Can you Trust the Bible?

A while back, Penn and Teller's series on Showtime (entitled something I won't print here) did an episode on the Bible. Not surprisingly (Penn is an outspoken atheist), the 'expose' they did on the Bible was hugely critical and began with them saying, “If you believe that the Bible is real because of faith, we can't touch you … they [Christians] pride themselves on believing things that are hard to believe in. They think God will bless them for that. But if you want history or fact in your Bible, you are so screwed”

Really? History and fact are missing in the Bible? In truth, the historical facts recorded in the Bible have never been explicitly and convincingly proven false. Now make no mistake, folks have tried. Critics said Pontius Pilate never existed, but then archaeologists uncovered his name in 1961 and dated the finding to be A.D. 26-37. And then there were the writings of Josephus that mention Pilate, so the critics walked away with a black eye on that occasion.

Such a scenario has been repeated numerous times to the point now where even secular historians confirm that New Testament writers such as Luke were first-rate historians of antiquity (see C. Hemer's book on Acts). Even the resurrection has been cited by non-Christians as having occurred - for example, Gerd Ludeman, an atheist from Guttingen University in Germany, has stated: "It is historically certain that Peter and the other disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."

If you've wondered how you can trust the Bible, I would suggest you simply do this: apply the normal historical criteria to it as you would any other book and see what the outcome is. The presentation below does this very thing, so give it a look and see what conclusions you reach:

View more documents from Robin Schumacher.

Says Who?

When same-sex marriage advocate Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign was asked if the concept of marriage should be broadened to include polygamy, she said "No". Her reason? "Because I don't approve of that." That emotive response may surprise some of you, but it's in keeping with an ethical framework that is devoid of God. Without a sovereign Creator, your decision to move a moral boundary lacks any real foundation other than pure opinion.

Every belief system has to provide answers to the questions of ultimate authority, truth, and a standard, and it's interesting to see what people outside of Christianity supply when posed these queries. Most tend to keep one foot inside Christianity and one in their own worldview, although there are a few intellectually honest individuals (like Dawkins) who don't.

I'm just starting to teach through a new series on the Bible, and where I started was to address these questions and explore the alternatives. My presentation is below - let me know what you think.

View more presentations from Robin Schumacher.

On the recent "Missing Link"

The hype the History Channel recently stirred up around the "Ida" fossil was really amazing. "This changes everything!" and "She'll change history forever!" were some of the taglines used by THC for its special presentations. Really? Everything? Forever? Seems like a tall claim to live up to, or maybe it's just a way to sell the History Channel's DVD and book on the subject.

I've debated evolution off and on with various naturalists and atheists and found it to be a real red herring where the question of the existence of God is concerned. Evolution is impotent where the matters of existence and causation arise, so I've pretty much stopped even discussing it or researching the topic. But the Ida explosion caught my interest because, as usual, I figured it might be used for those wishing to use evolution as the headstone for Christianity. Below is a response from the one of the sites I write for - Gotquestions.org - on the subject of Ida, which I think contains some useful info.

Every so often news outlets irresponsibly report the sensational claim that someone somewhere has finally found "the missing link." This gives people the false impression that some scientist somewhere has, at long last, discovered the fossilized remains of some kind of half-human, half-apelike creature (thereby proving Darwin's theory). In actual fact, no such fossil has ever been found. All that has ever been found are the fossilized remains of prosimians, monkeys, apes and humans. But eager as they are to find the ever-missing "missing link" and lay the controversy to rest, Darwinists tend to hone in on any superficial aspect of a fossil that they could possibly interpret as a mark of evolutionary transition from monkey to ape, or from ape to human, and news organizations are more than happy to print sensational headlines (which, needless to say, are good for business).

Take Darwinius massillae for example, the fossil discovery also known as "Ida" (after the daughter of a Norwegian scientist who led the research team). Ida looks exactly like a modern lemur except that she lacks the tooth-comb and grooming-claw common to modern lemurs. Darwinists excitedly interpreted this to mean that she must have been an evolutionary transition from prosimian (the group to which lemurs belong) to monkey, since monkeys don't have tooth-combs or grooming-claws (and neither does Ida). This is not the only possible interpretation as we shall see, but it suits Darwinists just fine. And it is sensational of course, which suits the media as well.

Now, what happens if we find a man born with hands but no arms, so that his hands are attached directly to his shoulders? Should we believe that he is evolving into a fish? That would seem to be the same rationale being used here by Darwinists. The fact is there are people born with hands but no arms and they are all still 100% human. They are known as "phocomeli." They suffer from "phocomelia," a condition which can either be inherited or caused by prenatal exposure to the drug thalidomide.

Could it be that just as phocomeli suffer from a terrible deformity, so too did this fossilized lemur? It is entirely possible. But what would be more sensational to report-the discovery of the fossilized remains of a dead deformed lemur or the finding of an exciting new species that might fit somewhere within the presumed family tree of human evolution? In fact, if we go with the latter instead of the former, people could make outrageous claims like it's "the eighth wonder of the world." Google could incorporate Ida's image into their logo for a day. headlines could proclaim that we've finally found the missing link. and eager Charles Darwin devotees could claim victory once and for all, all of which actually happened with Ida in 2009, all because of one dead lemur with two missing body parts.

The news reports also made a big deal out of the fact that Ida has opposable thumbs and nails instead of claws, which are human characteristics, but they didn't bother to mention that modern lemurs also have opposable thumbs and nails instead of claws, so those features have no evolutionary significance whatsoever.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Example after example could be given of mere fragments of bone and even pig's teeth that have been imagined into ape-men, sold to the public and placed in textbooks. Bones of 100% humans have been wrongly categorized with the bones of 100% apes to create non-existent, ape-men species. Diseased human skeletons have been distorted to look more ape-like and put on display. Even the wide range of potential anatomical variations among humans has been misinterpreted, not only among dead human specimens but among living humans as well.

Modern Australian Aborigines, for example, are known for their deep-set eyes, short faces, heavy brow ridges and large, jutting jaws. These so-called ape-like features coupled with their traditional Stone Age culture led Darwinists of the 19th and 20th centuries to imagine that they were some kind of primitive ape-men. The pygmies of Africa fared no better. Many were rounded up and put on display in cages.

Some 19th and 20th century Darwinists thought that all non-Caucasian people were ape-like and therefore inferior to whites. Darwin himself wrote that, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, p. 156, 1887).

Notice how Darwin coupled Negroes and Australian Aborigines with gorillas and contrasted them with Caucasians (despite the fact that Negroes, Aborigines and Caucasians are all 100% human while gorillas are 100% ape). Essentially this is what modern Darwinists do with groups like the Neanderthals. Neanderthals appear to have been just another race of humans with superficial "ape-like" characteristics like the Australian Aborigines. They appear to have suffered from pathological conditions like rickets and arthritis which exacerbated their superficial ape-like characteristics (rickets is a vitamin D deficiency which softens the bones and can cause people to hunch over). Not only can humans be born with "ape-like" traits like heavy brow ridges and large, jutting jaws, but pathologies like cephalic disorders, syphilis, scurvy and rickets can make them look even more ape-like later in life. But everything we know about Neanderthals suggests that they were just as human as modern-d ay Australian Aborigines. They were skilled hunters, lived in complex societies, buried their dead, and practiced religion.

The bottom line is while deformities and the potential for variation within genomes involves the duplication, misplacement, loss and/or reshuffling of preexisting genetic information-a process observed in natural world and whose mechanisms are identifiable and understood-the idea that prosimians could evolve into monkeys or monkeys into apes or apes into humans would involve the addition of new genetic information into a genome, a process that has never been observed in nature and whose mechanisms have not been identified by scientists. It's no wonder then that we cannot seem to find any real solid evidence that it ever happened in the past. It is no wonder that the missing link is still missing.

How the Resurrection Corroborates the Claims Christ Made

I came across this illustration while reading William Lane Craig's excellent web site. It does a great job of providing an analogy on how Christ's resurrection proved the claims that He made throughout His ministry. It's taken from Christian philosopher Tom Morris' book "Making Sense of It All" (pp. 177-180). Enjoy...

For many years I did not myself understand how exactly miracles were supposed to function as marks of divine truth until I met a most extraordinary man. I was living in a vacation house out in the woods on seven acres of land with two other graduate students during my first semester at Yale. A man from the adjoining property introduced himself one day and told me that the night before we had moved in, he had found a motorcycle gang camped in the woods between our houses. It was three a.m., he said, when he appeared among them and persuaded them to leave. He explained that he often roamed the woods at night and hunted when he couldn’t sleep because of old war injuries. Unzipping his windbreaker, he showed me the .44 magnum long-barreled handgun in a shoulder holster he always carried with him. “Sometimes makes the folks at the bank a little nervous,” he added with a smile and a wink.

Subsequent visits and inquiries on my part led to some war stories that were definitely movie material. He was in a special unit trained in all the relevant martial arts. He could kill at a distance with any projectile—a ballpoint pen, a number two pencil. He and a Shoshone Indian were the only members of his unit to make it back from the Second World War. And that was after he had been shot by a tank. I was invited to feel the hole in this bear-of-a-man’s shoulder, while the stories grew in drama. Jumping from planes behind enemy lines, slitting open German attack dogs mid-leap, capturing and eliminating Nazi offers with piano wire. The strategies, the close calls, the exciting escapes. Better than in the movies. One day I saw a medallion on the front bumper of his pickup truck inscribed with the name of a town in Connecticut and “Honorary Police Chief.” I asked about this.

‘Oh, it was nothing’,’ Tom. ‘I was just drivin’ down the street one day a few years ago and I see out behind a building four guys beatin’ up some cop they had on the ground. Well, I couldn’t let that happen, so I got outta the truck and stopped it. The mayor thought it was nice of me to help out, so he made me honorary chief of police.’

I asked, ‘What happened to the four guys?’ He replied, ‘Let’s just say they had a nice long stay in the hospital.’The stories got more elaborate, and I began to wonder whether they could possibly all be true. We had gone far beyond any of the war and spy stories I had ever heard or seen on the big screen. At a certain point, anyone would become unsure that all this could possibly be true.

Then, one day, sitting on an outdoor deck playing my guitar, I was stung by the largest, most menacing-looking wasp I had ever seen. The sting was extremely painful and the spot on my left calf immediately began to redden and swell. I became dizzy. Within a minute or two I couldn’t walk. The pain was terrible, the swelling was huge, and a housemate had to practically carry me over to the neighbor’s for a ride to the hospital. Upon opening his back door, he looked at my face and said, ‘My God, Tom what’s wrong with you?’ We explained quickly as he ushered us into his house.

‘Sit down,’ he said, motioning to an armchair beside us in the den. I did, with pain. I expected him to get his keys, but instead he looked me in the eyes and said, ‘Now, don’t worry about a thing. I’m going to have to do something to help you out, but you may not want to watch.’ I did want to watch. I’m a philosopher. I’m incurably curious. ‘We’ve got to stretch out your leg,’ he said as he pulled it by the foot, lifting it and propping it up on his own knee as he squatted in front of me. He then joined his two burly hands, thumbs sticking up, and with a sudden, violent motion, crammed them into the back of my left knee, hitting it so hard I thought I was going to see my kneecap bounce off the ceiling (and only this year, sixteen years later, have I had a little trouble with the knee). He then raked his thumbs down the length of my calf hard, two or three times. Then he looked up and said, ‘Stand up. You should be fine within a couple of minutes.’

I stood up, unassisted, with almost no pain. I put weight on the leg, testing it. No pain, I looked down and was shocked to see that the swelling was almost gone, a little bump where a large egg-sized hill had been. ‘You OK?’ he asked. I was OK, and so were all his stories.

‘How did you do that?’ I asked. He said, ‘Oh, it’s just a little trick we needed when guys would get screwed up from the night jumps. We had to be able to fix anything.’ From that time on I ceased to doubt any of his stories, however dramatic.

And not too long afterward, I realized that there was a connection between how the events of that afternoon had enhanced the credibility of all his extraordinary stories and how miracles were supposed to do the same for Jesus’ teaching and for the extraordinary claims about him made by early Christians. Remarkable actions corroborate remarkable stories. If, in order to explain some astonishing deed, you have to postulate that a person is in touch with some source of knowledge and power far beyond the ordinary, and it is just some such rare status that would be needed to render the claims about that person credible, then witnessing that deed or hearing about it from some very trustworthy source can serve to raise the credibility of the stories, even to the point of banishing all practical doubt. This is what happened with me and my neighbor, and it is just what . . . could happen with our judgment about Jesus.

Response to a Couple of Comments

I’ve gotten two particular comments recently that I felt would best be dealt with in a blog post rather than a standard comment/response. They are different and yet have similarities as well, which is why I’d like to reply to them at the same time. The first comment came as a reaction to my ‘Response to godisimaginary.com’ blog post and is as follows:

My attitude regarding God, years ago, was nothing less than contempt. Contempt for a God who would not answer prayers, who would allow his children to suffer, who would allow inequalities, in every aspect of life, to remain prevalent among His children, who had not even enough concern or love for humans to even offer them guidance in the world when the prayers for such were accordingly made. I could no longer allow myself to participate in a "one-Sided" relationship with a Creator. Then it hit me: "THERE IS NO GOD!" I do respect a person's right to believe whatever they choose, though. It's helpful for me to remember that "believing" something doesn't make it true; also, "faith" in something does not mean it will come to pass. These two ARE facts that empirical evidence does support. Given my experiences with this world, everything that the "godisimagin . . ." people wrote, every point and every argument they make for the non-existnce of God makes sense. Most of their points I had thought of before I read them on their pages. But let's suppose for a minute that I'm wrong: I die, I then awaken, to my amazement, in front of a God whose going to hold me responsible for my actions and my beliefs. He tells me that I should have believed. I ask,"based on what evidence, the "answered" prayers, the "magic," the "equal" distribution of wealth, talent and fortune that I've seen
distributed to your children, in my life?" He then sentences me to eternal hell.
Wherever or whatever that is.(Make a left at Jupiter, you can't miss it.) My point is, If there is a God who would sentence me to hell for being wrong . . . He wouldn't be a God that I would serve anyway. Thanx . . . had to throw in my two cents.

The second set of comments came in response to a presentation that is part of my “Tough Questions, Real Answers” series that I have posted on slideshare. The presentation in question is was “Isn’t the God of the Old Testament Ruthless and Cruel?”, and the reply it elicited from someone was simply the following:

The God of today is a hateful bastard. My life is living proof of that. Nuff' said

Let me begin my answer to both sets of comments by saying … I hear ya! Truly, I do. A little over 10 years ago I watched my young wife die of cancer. She was a Christian, and we had lots of people praying for her, but still, she died and left me alone with our little 1+ year old daughter. Six months after that I lost both my parents within one week of each other, and what was particularly hard was that my Dad wasn’t a Christian despite years of me praying for him. I had been a Christian for about 16 years by then, and had reached about the same destination as the comments printed above: if there is a God, He sure isn’t my friend, doesn’t listen to my prayers, and is probably not worth pursuing anymore. In short, I was mad. Very mad. I’m not sure I even uttered a prayer to God in the six months that followed.

But I came out of it due to some diligent searching for answers that I didn’t have at the time. I can’t possibly relay every corner I turned and set of issues I wrestled with (that would take a book), but let me pass along some conclusions I reached that may be of help to you who penned those comments and others of you who nod in agreement – even if it’s in quiet silence to you and you alone – with them.

First, you must separate the intellectual arguments you wrestle with from the emotional feelings you have. The first commenter made a couple of correct statements in his post: (1) believing something doesn’t make it true; (2) having faith in something doesn’t mean what you hope for will come to pass. Belief should always be grounded in reality – what is really true – and faith is only as good as the object in which it is directed. You should have good reasons for believing something is real and putting your trust (which is one meaning for the word ‘faith’) in it. Agree?

If so, then you should revisit my response to godisimaginary and tell me where my argument for God fails from an intellectual and logical standpoint – why God is not the best explanation for answering the key metaphysical question of why we have something rather nothing at all. Forget the unanswered prayers, the presence of evil, the unhappy circumstances in your life for just a moment and think… Is it really more reasonable to conclude that an impersonal, meaningless, purposeless, and amoral universe (one that has been proven to not be eternal by the way…) accidentally created beings who are full of personality, and obsessed with meaning, purpose, and morals? Which is the more sensible choice: a cause that possesses none of the characteristics of its effect or a Cause (God) that embodies them all? Your only two options are matter before mind or Mind before matter – that’s really it. And when push came to shove, even J. S. Mill who was not a Christian commented that it is self-evident that only mind can create mind.

Next, keep in mind that just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean that the particular ‘something’ doesn’t exist. You may have an unpleasant parent whom you don’t like, but such a situation doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Just because God may allow evil to exist and doesn’t appear to answer prayers in the fashion that some people think He should doesn’t equate to there being no God. Make sense?

So now let’s look very briefly at the subject of evil in the world – how can an all-powerful and loving God coexist with the presence of pain and suffering? The Scottish skeptic David Hume framed the apparent dilemma this way: “Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? When then is evil?”

Realize first this is a massive subject of discussion and volumes have been written on the topic. For a semi in-depth discussion that addresses both the intellectual and emotional sides to the problem of evil and God, see my article here and presentation here. But let me also add something at this stage that most don’t consider when they ask the question – to even suggest there is evil in the world mandates that God must exist. Once you hold God’s funeral as the atheist (or better, agnostic) does, then you have quite an interesting philosophical mess to deal with. Think not? Listen to Richard Dawkins who deserves an “A” for honesty in making this statement: “Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” (River out of Eden).

Most will recoil at such a thought, but Dawkins has at least followed his philosophy through to its logical end. You see, as C. S. Lewis wrote, you can’t recognize a crooked line unless you know what a straight line looks like. Or, to put it more complexly: If there’s such a thing as evil, you assume there’s such a thing as good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as an absolute and unchanging moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as an absolute moral law, you must posit an absolute moral law giver, but that would be God – the one whom the atheist is trying to disprove. So now rewind: if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. So what again is your question?

Moreover, you may wonder why God doesn’t rid the world of evil, but suppose – just suppose – in His campaign to carry out what you desire, He starts with you. You see, people get worked up over the evil they see in the world (and deservedly so in many cases) but they rarely consider the evil that resides in their own heart. It’s there. You know it is if you let yourself be honest with your internal ‘you’. How do you propose to get rid of that evil?

One last note on evil before we move on to the issue of prayer – the Bible is full of stories that have evil in them. One of the reasons I trust and believe in the Bible is that it is not some fairy tale of predictable happily ever after endings. If that were the case, we should toss the Scriptures into the nearest trash can because it would not match what we see from a reality standpoint all around us. Read the Bible and you’ll find all the key personalities suffered greatly, experience pain and suffering in the world, with some (including the Son of God Himself) dying at the hands of evil men. And don’t miss the fact that these same men communicated directly with God, so they didn’t have the option open to them of denying God’s existence – they knew without question that He was ‘there’ and yet God still allowed them to experience the evil that came their way.

Now, what about prayer? Rest assured I won’t give you a typical sermon on the subject because I’ve experienced firsthand what some have called “the silence from Heaven” in response to very great needs. But I’m not alone in that regard. God’s chosen messenger to deliver the gospel of Christ to the non-Jewish community and the person He used to write much of the New Testament – the Apostle Paul – pleaded with God three times for the removal of pain in his life and yet was denied and told that God’s power is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:7-9). The person God called a man after His own heart – David – said his bed was literally swimming in water because of the tears he cried over his painful situation that God left him in (Psalm 6:6-7). And finally, we find the only perfect person to have ever lived requesting His Father for the removal of a cup that He would rather not drink, but in the end, Jesus went to the cross.

No, it doesn’t make sense to us sometimes (maybe even many times). But the cross sure didn’t make sense to Jesus’ disciples at the time either, but afterwards, they understood God’s purpose in allowing it to happen and went out and preached Christ with fervor they never knew. And their reward? For 99% of them, a violent death – something we wouldn’t expect to occur (using our human reason) for people being obedient to God. But it did.

I know you have questions. In all honesty, I have questions too, but they’re not what you think. I don’t doubt God’s existence, His goodness, or His omnipotence. I’m fully convinced of those things. I’d like to understand the ‘why’ behind some events more, but like Job, I don’t fully understand what God considers basic things so I’m likely not ready to receive such knowledge just now, but perhaps one day. Like Paul said, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known" (1 Corinthians 13:12). Until then I’ll just trust this fact about God: "“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9).

No one likes Judgment

I put all my class lectures/presentations up on slideshare so others can download and use what I produce, and a number of the powerpoint decks I post end up getting quite a few views.

Except for one.

A while back, I posted my presentation on judgment that is part of a series I'm finishing up on the Apostle's Creed. And out of every other presentation I've put on slideshare, the one on judgment has gotten the fewest views in the amount of time it's been there. Why? I suspect it's simply because the subject isn't one that many people like to talk about. Preachers seem to avoid the topic like the plague; truly - when was the last time you heard a message from the pulpit on the coming judgment?

Such a position is very unbiblical and fails to address a key aspect of the Christian message. Christians will refer to themselves as being 'saved', but then never finish the sentence: Saved from what? The word salvation - soteria - literally means 'deliverance'; we are delivered from something, but we rarely if ever talk about what that something is. Further, we are notoriously ignorant of our history and forget that one of the greatest revivals kicked off on American soil was initiated by one of the greatest theologians to walk on American soil (Jonathan Edwards) whose message was entitled 'Sinners in the hands of an angry God'.

Not surprisingly, the first doctrine to ever be denied in the Bible is judgment. "You surely will not die!" But Adam and Eve did, and we follow them. Without the concept of justice and a judgment, the Christian message becomes something other than what it really is, and in some ways becomes irrelevant. The story is told about an American troopship where the soldiers crowded around their chaplain asking, “Do you believe in hell?” “I do not”, replied the chaplain. “Well, then, will you please resign, for if there is no hell, we do not need you, and if there is a hell, we do not wish to be led astray.”

Below is my presentation on the various judgments described in Scripture, plus a video clip that contains selections of John MacArthur's outstanding message at the 2007 National Day of Prayer, which was entitled "A Nation Abandoned by God".

View more presentations from Robin Schumacher.

Dawkin's Disciples - High School Teachers

Many Christian leaders talk about the importance of grounding high school teenagers in the faith before they go off to college because, they say, they will face much fierce opposition to Christianity from their college professors. Well I have news for you...

It isn't just their college professors we have to worry about.

James Corbett is a high school teacher at Capistrano Valley High School in Santa Ana, CA. Recently Corbett was on the losing end of a lawsuit brought by one of his students - Chad Farnan - who argued that Corbett was consistently hostile to Christianity in his lectures. Farnan recorded some 20 statements that Corbett made during a single class lecture that were derogatory to the Christian faith including:

"when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

"Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies — that's interfering with God's work"

"When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool."

creationism is "religious, superstitious nonsense"

Such bigoted comments are certainly sad to hear, but unfortunately all too common. Open mockery of Christianity is widespread and accepted many times (fortunately not this time), while prejudiced comments made against other races or faiths (Jewish, Muslim, etc.) still seem to result in a combined societal cry for tolerance.

Corbett's reference to "the spaghetti monster" obviously makes him a disciple of Richard Dawkins, and it appears Dawkin's devotee has no problem proselytizing in the public school system. Thankfully, Chad Farnan and his parents called him on it and were willing to put up with a 16-month court battle to reel Corbett in.

Christians are naturally angered by people such as Corbett, but we should also have two other reactions. First, we should understand that such hostility is normal in our fallen world; that Christianity always has been and always will be openly rejected, ridiculed, and persecuted. I'll admit that I have to smile when people like Corbett reject God, but then end up fulfilling His Word by what they do and proving Paul right when he wrote: "Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Tim 2:12). Second, we need to remember that atheists like Dawkins and his followers like Corbett are under the influence of the world and the enemy who has blinded their eyes to the truth (2 Cor. 4:4). That being the case, our attitude here should be one of prayer for our enemies that God will change them so that they will come to the knowledge of the truth as we have.

Congrats to Chad Farnan and his parents for the courage to stand up for their faith in the 'system' and thanks to the judge who ruled in their favor and saw Corbett's scornful attacks as a violation of what he was supposed to be doing as a high school teacher.