One of the ironies of the Bible is that while it is self-authenticating, attacks on its veracity are growing in their viciousness.
The latest comes from Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar and professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina. Ehrman's new book, "Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are," alleges that much of the New Testament was not written by the men it is attributed to, but rather unknown writers.
Religion Bookline's G. Jeffrey MacDonald recently interviewed Ehrman about his new book. Among the interesting exchanges was this:
G. Jeffrey MacDonald: Your argument seems to suggest that people who see the Bible as trustworthy are foolish because many of the writers are lying about who they are.
Bart Ehrman: Well, Paul likely didn't write the book of Ephesians. In the ancient world, this would have been considered lying and deceitful. And people should certainly take that into account when they're reading Ephesians.
TRENDING: To DEI for
MacDonald: Take that into account and do what with it?
Ehrman: If they're fundamentalists, they need to stop being fundamentalists. In fact, Ephesians was probably not written by Paul, so the author lied about who he said he was. And somebody who is not a fundamentalist needs to recognize this is a very human book we're dealing with. One of the reasons for stressing this is because people have taken the Bible and used it for all sorts of harmful, hurtful and oppressive purposes over the years by saying it is absolutely perfect with no mistakes in it. If you recognize it as a human book with human problems, then you're less likely to use it as some kind of absolute authority and lord it over people.
That is quite amazing: "If they're fundamentalists, they need to stop being fundamentalists."
Notice too that Ehrman said Ephesians was "probably" not written by Paul. That type of language is common among liberal scholars who impose their own worldview on their scholarship. This was true of Thomas Huxley, it was true of Harry Emerson Fosdick, and it is true of moderns like Ehrman.
Ehrman is fairly famous for having abandoned his evangelical faith; he now considers himself an agnostic. Tellingly, in his other books, Ehrman writes that his inability to reconcile the concept of a loving God with evil and suffering led him to agnosticism.
What I found most interesting about this interview was something that is easy to miss. Ehrman's new book is published by HarperCollins' religion division, HarperOne. That imprint is led by VP/Editorial Director Michael Maudlin, former editor of Christianity Today magazine, thought by many to be the flagship publication of the evangelical world.
This is where it's fun to connect the dots. Ehrman graduated from Wheaton College in 1978 (and earned his Ph.D from Princeton Theological Seminary), which is just up the road from the offices of Christianity Today. Wheaton is not exactly the bastion of evangelicalism that many conservative Christians believe it to be. Ideas such as those now espoused by Ehrman often sprout at Wheaton.
I asked Maudlin in an email about his role at HarperOne, specifically in light of the fact that the publisher works with authors like the Dalai Lama, Deepak Chopra and Rob Bell ("Love Wins"). Isn't this a bit odd for an evangelical editorial director?
Hear Maudlin: "I am responsible for several books and authors that evangelical readers would strongly disagree with: such as Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, John Shelby Spong and others. I also work with evangelical authors who many claim are not really evangelical, such as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and N.T. Wright, among others. I believe that there is no contradiction between publishing the best books on religion and being an evangelical, even if I personally disagree with some of my authors. I don't think the church should be afraid of questions, debates, or dialogue – mostly because I don't think God is."
As to Ehrman's new book, which – let's be clear – aims to undermine evangelical understanding of Scripture, another editor was assigned to the project. Still, Maudlin says he's "proud" that Ehrman is a HarperOne author.
The point I want to make is that in Christian publishing, seismic changes are already here. Changes aren't coming; they are here. Ideas that wouldn't have passed the smell test a generation ago are now aiming to become mainstream. And these ideas, which incubated for decades at places like Wheaton and Christianity Today, are having an impact on the current generation of students.
The center-left in Christendom has for a long time been able to frame the debates and use language that knocks many Bible-believing Christians off balance. In reality, it is a stunning contradiction (or at the very least, irony) that a self-professed evangelical editor would be happy to publish authors outside the Christian faith. And the whimsical line "mostly because I don't think God is" really falls into the category of irrelevant (but perhaps arrogant), since God is infinite and we are mere mortals.
Still, although folks like Maudlin "don't think the church should be afraid of questions, debates or dialogue," (I've never encountered a Bible-believing Christian that was afraid of questions, debates or dialogue about the faith), we should recognize this for what it is: a culture-shift in terms of how Christianity is presented. The implications are enormous, because the U.S. is going the way of Europe with regards to the Christian faith. In terms of faith, do we really want to become Sweden?
The ideas promoted by authors like Ehrman (and Borg, Spong, etc.) impact our youth. These men, like their spiritual forefathers (Fosdick), publish an authoritative-though-false view of Judeo-Christian faith.
I found an interesting quote on Sean McDowell's Facebook page this week, and feel it is relevant in light of what passes for religious publishing in Christian circles today: "The idea that Jesus never existed is laughed at by archaeologists in Israel."
The quote is attributed to Joel Kramer, an archaeology student at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
McDowell knows full well where youth are today in terms of spiritual questions, and a big one centers around an idea that would leave previous generations aghast: How do we know Jesus really lived on Earth?
This type of inquiry is the direct result of ideas circulated first in academia and now in the popular culture by researchers like Bart Ehrman. Popular writers like Rob Bell have marketed liberal views of Scripture on a much wider scale. That's why young people are leaving the faith in droves. If the historical aspects of Christianity are not true, why accept the claims of Christ (which can be different than being a "Christ follower," a popular buzz-phrase among evangelicals today)?
At the end of this sad state of affairs in Christian publishing today, though, I am hopeful. I am reminded of the story in Jeremiah 36, in which King Jehoiakim wanted to be rid of the word of the Lord brought to him by the prophet and the scribe, Baruch. When the king had the scroll burned, Jeremiah and Baruch produced a new scroll, offering wisdom from the Lord.
Man may try to rid himself of God's Word, but the Word itself claims to be eternal.
I'm comfortable with that, and I'm not afraid of the questions, debates or dialogue surrounding it.