examples.  Since Trump himself made his standards for what constitutes a lie clear in that debate -- item #1 -- I will not need to justify my own occasionally strict criteria.  

My Interview with Donald Trump

I continue my election-year coverage with a series of interviews with leading candidates for president.  The first person to drop by -- hey, Don! -- is the winner of yesterday's Republican primary in New Hampshire.  


Congratulations on your victory yesterday!  

Yeah, wasn't that fantastic?  That was the greatest victory EVER.  No one has ever won such a huge victory, anywhere!

Marco Rubio makes me feel good -- and bad.

I can sympathize with Rubio's brain freeze under Chris Christie's relentless questioning during the Republican debate last night.  It's happened to me a few times in debates, too.  I remember during my debate with Richard Carrier, leaving my notes about the Problem of Pain on the table, and then nothing better coming to mind, in front of hundreds of spectators, to rebut Carrier's arguments on that subject.  But Rubio was speaking to millions, he was being challenged precisely on his over-scripted speeches, and for the life of him, he couldn't come up with anything off-script to reply!

So that makes me feel good, knowing so professional and "scripted" a speaker could mess up that badly.

Yeah, I mean you!

In retrospect, here's what I would have said in Rubio's place:

"Chris, your audiences and your staff know perfectly well that you repeat yourself relentlessly, as well.  Everyone knows that you're a former prosecutor.  We've all heard about how you saved New Jersey after a hurricane -- Jeb Bush is unimpressed, Florida gets one of those about as often as Hillary Clinton sends out national security secrets through her private server.  

"You're a straight-talking man, no doubt about it.  And you're good at press conferences.  Is that what America most needs in a president?  If it is, then it's between you and Donald Trump.

"But why are you attacking me?  Why don't you go after the front-runner?  Are you afraid to challenge Donald Trump?  Or could it be because your handlers have told you that I have the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton, and keep her from setting up a private server in the White House?  And that's true.  Polls show that I have the best chance of winning, among all those on the stage.  Trump and Cruz are wildly unpopular among the electorate at large.  So aren't you harming the Republican field, and the future of America, by attacking me?

"Maybe rather than going for the Republican with the best chance of winning, you should ask yourself why you haven't caught on in our party.  Maybe your bluster and straight-talking wear thin, when it turns out your claims aren't exactly accurate?  (Do you want examples?)  Or maybe some Republicans -- elephants have long memories -- remember that when Mitt Romney needed your help, you pouted and slobbered all over Barack Obama, helping him into the White House four years ago?"

Honestly, I rather like Chris Christie, despite (and partly because) of his bombast.  But I think he had a response something like that coming.

But given what Rubio said later in the debate about women being drafted, I think he also has something coming -- maybe, losing the election.  Possibly, losing my support.

And that makes me feel bad, because I think either he or Christi, or probably most of the others but Trump, would make a good president.

Here's what I would like to tell Marco Rubio:

You should have kept your mouth closed!

"For thousands of years, real men have defended women.  It's programmed into our genes.  It's the core military tradition of all civilized peoples.  Read the ancient Greeks: it's all men.  Read the Chinese: it's all men.  You might get an occasional rumor about Amazons, or an occasional Hua Mulan, but those have been rare exceptions to the norm in civilized nations: women run risks in childbirth, and are given by God the duty and instinct to take care of our young ones.  Men are endowed by nature with a protective instinct, and with the physical strength and psychological makeup to fight in combat.  That's why most gang murders are committed by young men.  It's also why mountains are climbed, continents explored, and football played and watched, far more often by men than women.  

"Sorry if you don't care for human nature, but that's part of what we are.

"Now you want to toss all that away on the whim of some politically-correct new fad?  You didn't fall for the 'gay marriage' fad, why do you have to fall for this one?

"The idea of sending young women to face ISIS or the Iranian army on the battlefield, is noxious.  You ought to have your head examined.  If captured, they will be raped.  If serving, sexual relations will happen, and degrade the army services.  

"A conservative shouldn't be so quick to toss human history and human nature so quickly.  I am now officially rethinking my support of your candidacy, and hope someone will talk some sense into you."

"Wealth, Women, and God" + "The Gospel Hidden in Chinese Characters"

In the past few days a couple books came in the mail for which I wrote a blurb and a forward, respectively.  If you're interested in the Gospel around the world, you may like to take a look.  

Yesterday arrived Wealth, Women & God, by Miriam Adeney and Sadiri Joy Tira.  Miriam, an anthropologist who teaches at Seattle Pacific University, has in the past been kind enough not only to write a generous blurb for my How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test, she also wrote a wonderful chapter for Faith Seeking Understanding, a deeply personal account of how the Gospel relates to other religious traditions.  So I was happy for the chance to read her book, and to recommend it to you.  (It should also come in handy on my next writing project, on How Jesus Liberates Women.):

"'Come, see a man who told me everything I did.  Can this be the Christ?'  An unnamed woman in the First Century asked that question.  Miriam Adeney and Sadiri Joy Tira show, through a series of deceptively simple stories, how women in the Middle East today are meeting Christ, then introducing him to others, just like that First Century seeker did.  To marginalized women Christ still offers living water, especially guest workers from the Philippines, Africa, and India.  This is happening in an improbable place: the wealthy, orthodox Muslim Arabian Peninsula.  Told with characteristic grace and understated insight, these accounts exude the warmth of testimonies shared around a fire on the last night of camp."  

Take a look if the topic interests you!

A week or two ago, a very different but equally fascinating book showed up in the post office across the road from our house.  This one was by Tim Boyle, whom I have never met personally, but corresponded with for some years.  The book is entitled The Gospel Hidden in Chinese Characters.  My forward explains what's inside, and why it's important: 

"According to the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is both a time to "cast away," and a time to "gather."   Indeed, science teaches us to seek truth not just by cutting up fact and discarding bad theories, but also by synthesizing converging truths.  Thus James Thrower, a scholar of religions, argues that one of the key tests of religious truth must be whether a given spiritual or secular model of how religions fit together, manages to explain, include, or even anticipate what is true in "rival" traditions or philosophies.  
 
"Since 635, when the Nestorian Christian Alopen arrived in the Chinese capital of modern Xian and was welcomed by the great Li Shimin, co-founded of the glorious Tang Dynasty (who wrote a "blurb" for the Christian books he brought), Christians in China have tried to meet this challenge by relating Christianity to Chinese tradition.  The "Nestorian stele" inscribed in 781, which tells Alopen's story, in fact touches on some of the very concepts you will find in this book.  A millennium later, French Jesuits and Chinese Christians noticed that Chinese characters themselves often carry theological connotations that fit remarkably well with the message of the Bible.  The Kang Xi emperor, educated in part by the Jesuits and equal to Li Shimin in greatness, listened with some exasperation to a Jesuit who found Christ throughout Chinese culture, and told him, in effect, "Your great learning is driving you mad."  
 
"Tim Boyle is not a madman.  Neither do I think is he engaged in a frivolous ink-blot type exercise in free association.  He has, I think, written the best modern book on how Christianity relates to Chinese characters -- more restrained, and based on more credible premises, than alternatives.  Of course the specifics can be questioned: Tim does not claim to be a professional linguist, and many interpretations are admittedly subjective.  Still, pour over the details, and prepare to be startled.  It appears as if the ancient Chinese culture that produced the very language shared today by one and a half billion people of the "Far East," cut off by tradition beliefs as well as by vast deserts and mountains, fits the biblical account rather like a hand in glove.  
 
"What is the proper explanation?  Did the ancient Chinese deliberately inscribe truths from Genesis, or else parallel traditions that they somehow preserved?  Or, as seems more likely to me, did God prepare the hearts of the Chinese from within their own culture, as Christians from St. Matthew to Augustine to Pascal to Plantinga have said He prepared the hearts of the Jews through the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament?  Or do these numerous, often detailed, parallels somehow reflect similar stages of two societies, both God-haunted, ancient peoples to whom truth was somehow manifest through creation?  
 
"Whichever theory you subscribe to, or even if you prefer to believe this is all a subjective figment of the imagination -- and Tim's argument is strongly suggestive, not compulsive -- I think most readers will find room for amazement here.   Symbols that Chinese and Japanese use every day, sacred for centuries also in Korea and Vietnam, stand up and point pretty clearly to Christ.  It is as if an American were to look at a quarter for the first time, and be surprised to find the words "In God we trust" on them.  Only the currency of these words is vastly more ancient, and arises in a "pagan" society that had never heard of the Bible.  Thus truth in far-removed cultures gathers together, East and West, to call us to praise God.  In the light of Christ, as Clement of Alexandria put it, broken fragments of truth, scattered within different 'pagan' schools, are joined and brought to life.  However you understand that process, here, surely, we can collect many of those fragments."
 
Dr. David Marshall, author, True Son of Heaven: How Jesus Fulfills the Chinese Culture; How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test: The Inside Story

Answering a critic of True Son of Heaven

Isn't it fun to get shot at from both sides?  I find myself criticized, from time to time, by both atheists and "fundamentalists," by which I mean not people who believe in the central truths of Christianity, but Christians who embrace a fundamentally hostile view of other religious traditions.  (My perspective is more nuanced.)

A year or so ago, a "fundamentalist" reader calling himself Slim Jim posted a highly critical review of my first book, True Son of Heaven: How Jesus Fulfills the Chinese Culture on Amazon and on his blog.   He accused me of poor history, sloppy theology, border-line syncretism, and typos.   I responded to his critique on Amazon some time ago.  But I just discovered the same uncharitable and error-plagued critique on his blog.  Pity: I like some of the blogs he follows: we may have mutual friends, and might find some common ground, if he were to read my book with caution and charity.  (He links Alvin Plantinga, for instance, who is friendly to my views about God outside of the Christian tradition.)

I have been complaining about how poorly skeptics like Bart Ehrman, Matthew Ferguson, and Richard Carrier often read.  Let this post serve as an admission that this failing is not limited to atheists, or to non-Christians.

Here is the substantive parts of his Amazon review, and then my twin responses:

This book has far too many problems that can’t be ignored. I will begin looking at the problems first and then what’s good with the book; but the weakness far outweighs its strength and I hesitate suggesting this work to anyone else . . . 

The book’s thesis is that “many important symbols and ideas within Chinese culture points to Jesus” (7). Some of his evidences of how Chinese culture points towards Jesus and Christianity does not seem to logically follow. For instance, on page five Marshall talked about how Beijing’s Temple of Heaven had twelve red outer pillars and that the number twelve and the color red pointed to the apostles. I don’t know how the color red necessitate that it is the apostles’ blood in view. We must also not forget that the Apostle John was not martyred so it is hard to see 12 red pillars. Later in the book Marshall would argue that the Forbidden Palace’s three layer roof is proof of the Trinity but this seems somewhat of a stretch.

Another of his evidence that Chinese culture points towards Christianity is Confucius. For instance on page 9-10 Marshall claims about Confucius that he “did more than anyone in China to point people to this way.” I would say that is a bold claim. I have reservation with Marshall’s claim about Confucius when Marshall in the book also admitted that Confucius “did not know how to approach heaven” on page 41, that “one thing Confucius lacked: closeness to Heaven” on page 56 and also how “he did not know how to bridge the gap between heaven and earth, or fully understand why it needed to be bridged” on page 57. How can one point to the way when he is ignorant of all the essentials of the Way? Marshall also believed that Confucius’ talk about Sheng Ren (Holy Man) anticipates the Messiah and one of his defense of this is that “Confucius never said the Sheng Ren would be Chinese” (42). But Marshall here is making a fallacious argument from silence. There are so much question begging assertions that the book makes about Confucius and Jesus that it is hard to keep track of them; for instance on page 68 the author claims that both Jesus and Confucius and Jesus “are going the same direction” except Jesus makes it “a dangerous adventure” (68).

Marshall also tried to argue that in the past Chinese thinkers did know the God of Christianity. I think he failed to interact with the strongest arguments of those who disagreed and instead Marshall engaged in a defense the Chinese concept of God is personal. While I do believe that Chinese does have some conception of a personal God that hardly makes it the Christian God. He also failed to account for the silence of Chinese intellectual figureheads with the concept of the Trinity, something that is distinctively Christian. Marshall’s discussion about God’s transcendence and imminence is misplaced in the debate. Added to his confusion is Marshall’s statement that “there are passages in the Bible where the boundary between God and man appear a bit fudged, too, such as Paul’s famous ‘In Him we live and move and have our being’” (24). When one look up Acts 17, we do see the passages affirm God’s transcendence and immanence but it does not present it as being muddled. God is indeed transcendent but also His presence is everywhere though that does not mean God is His creature or creation.

It does not help Marshall’s cause when he is theologically weak that affects his discernment and presentation. For instance, he talks about Nestorians as “the first Christians in China” (25) without acknowledging their heretical status. There is the danger of syncretism in Marshall’s theology. He claims on page 68 that “Jesus and Lao Zi were ‘spiritual brothers.’” I wished the book was more pronounce and clear concerning sin, Jesus’ death and salvation. Even when he does talk about those subject towards the end of the book, he doesn’t connect the relationship of sin to justification and Jesus’ work on the cross which I see as essential for one’s Gospel presentation.
His methodology is problematic because everything points to Jesus Christ, even Mao’s rebellion is something Jesus took to make part of His Way (64-65). Marshall thinks Jesus was speaking about Mao’s regime when He said brothers will be against brothers, etc (168). It is a bit of a stretch. It must also be said that the same method the author use can also be used to demonstrate how Chinese culture points to say Marxism, Islam, etc. It is a flawed and speculative method. Plus, I don’t think Mao is a good “bridge” to Chinese culture for Christianity, given how he is a tyrant and also someone who is not necessarily held in high regards among everyone in the Chinese community.

I thought it was ironic that the author could point out “Chinese Buddhism” is “very Chinese, but not very Buddhist” (81). At times I felt Marshall’s work ended up being more Chinese than Christian.
I think any reference to historical and political realities that the book make must be double checked. For instance, on page 82-83 the book claims “A symbol of both Mao’s success and his failure is that under socialism, the poor learned to waste this precious grain,” with the grain referring to rice. Supposedly, “the communists alleviated China’s chronic food shortage” (83). I had a hard time with this personally since it goes against what history tells us of the man made famine that Mao’s economic policies produced. In fact, Mao’s policies followed that of Stalin and Mao didn’t change it even with the Russians warning him that it wasn’t going to work since they have done it already themselves. Given the historical inaccuracy of the statement we must ask what is the basis for Marshall to assert such a horrendous claim and he tells us following the above quote when he go on to say “When I walked by student dorms in China in the mid 1980s, I learned to keep an eye out for uneaten rice thrown through a window” (83). Assuming this to be true, we must remember that the author’s experience in the mid-1980s was the reign of Deng Xiao Ping and not Chairman Mao. Chairman Mao has been dead for a decade so the basis for his evidence of Mao’s economic success does not support his conclusion . . . 

As I said before the bad outweighs the good in the book. What I did appreciate from the book is his chapter on how Buddhism cannot fulfill the expectation and longing of Chinese culture. Of course, one might ask why must Chinese Culture be the standard to judge one’s religion in the first place and if consistent it is also detrimental to the Christian cause since not everything in Chinese culture is right and compatible with Christianity. It seems as if this didn’t occur to the author giving his silence on the issue.

I also enjoyed it whenever the author discussed Chinese character and how it points to some profound truth or confirm Biblical truths and this is probably the strongest evidence he presents in the book. Sadly when it comes to the characters pointing to Genesis he shares in the appendix that he is skeptical of it; but if he is skeptical of the strongest evidence in his book, that doesn’t speak a whole lot for the rest of his superficial look at how Chinese culture points towards Christ.

 
I. Of course I don't say the three layers of the Temple of Heaven "prove" the Trinity, as you claim. Having demonstrated that the Chinese worshiped the Supreme God there, I ask, "From a Christian perspective, what better way to represent the God of Heaven, who is three persons in one?"  So there is no talk of "proof" or even "evidence" in this passage, at all.  It is a hint, a foreshadowing or type in traditional Christian language.  You are simply inventing a position for me, and putting it in my mouth.  Such hostile "rephrasing" suggests that you did not read this book with a very open mind. 

The answer to your question about Confucius is equally simple: READ THE TEXT. Here's what I say immediately before the bit you quote: 

"China long believed in a God who judges mankind. Chinese believed God's love or anger depended on how we followed the tao, the way of right living in harmony with the true nature of things.  A man who lived two thousand years ago in what is now Shandong Province did more than anyone to point people to this way."

So I make it clear what "this way" refers to, and it is not "Christianity," as you (again) carelessly claim. It is truth that I think anticipates Christianity, within Chinese culture.  And that resolves the "difficulty" you raise in that paragraph completely. 

Nor does "fudged" mean "muddled."  My point is obviously just what you admit to be true: the Christian God is not purely transcendent, and the Chinese God is not purely imminent.  Why do you work so hard to misunderstand? 

It is hardly a "stretch" to relate Jesus' warning that brother would rise against brother, to this very prophecy coming true under Mao (as it also did under other tyrants): why should it be?  I am, after all, a Christian, who thinks Jesus was the Son of God and knew the future.  The fact that he depicted it so accurately certainly tells in His favor.  Jesus warned us that this would happen, and it has. 

Of course Mao was a tyrant!  Isn't that obvious from what I say about him?  My very first voluntary published writing, in 1976, was a letter to the editor on the death of Mao, denouncing journalists who were going too easy on the mass-murderer!  I didn't say Mao was a fulfillment of Jesus, for heaven's sake! How could you miss the point so spectacularly? 

Yes, grain production did massively increase under the communists.  Here's the data from Wikipedia: 

"In its first fifty years, the People's Republic of China greatly increased agricultural production through organizational and technological improvements.

Crop[27] 1949 Output (tons) 1978 Output (tons) 1999 Output (tons)
1. Grain 113,180,000 304,770,000 508,390,000
2. Cotton 444,000 2,167,000 3,831,000
3. Oil-bearing crops 2,564,000 5,218,000 26,012,000
4. Sugarcane 2,642,000 21,116,000 74,700,000
5. Sugarbeet 191,000 2,702,000 8,640,000
6. Flue-cured tobacco 43,000 1,052,000 2,185,000
7. Tea 41,000 268,000 676,000
8. Fruit 1,200,000 6,570,000 62,376,000
9. Meat 2,200,000 8,563,000 59,609,000
10. Aquatic products 450,000 4,660,000 41,220,000

Sorry if your history teachers didn't fill you in on that fact.  Partly communist success in increasing agricultural production came about simply because the World War and endless civil wars, which the communists had themselves helped to fuel in the latter case, had come to an end.  But in part, such increases are easy to achieve through concentration of labor and infrastructure projects, whether under tyrannical emperors or under the communist party. In China, they are famously associated with the agricultural scientist, Yuan Longping. 

No, this in no way conflicts with the fact that mass starvation also occurred under the communists at times -- which I also talk about, and also terrible poverty, as on page 89. 

And I said "under socialism," not "under Mao," which further disarms your criticism there.  What Mao accomplished was mainly to unite and pacify the country.  Those benefits allowed other benefits, under more reasonable leadership, to acrue. 

I despise communism with all my heart, and see Mao as one of the most evil tyrants of modern times.  But if you are an historian, which I am (and you obviously are not), even the devil must be given his due. 

Throughout your review, you seem determined to find fault, and often misread my arguments badly, always in a negative direction. Why did you read this book? Your hostility could not be clearer. 

There is nothing "superficial" about the arguments in this book.  They represent the popular version of serious arguments that I also made in my doctoral dissertation, which passed scrutiny from leading theologians and informed China scholars.  That is, admittedly, more rigorous, but even rigor cannot stand against an excess of hostility. 

Sorry you (also) don't like the pictures: I think they add a lot to the book, and many readers have agreed. (Though the next printing will update and modernize all the graphics, which is overdue.) I am not forcing readers to believe something here in a strident or "rigorous" way, I am introducing them to China, and to Jesus, as friends.  But there is rigorous scholarship behind my arguments, of which I do give the reader a peek, from time to time.  I don't believe, however, that a overly hostile reader can be convinced of anything against his or her will. 

My dissertation will probably also be published later this year.  It demonstrates both the theological foundations of my position, and (in detail) the historical evolution of the ideas that I highlight here in the context of classical Chinese thought, responding carefully to contrary arguments from other scholars. But frankly, as hostile as you seem to my thesis, and as careless as you certainly are in reading this book, I'm not sure I would recommend it to you.

You argue: 

What I did appreciate from the book is his chapter on how Buddhism cannot fulfill the expectation and longing of Chinese culture.  Of course, one might ask why must Chinese Culture be the standard to judge one’s religion in the first place and if consistent it is also detrimental to the Christian cause since not everything in Chinese culture is right and compatible with Christianity.  It seems as if this didn’t occur to the author giving his silence on the issue.

My "silence" on the issue?  Slim Jim seems to be smoking something more powerful that Slim Jims, to make such an asinine statement.  

Who said "everything in Chinese culture is right and compatible with Christianity?"  Slim Jim again shows that he is not reading at all attentively.  I talk about forced prostitution, idolatry, human sacrifice, abuse of women, and mass murder, among other things!  

This sort of comment makes clear that Slim Jim has probably not asked many Asians what they think about Christianity.  Were he to do so, as I have, he would discover that tens of millions see Christianity as a "foreign religion," and that that perception has effectively blocked the spread of the Gospel among two billion or more people in Asia.  

I wrote this book as a missionary.  I wrote it because of course we judge new ideas according to what we know or feel to be true already.  

St. Paul understood this.  That is why when he arrived in Athens, the cultural center of the Mediterranean world, he appealed to Greek philosophers and to the "altars to the unknown God," to preach Christ.  

But notice that what Slim Jim appreciates is when I criticize other religions.  Odd, since he didn't seem to notice earlier that I did that.  This reflects the apparently lack of balance he brings to evaluating other faiths -- he just doesn't like it when I say positive things, apparently.

I also enjoyed it whenever the author discussed Chinese character and how it points to some profound truth or confirm Biblical truths and this is probably the strongest evidence he presents in the book. Sadly when it comes to the characters pointing to Genesis he shares in the appendix that he is skeptical of it; but if he is skeptical of the strongest evidence in his book, that doesn’t speak a whole lot for the rest of his superficial look at how Chinese culture points towards Christ.

Jim again shows that he misunderstands my argument.  What I am skeptical of is a particular set of historical arguments claiming that the Chinese consciously inscribed themes from Genesis into the Chinese written language.  I recently wrote the forward for a book that relates Chinese characters to Christianity more carefully, however.  So I'm actually pretty positive about the general argument.  

But it's only Jim who thinks the few Chinese characters I relate to Christianity are the "strongest evidence in (my) book."  

Who is Jim, anyway, to say my analysis of Christianity and Chinese culture is "superficial?"  Does he have BA, MA, and PhDs in the subject?  Does the atheist anthropology professor of the world's 16th most important university, a specialist in Chinese religion, still praise his field research on a Chinese sect of Buddhism 20 years ago?  Has his dissertation in Theology of Religions been read and tested by an eminent Professor of Christian Thought popular with the Vatican, at one of Britain's leading universities?  

II. What your review really calls into question at times is your own reading ability.  For instance:

"I don’t know how the color red necessitate that it is the apostles’ blood in view."

Where did you get the idea that that's what I was saying?  I explain my actual point clearly and directly:

"I looked at those twelve pillars and immediately thought of the twelve apostles, red AS IF SPRINKLED WITH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST."

Christ, not the apostles.

Nor do I say the three-layer roof of the Temple of Heaven is "proof" of the trinity.  Don't misrepresent my argument, please.  

You ask, "How can one point to the way when he is ignorant of all the essentials of the Way?"

That's an easy question to answer.  Did John the Baptist know all the details of  Jesus' work?  Did King David?  Did Abraham?  Yet they all pointed to "the Way" (the Logos).  If you understand how the gospels related Jesus to the Old Testament, this should not be a difficult question.

You also complain:

"Marshall also believed that Confucius’ talk about Sheng Ren (Holy Man) anticipates the Messiah and one of his defense of this is that “Confucius never said the Sheng Ren would be Chinese” (42).  But Marshall here is making a fallacious argument from silence."

Do you know what an Argument From Silence is? I gather that you do not.  Nor are you reading fairly.  All I am doing with this parenthetical comment, a lead-in to the next chapter, is pointing out that for all Confucius said about him, the Sage need not be Chinese.  That minor point is not itself not my argument that the Sheng Ren does anticipate Jesus.  I go into this in more detail in my dissertation, and show that Jesus fits the description of the Sheng Ren in Confucius better than any other commonly-cited figure.

I do, in fact, interact with the strongest arguments of those who deny that God in the Classics should be identified with God in Christian tradition.  Do you really claim to know what those are?  But there is only so much room for that discussion in this book.  Read with a modicum of fairness -- which you don't seem to have brought to the book -- and I think most people will find the facts I point to convincing.

Indeed, reviewers who know Chinese culture well have found my argument in this book quite successful:

James Hudson Taylor III: "An amazing piece of writing."

Tony Lambert: "Showing deep, original thought, the author challenges the assumption that God and Christ are totally alien to the Chinese tradition, and writes a modern book on Christian apologetics in the process . . . Stimulating and provocative."

Wright Doyle, Global China Center: "It seems to me that Marshall has followed in the footsteps of C.S. Lewis, who told us that are desires are to weak, not too strong; and of Blaise Pascal, who urged Christians to show how lovely, how utterly delightful, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The True Son of Heaven presents us with effective contextualization of the Christian message without dilution of its essence . . . Marshall’s style, both poetic and colloquial, requires a translator of the very highest skill in both English and Chinese to render the beauty and subtleties of this fine work." 

So far as I know, no knowledgeable theologian has found any "syncretism" in my book.  You seem to have read it a real chip on your shoulder, frankly.

Free books! (GOOD ones!)

Mom is moving into an apartment on the ground floor of my sister's house.  That means all those wonderful books stored in her garage (along with other things) need to find new homes!

Jesus and the Religions of Man, which I have the most of, is a wonderful book, a book that will change how you, or those you love, see the world.  Don't take my word for it: read the reviews below.

So, here's the deal.  Buy ONE copy of my new book, How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test: The Inside Story (which is also getting fantastic reviews -- again, below, or at Amazon [ignore the one-star reviews by people who didn't read the book]) at $4 off . . . just $13 . . . and I will give you as many copies of Jesus and the Religions of Man as you like . . . for free!  (And add postage, I don't want to pay for that!)

Use these books for ministry.  Give them away to friends, Christian and non-Christian.  They will cause your friends (and you, if you haven't read them yet) to see the world in a fresh and very exciting new light.

I would love to see people make use of these books.

Here are the reviews:


How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test: The Inside Story

Dr. Ivan Satyavrata, Indian Theologian

"Marshall is uniquely gifted as a writer – his careful scholarship, depth of insight and logical analysis is matched only by his illustrative genius as he skilfully blends inspired prose and vivid imagination in a much-needed, readable counter to the contemporary assault of the new atheists. This is a book you will not want to put down once you begin to read it, and a `must-read’ for any thoughtful follower of Christ. It has immense value both as a apologetic and pastoral tool - to help demolish obstacles to faith among genuine sceptics, and to encourage the weak and equip the strong within the community of faith.

Miriam Adeney, Seattle Pacific Missiologist: 

"Widely travelled and widely read, David Marshall unlocks a wealth of wisdom in this book . . . Greek and Roman Christianity, Viking Christianity, Indian Christianity, and Chinese Christianity are visited by a scholar who is fluent in the major languages of Asia.  What is truth? How do we know? What is love? Such questions are explored with flashes of dry humor and wit.  Christ's many gifts to humankind are described from an original perspective.  By turns, Christ is seen as a koan master, a sage, a guru, a messiah, and a reformer, as well as the center of the cosmos, the suffering sacrifice, and the risen Lord.  "Christ fulfilled the archtypes and prophecies given by Plato, Homer, Confucius, Lao Zi, Mencius, the Norse poets, and the great Vedic and Zhou texts.    This book is a treasure chest.  Read it and you will be enriched."

Brad Cooper, pastor 

"I found myself being carried along as if by an incoming hurricane, swept along by David's wit and mastery of metaphor. But unlike a hurricane, David did not leave behind a barren wasteland in his wake. Instead, fresh insights from the history of religions sprung up page after page, and an original and cogent argument had grown tall and strong as a redwood when the winds finally died down . . . 

"At one point, I was thinking to myself: "I can't remember the last time I enjoyed reading a book this much."  (And I read a lot.)  Then I remembered that it was when I read Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Quite honestly, I think this book even surpasses that for me."

Randal Rauser, Canadian philosopher

"For some time now, Christianity’s cultured despisers have claimed that the Christian faith fails the so-called outsider test for faith. In this delightful riposte, David Marshall demonstrates the opposite is the case: Christianity, of all faiths, is most adept to pass this test. Nor is this a dry academic volume: Marshall presents his case with rhetorical wit and the cosmopolitan vision of a true world citizen. A must have for any apologist."

Don Richardson, author, Peace Child and Eternity in Their Hearts:

"An engrossing historical tapestry laden with insight . . .  Read on and be enriched!"

Tom Gilson, Thinking Christian blog:

"In the earliest days of the church there was a skeptic named Celsus whose works have been lost, and whose name would be forgotten had not Origen written his important rebuttal, Contra Celsus . . . Much as Celsus has become a footnote to Origen, I suspect (skeptic John) Loftus is destined to become a footnote to Marshall . . .  an outstanding read by a terrific storyteller, broad in scope, great in depth."

Jesus and the Religions of Man

Frederica Matthewes-Green, free-lance writer (National Review, Christianity Today, etc) 

"David Marshall takes cultural analysis several levels deeper, and in prose that is several levels higher, than we've come to expect. The result is not only enlightening but also a great deal of fun to read."
David Leshana, President Emeritus, Seattle Pacific University

"Very well done . . . This book should be read by all who . . . are preparing for ministry in an increasingly multicultural world."
Leslie Keylock, professor of Apologetics, Moody Bible Institute  

"Carefully reasoned and beautifully written by a man who has read widely . . . One of the finest books on world religions I have read in a long time."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram 

"Learned, urbane, and refreshing."

Jason Pratt, novelist

"In my opinion, this book is an entirely fitting successor to Chesterton's Everlasting Man.  With both passion and compassion, Mr. Marshall blends rigorous research with touches of poignantly poetic flair, in a forceful tour of incisive probing into what could be called the 'practical guts' of very many religious traditions."

A scholar of Japanese culture and new Christian

"What I liked most about (Jesus and the Religions of Man) is that it gave me a framework with which to think about and understand Christianity in the modern, pluralistic world."

TO ORDER: Send $14, plus $4 for one copy of How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test, and $1 each for each additional book requested (ask about postage on orders above 10), to David Marshall / PO BOX 403 / Fall City, WA 98024.

Warning: I'm flying back to China on February 17th.  I'll personally mail out all orders that come in by the 16th.  After that, your order may take just a little bit longer 

Can Matthew Ferguson Read?

In his usual charitable style, Ken ("Arizona Atheist") responded to my post rebutting a grotesque and baseless allegation from Matthew Ferguson (that I wished his demise: may he live long and prosper) as follows:

"You haven't addressed Matthew's post in any substantive way.  Evasions, excuses, and other tricks of your trade.  Perhaps if I have some free time I will go through line by line and point out all the reasons you have not directly addressed his post.  Which, by the way, can be found HERE since you placed the link in the middle of this large post, making very difficult to find.  Was that on purpose, in an attempt to keep it somewhat hidden?  Makes one wonder...."