THE GOSPEL OF PHONIUS BALONIUS

Dear Professor Theophilus:

I was taking an ancient history course when the discovery of the "gospel" of Judas hit the news. I haven't read this "gospel," but it seems to me that if God had wanted it in the Bible, it wouldn't have been hidden and found thousands of years later. My teacher, however, said that Christians have closed minds for not accepting this "gospel" as divine truth. I'm wondering what you think.

Reply

You're right. There is no more reason to accept the "gospel" of Judas as a real gospel than to accept the science-fiction ravings of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.

The teachings of this so-called gospel are incompatible with all four of the canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as the rest of the Bible, both Old Testament and New. In order to accept it as divinely inspired, one would have to conclude that the canonical gospels were not divinely inspired. Even apart from our faith in God's guidance in centuries past, is there the slightest reason to reach such a conclusion? No.

The "gospel" of Judas was probably written no earlier than the middle of the second century. That puts its composition long, long after the four canonical gospels, all of which date from the early years of the Christian Church. As theologian Thomas D. Williams has remarked, accepting this so-called gospel as a primary source is like accepting a book written today as an eyewitness report on the Civil War.

The Christian Church encountered and rejected as spurious a number of supposed gospels during the first several centuries. This "Gospel of Judas" is probably the same "Gospel of Judas" described by Irenaeus and several other early Christian writers. In his second-century work Adversus haereses ("Against Heresies"), he dismissed it as a fictitious history, informing us that it was composed by the Cainites, who appear to have been a sect of Gnostics. The Cainites claimed to have descended from Cain, the first murderer, whom they regarded as a hero; they taught that the God of the Bible is evil, and that resisting Him is good.

There is no reason in the world to get worked up about this ancient baloney. Count on it, though: Every time another old heretical text surfaces, the press and some scholars will trumpet it as a "new gospel" that "shakes the foundations of the Christian faith." Ho hum.

Peace be with you,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

* * *

FEELING STRONGLY ABOUT IT

Dear Professor Theophilus:

My agnostic friend says that he believes in some sort of God or Creator, but he says he can't choose a religion because he views them as all the same. I make arguments in favor of Christianity, but he simply says, "A Muslim or a Hindu would feel just as strongly as you do. If so many people can believe so many conflicting things, how do I know who's right?" What do I say?

Reply

Your friend doesn't worry much about consistency, does he? Your first task with this artful dodger is to pin him down. Which does he really believe — that all religions are the same, or that they all believe conflicting things? He can't have it both ways at once.

What I suppose he means is that religions are different in what they believe but similar in how strongly they feel about it. But feelings are rather beside the point, aren't they? Suppose your agnostic friend were asked to settle a dispute about the shape of the earth. Homer "feels strongly" that the earth is flat, but Bertha "feels strongly" that it's round. How should your agnostic friend respond? Should he say "Golly, I can't decide, because you both feel so strongly"? Of course not. He should say "Feelings have nothing to do with it. Tell me your arguments!"

Well, you are telling him your arguments, but he isn't listening. Explain that religious questions aren't about how we feel, but about what really is. How strongly people feel is no more the measure of truth in faith than it is in physics.

Peace be with you,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

* * *

MY PERSONAL RIGHT TO JERK YOU AROUND

Dear Professor Theophilus:

Several of my classes deal with hot issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. According to several of my classmates, having a right to an abortion and having a right to a same-sex marriage are just like having the right to be Christian. They argue that the government should stay out of lifestyle choices, and that it has no business telling a woman what to do with her body. I see the point in their arguments, but I still believe that these choices are wrong. How can I explain without sounding like I just want to interfere? Do you have any suggestions?

Reply

I do. The problem is that you're allowing your opponents to describe your position for you. This puts you in an impossible position. You end up defending a position that isn't yours: The position that everyone else should do just as you tell them to.

Actually, you're not the one who is trying to violate genuine rights; they are. This is especially clear in the first case you mention. Daryl thinks he should be allowed to carve up people who get in his way; Dottie thinks there ought to be a law against that sort of thing. Who is the real tyrant here — Daryl or Dottie? You and I say Daryl; your classmates, amazingly, say Dottie. Point this out! And don't let them get away with saying that this is different because a woman has a right to control her own body, because no one is telling her that she can't. The baby isn't a part of her body; he's only in her body. Your classmates' position is no more plausible than if I said that I have a right to bite my dentist because when his hands are in my mouth, they're a part of me.

Although the second case takes a little more work to explain, here too your classmates are the real busybodies. Persons of the same sex already have a right to live together. Your classmates already have a right to call such relationships marriages. You have a right to disagree. What your classmates demand, though, is that the law be changed to enforce their view and put yours down. To put it another way, they want the government to declare an official policy that same-sex couplings are real marriages, and to discriminate against anyone who disagrees. Do you think things like that can't happen? They are happening already. Consider what is going on in Massachusetts, where Catholic Charities has been forced out of the adoption business because it cannot conscientiously abide by state regulations that would require it to place children with same-sex couples.

Remember, marriage is not just something people do. It is a social institution for the encouragement of family that requires support from the culture and the law. It is the only institution that gives children a fighting chance of being raised by a Mom and a Dad. Your classmates can't tolerate that; they think the sexual convenience of grown-ups is more important. Who is jerking whom around? I think you should ask them.

Peace be with you,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

* * *

MISSIONARY SINNING

Dear Professor Theophilus:

I've read Ask Me Anything and a lot of your online articles, so you'd think by this time I'd have this Theophilus thing down. I have a question anyway.

I joined a sorority during my freshman year on the recommendation of two friends I looked up to. They said it was a great way to befriend nonbelievers and lead them to Christ. After a year of sorority life I really have to ask whether I should continue to be immersed in this ungodly environment. Doesn't Psalm 1 say "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked"? I'm not tempted to get drunk or have sex, and I do understand the important of befriending nonbelievers — how else are we to witness to them? But we don't become Muslims to reach Muslims for Christ, do we?

Some Christian friends tell me that I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will if I left the sorority, because I'm here for a reason. What do you think?

Reply

I think your friends' argument begs the question — it assumes what it is supposed to prove. If you're asking whether God has a reason for you to be in the sorority, then it doesn't settle anything to say "Don't leave, because God has a reason for you to be there." That's what you're trying to find out.

Your own thoughts are much sounder, though I'd use a different analogy. From the way you describe your sorority, hanging out there isn't much like converting to Islam. Observant Muslims aren't big on drunkenness or sluttiness. It's more like living in a bar or brothel. Even though you have stayed chaste and sober, it's not good for you to be there — to live the life of faith you need faithful companions. Nor are you doing any good to your nonbelieving friends — you don't have to join their organization to befriend them, and your witness is compromised by doing so. So I'd advise you to trust your intuitions and get out.

By the way, the line you've been hearing from certain confused Christians is a common one. I call it missionary sinning. Hang out at drug parties — what a chance to spread the gospel! Date nonbelievers — maybe you can get them to church! Sign up for the wet t-shirt contest — you'll be such a witness to the other girls! The general idea seems to be that your witness will be stronger if you weaken it.

Motives for swallowing the line vary. One is pride: "I'm so good that I can expose myself to temptation and still not give in." Another is the attraction of sin itself: "I'd like to do these things anyway, but I can't admit that to myself, because I'd be ashamed." You were merely a bit weak; you were afraid to exercise your own judgment, and wanted to be thought well of by friends whom you looked up to.

I'm glad you've begun to be stronger. Keep it up.

Peace be with you,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

* * *

YOU SHALL BE AS GODS (WHERE HAVE I HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE?)

Dear Professor Theophilus:

I agree with much of what you wrote in your reply to the "Christian Wusses" letter, but I disagree about one point.

You said that although we shouldn't be soft, we don't have Christ's authority — for instance, that it isn't for us to drive moneychangers out of the Temple with whips. God has been changing my mind about that. He said in Matthew 28:18-19, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." By being baptized into God's name, aren't we given access to all His rights, responsibilities, and authority?

Reply

Thanks — but no, it's not the case that every Christian has the authority to do everything that Christ did. The error in your reasoning is that you read "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore go and make disciples," as though it said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore the same authority is yours." Jesus wasn't giving each of us His authority; on His authority, he was commanding us to do something.

I have to tell you that alarms bells sound when you write that God "has been changing your mind about" authority. It's true that God teaches us, but as we've just seen by considering your logical errors, it's dangerous to attribute every change of one's own mind to God. If we do that, pretty soon we'll be treating ourselves as gods. Don't revere yourself; revere Him.

Peace be with you,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

* * *

If you have a question you'd like Professor Theophilus to consider for this column, please send it to asktheo@trueu.org. Please note, all questions that are selected for "Ask Theophilus" may be edited for clarity and privacy and become the property of Focus on the Family.