1) There is no way that the Fourth Gospel was written by John Zebedee or by any of the disciples of Jesus.

He knows that? How? I am not saying that I know the fourth Gospel was written by John, the son of Zebedee. I have heard other interesting theories including authorship by the mysterious John the Elder and by Lazarus. My point is, how does he know that John did not write it? Within Pauline scholarship, there are those who don’t believe Paul wrote certain letters. This is done by comparing certain letters to the authentic letters and noticing differences. While I disagree with their conclusions, I can understand their methodology. Does Spong have an authentic Johannine writing that he can compare to the Gospel? Things are not as conclusive as Spong suggests.

2) There is probably not a single word attributed to Jesus in this book that the Jesus of history actually spoke.

The ironic thing is that if the church had rejected John and included it with the apocryphal gospels, liberal scholars would likely be looking to John as containing the authentic sayings of Jesus. It is true that John shapes his material with theological and literary motivations, but so do the synoptics. Again, how does Spong know that none of it goes back to Jesus? Even if the synoptics are used as the measure, there are some parallels. But even where John is different from the synoptics, it is very likely that material goes back to Jesus.

3) Not one of the signs (the Fourth Gospel’s word for miracles) recorded in this book was, in all probability, something that actually happened.

Again, he knows this how? From what I know of Spong, the reasoning goes along these lines: assuming miracles are impossible, it follows that miracles cannot happen. Can I use the reasoning that assuming Spong is incorrect, it follows that his conclusions in this article are wrong?

4) Many of the characters who appear in the pages of the Fourth Gospel are literary creations of its author and were never intended to be understood as real people, who actually lived in history.

How does Spong know this? He points out that some of the characters are not mentioned in the synoptics, suggesting that they are literary creations. But if John represents a different tradition than the synoptics, it would seem likely that some different people would be involved. An interesting twist is Lazarus. He is not mentioned in the synoptics and so according to Spong is a creation. But his sisters are mentioned in Luke. So what we have here is a partially real and partially imaginary family.

5) John’s Gospel seems to ridicule anyone who might read this book as a work of literal history.

Spong argues this from some examples of Jesus using figures of speech. But since Spong points to the synoptics as the measure of history, we should note the heavy reliance of parables there. In addition, there is plenty of material in John that seems to be literal. Jesus washed the disciples’ feet with literal water, not figurative water. Most writings, ancient and modern, include lietarl details and figures of speech.

6) The Gospel also exaggerates its details, once more I believe, to counter any attempt to read it literally.

This is bizarre. John does note that the things Jesus did should create a sense of wonder. It is not a passionless recording of bare detail. “Oh look, Jesus brought another person back from dead. Yawn. What’s for lunch?” News stories today attempt to report the facts but to do so in a way that produces a reaction in the readers or hearers. That is what John does.

7) [T]the Fourth Gospel has been used in Christian history as the guarantor of what came to be called Christian orthodoxy or creedal Christianity.

There you go, the Gospel of John supports orthodox Christianity. Since we (or at least Spong) know orthodox Christianity is wrong, then we should have serious misgivings about John.

If you are interested in the Gospel of John, I would encourage you to read scholarly works on John. Don’t just read evangelical scholars, read from liberal and non-Christian scholars as well. But do not read Spong and assume that what he says is the united position of biblical scholarship today.

As part of my devotional life, I have started using an ESV Journalling Bible. Basically, it is a regular Bible with extra-wide margins that can be used for making notes. In my devotional reading, I try to make a short note about each chapter that I read. I also use it for when I preach, to include my basic points. When I listen to someone else preach, I make note of what they say.

Since I was already doing this, I figured I might as well write down the most important points of the lectures. That way, when I am devotionally reading Mark or listening to a preacher, I have my notes right there. I am sure that there are electronic ways that are more efficient and allow for more room for notes. But for someone like me who likes a paper Bible in their hands, this is working very well.

How would a course that talks about social justice fit with apologetics? Well, Ron Sider has some very strong apologetic aspects to his life and ministry. One of the influential people in his life during his time at university was John Warwick Montgomery. Ron even strongly considered becoming an apologist. That apologetics is still important to him was seen in that the first lecture was not on feeding the hungry or stopping human trafficking but in looking at the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

I came across an interesting reference to apologetics in one of his books. In his book, Good News and Good Works, Ron says this:

“Wholistic apologetics would fit well with wholistic revivals. Earlier I talked about the problem of Western secularism, which pervades the intellectual world—especially our universities, which are overwhelmingly non-Christian. Enlightenment secularism is one reason for the loss of faith among educated people, but another crucial reason is Christian failure. We have not lived what we preached. In disgust, many intellectuals have turned away from our hypocritical Christianity.” (p. 191)

People are frantically trying to find a worldview that makes sense of the world. As Ron points out, “Full-orbed biblical Christianity is what they need. And the best way to help them to see that is by wholistic discipleship and wholistic apologetics.” (p. 192) We need to continue to point out evidence for the existence of God and demonstrate the historical credibility of the resurrection. But those of us interested in apologetics should also seek to demonstrate the truth of Christianity by making a difference in the world around us.

This is a video put out by the United Nations bringing to our attention the danger that many homosexuals experience throughout the world. I must say that I agree with 90% of what is in this video. It is terrible that so many homosexuals are killed and tortured in countries around the world. I believe the church should be at the front of the line protecting homosexuals from violence, wherever they live. Having said that, I have two comments (one minor and one major).

The minor point is that this video says that homosexuality has been in every culture and in every generation. I would agree with that. However, when people point out ancient critiques of homosexuality (such as in the Bible), many people point out that homosexuality in our modern understanding, in terms of long term and loving relationships, is relatively new and therefore not covered by those concerns of many years ago. I would just say that you cannot have it both ways. If you want the long history of homosexuality to be part of its legitimacy, you cannot argue that what we consider homosexuality is something new.

My major concern with this video is with a subtle shift that is made. Many comments were made about the violence and abuse suffered by homosexuals, something I hope we would all condemn. But then at the end, the idea that some people consider homosexuality abnormal is tagged on to that as if we are still talking about the same thing. Killing is wrong. Torturing is wrong. Disagreeing with homosexuality is wrong. Those things are presented as if they are equally wrong.

However, there are millions of people who consider homosexuality wrong, not because they are filled with hate or want to kill homosexuals, but because their religious texts or traditions say it is wrong. What do we do with that? If the world takes a stand against all of these things, including believing homosexuality is abnormal, should the world take a stand against these religions as well? I am all for human rights for homosexuals. But I am all for human rights for religious people as well. Religious people’s rights should be limited so that they are not free to abuse or kill people. Homosexual’s rights should be limited so that they are not free from having people disagree with them.

The church, the homosexual community and everyone else should work together to end the violence against homosexuals. However, people should still have the freedom to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and to consider it abnormal.

Many people consider the pro-life position to be based on a faith or religious system. Some suppose that people would be pro-choice if their religious teachers or tradition would allow them. That may be true in a few cases but this has absolutely nothing to do with my experience. I actually came to a pro-life position during my time as an atheist. I figured if this life is the only chance we have at existence, we should give every person that chance to live. However, my reason for being pro-life at this stage is not based in either atheistic or religious presuppositions.

I sometimes hear pro-choice people offering abortion as a compassionate response to certain situations. The truth is that not every pregnancy is planned, not every relationship is ideal and some circumstances are very unfortunate. What about women who become pregnant and yet are totally not able to raise a child? What about cases when there has been substance abuse and there is a risk of harm to the child? For our family, these are not just “what if” questions.

My wife and I had two children. Because both were diagnosed with autism, we decided to not have any more children as there was a good chance that a third child would also have autism. After a few years, we began to wish that we could have another child, perhaps a child without autism. We approached the Children’s Aid Society and began looking into adoption. Do not let anyone tell you that mothers that give up their children are abandoning them to a lonely existence in an orphanage. We were told that there were far few children than there were parents looking for children. We were told that we might be waiting close to a decade and even then it was not guaranteed that we would get a child. It was discouraging but we decided to go through with the adoption classes anyway.

During this time, there was a girl that we knew that was pregnant. Because she was doing drugs during the pregnancy, Children’s Aid became involved and they planned to apprehend the baby at birth. Instead, my wife and I decided to put together a plan of care and take the baby into our home. It was an interesting situation for us as we attended our last adoption class and while all the other parents were dreading their long wait, we already had a baby at home.

During that first year, we discovered that the mother was pregnant again and that drugs were still involved. While I was hesitant to bring another baby home, since we already had two children with autism and we did not know what effects the drugs would have, we decided to bring this baby home (the decision was literally made the day she was born). After getting our son out of the baby stage, we suddenly had a baby girl. Our house was now very full. However, we soon discovered that the mother was pregnant again. We decided that we wanted to keep the children together and so brought another little girl into our home.

People could easily condemn the mother of our children for taking drugs during her pregnancy. It definitely was not a good choice. However, I respect her for not taking the “easy” way out by getting an abortion. I am sure she was very uncomfortable during the pregnancy and I can’t imagine the emotional toll of knowing she would not keep the babies and having to part with them. And yet she did go through this hardship and allowed those babies to find a home and to be healthy and happy.

But what about the drugs? Is it fair to have babies go through withdrawal at birth, to possibly develop delays or other health issues? Would it not be more compassionate to end it all quickly in abortion? It was hard to watch them go through withdrawal and there are a few areas in which we see the effects of the drugs. But over all, these are beautiful, happy, loving, fun, intelligent, healthy children that we love very much. I do not see how anyone could look at our children and wish that their biological mother had chosen abortion instead. Experiencing these fantastic kids is a huge part of why I am pro-life.

And here I am as an ex-pastor, having just announced on my other blog that I am now the associate editor of Faith Today. I need to make some things clear here. I am not a burned out pastor who is settling for a non-church job to recover from my bad experience. I pastored Woodford and First Baptist Church Meaford for nine years and had a fantastic time. The people were awesome and I saw some great things take place there. It is true that I do not regret being out of pastoral ministry, but it is not because of a bad experience.

My decision to move from being a pastor to an editor is not an escape but an evolution of my ministry. Ever since I first felt God call me to ministry back in 1994 in London, England during an Operation Mobilization mission, I have seen that ministry shifting and changing.  That is not disappointing but is exciting. Change is good. God has been developing me and shaping me. I have become more aware of my skills and I have discovered new ways to serve.

I still think it is sad when I hear about a pastor abandoning the ministry. But as an ex-pastor (I have no idea if I will ever be on staff at a church again), I am happy with how my ministry has developed. I look forward to working at Faith Today and I encourage you to check out the magazine and watch for the exciting things that will take place.

1. The hero’s mother is a royal virgin
2. His father is a king and
3. often a near relative of the mother, but
4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. he is also reputed to be the son of a god
6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster-parents in a far country
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king and or giant, dragon, or wild beast
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
13. becomes king
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
15. Prescribes laws but
16. later loses favor with the gods and or his people and
17. Is driven from from the throne and the city after which
18. He meets with a mysterious death
19. often at the top of a hill.
20. his children, if any, do not succeed him.
21. his body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. he has one or more holy sepulchres.

Here are my results:

1. No indication that Mary was royal.
2. Assuming you are talking about Joseph (otherwise this would overlap with 5) he was not a king.
3. Father was not a near relative of the mother.
4. Definitely unusual.
5. Described as the Son of God.
6. No attempt by father or grandfather to kill him.
7. Was spirited away.
8. Was not reared by foster-parents.
9. We are told something about his childhood.
10. He does not seem to have his own kingdom at manhood, he preaches the kingdom of God but it is not his.
11. I’m not sure what victory over a dragon is being referred to here. While that was later attached to what Jesus did at the cross and his resurrection, that is absent in the gospels.
12. Jesus never got married. Sorry Dan Brown.
13. Is Jesus a king? In a sense, although he has no kingdom in this world which is probably what is being referred to here. I will give this to you but I am being generous.
14. I do not see any uneventful reign in the gospels.
15. Jesus does not proscribe laws. He enters into the conversation of interpretation that the other Jewish leaders were involved in but that is very different from proscribing.
16. He does lose favour with the people.
17. Driven from a throne? Where in the gospels? He is not even driven from the city.
18. A mysterious death? Nothing mysterious about crucifixion. Thousands of people died this way.
19. I will give you the hill.
20. No children.
21. His body was buried.
22. He had a tomb but I would not call that a holy sepulchre. The later church may have done that but it is not found in the gospels.

How does Jesus do here? By my count, Jesus scores a 6 on this scale based on what we find in the gospels. I believe that is the range in which a historical figure is expected.  This is very interesting.