"The tragedy of common sense
it that it is not
very common."
(Albert Einstein)

"Politically correct Christianity
is tolerated but despised.
Full Gospel Christianity is
respected but persecuted."
(Unknown)

"If you marry the Zeitgeist
you will soon become widow."
(Goethe)

"To reach the source of a river
you must swim upstreams."
(Stanislaw Jerzy Lec)

"I note that all those,
who are positive to abortion
already are born."
(Ronald Reagan)

The age-old lie from the Garden of Eden — Liberal theology vs. fundamentalism

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say...?" (1 Gen 3:1)

A non-believing theologian is in the same situation as an utterly tone deaf person trying to express his views on music. Just as a tone deaf person will never be able to perform or enjoy music, and is confined to subjects such as music history and music theory, the non-believing theologian is limited to intellectual speculations about religious history and other related fields, as he loses the essence of what he believes himself to investigate. You could also compare him to a literary researcher, who is studying books by analyzing texts quantitatively, and then believes he has fully understood what the author wants to convey with his work. By counting the frequency of different words or the ratio between the number of nouns and verbs, but not entering the world that the author depicts, he misses, of course, the whole essence of the book. (Glue Fox)

Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it. (Blaise Pascal)

It [referring to Spinoza's philosophy] gave me a lifetime's dislike of theorizing about God (Theology, I still think, is an expression of lack of faith). (Karl Popper)

Something strange is happening with the Church of Sweden. First, it became separated from the state, and that's good. Now it is being separated from Christianity. (Kjell-Albin Abrahamson, Swedish Radio's Eastern Europe Correspondent)

However, among the chief rulers also many believed in him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, less they should be put out of the synagogue. For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. (John 12:42-43)

 

When God created Man, he made him his image. The entire physical creation was given to Man, who was made trustee over planet Earth.

You made him to have dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet. (Psalm 8:6-7)

When Man fell into sin and chose to no longer follow God, he went from being the responsible caretaker and "good shepherd" for Creation, to being directed by his own egoism and became Earth's ravager and plunderer. Environmental pollution is not really due to lack of knowledge, but to Man's rebellion against the Creator, and will therefore never be stopped by mere political or other human resources. Only when Man, through Jesus Christ, is transformed and given a new heart, can Creation be restored.

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay... (Romans 8:19-21)

God gave Man the right both to analyze (science) and manipulate (technology) the physical Creation. So by employing our intellect we have both the right and opportunity to examine the nature and properties of our universe. And we have the right to apply the knowledge thus gained to construct devices that benefit Man and all Creation in different ways.

That we, with the guidance of our intellects, are able to explore the Creation, has its roots in the universe being created by God and therefore reflecting his essence. Since God is sane and rational, we have all reason to believe that Creation holds the same characteristics. All scientists, even the non-believers, are of the assumption that the universe has a logical foundation and can therefore be analyzed by logical and mathematical methods. Our collective experience also illustrates that this is the case. Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate in Physics and one of the creators of modern physics, said on one occasion:

It was a sort of act of faith with us that any equation which describes fundamental laws of Nature must have great mathematical beauty in it. It was a very rewarding religion to adhere to, and can be seen as the basis for much of our success.

Dirac's perception is incompatible with the materialistic worldview, according to which the universe should rather be imbued with chaos than with beauty, order and symmetry. On the other hand it is very much in accordance with the scenario defined in Scripture. In the book, Paradoxes of Progress by the American biochemist Gunther Stent, the author writes:

…the metaphysical axiom of Western science, namely that the phenomena of the world are accessible to analysis by human reason, has its rational roots in the belief in the existence of God-given Natural Law.

…For the monistic doctrine of an orderly universe created by God which operates by natural law and which reason can discover is also the metaphysical foundation of Western science. [1]

There are many reasons to assume that the Jewish-Christian worldview has been a direct condition for the development of modern science.

By combining theory and experiment, we have succeeded in unraveling much of Creation's mysteries, from the innermost minute building blocks of an atom to the immeasurable depths of the cosmos. The scientific method has been extremely successful and many people have therefore been led to believe that by using science, we can describe and explain and understand everything. The Bible says, however, that there are areas of the total reality that lies beyond what reason and logic can depict and understand.

Heaven is the Lord's heaven, and the earth has he given to the children of men. (Psalm 115:16)

Heaven, and here we are not talking about the blue summer sky, but the spiritual reality, is not given to Man's dominion in the same way as the earth and the physical creation. We have therefore neither the right nor the opportunity to fathom the spiritual in the same way as the physical, with the help of reasoning. That it is impossible to put God under a microscope is common knowledge. But the problem is much bigger than that. God's intelligence is on a quite different plane than Man's. The prophet Isaiah says, for example, in Isaiah 55:8-9:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, said the Lord. No. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The road to God goes not via our intellect but through supernatural revelation. Man has not, in his own capacity, the ability to know God, but is totally dependent on God to reveal what Man needs to know. The Bible is the most important divine revelation, but God can reveal himself and his will in many other ways, such as through visions, dreams and prophecies.

You could say that when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of knowledge, they suffered the blindness of false sight. From that moment on they, and all generations to come, were limited by their intellect. In Ephesians 1:17 Paul speaks of "a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God." When the light of the spirit was dimmed by the Fall, Man was forced to replace this light with the light of reason. Logic rather than revelation. It is much like the story, where a man one night stood looking for something under a streetlight. Another man passed by and wanted to help him and asked what he was looking for. "My keys", was the answer. When the other person wanted to know exactly where he had dropped the keys, the first man pointed into the darkness and said, "There somewhere! But it's so dark over there it's no point looking."

Our logic and our measuring instruments are simply not the right tools for understanding the nature of God. Man has no authority over God, but must approach Him on His terms. And God's conditions are not intellect and pride, but faith and humility.

Therefore it says: God resists the proud, but to the humble he gives grace. Bend yourselves therefore to God. (James 4:6)

Without faith it is impossible to find God's grace. For the man who draws near to God must believe that he exists and that he does reward those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)

I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also who is of a contrite and humble spirit. (Isaiah 57:15)

Anyone who is not willing to come to God on these premises, will never meet him. Only those who are prepared to lay down their worship of human reason and turn to God in faith, can ever get to know him. This is the so-called liberal theology's insoluble dilemma.

What does it mean, liberal theology? Well, to answer that question, we need to move almost two hundred years back in time, i.e. the early 1800s. Some theologians tried at this time to combine the rationalist thinking of the philosophy of enlightenment[2] with the Christian faith. Influenced by this philosophy's materialistic spirit, they experienced Christianity's supernatural claims as embarrassing and offensive. Science, they said, had proved that miracles were unreasonable, and no sane person could therefore believe in such a thing. They tried therefore to cleanse the Gospels of all supernatural events , and still keep faith in the historical Jesus.

To be really careful one should distinguish between liberal theology and liberate theology [I am not sure what is the correct English term for the latter, but the reader will understand from what follows]. Liberal theology means believing theologians (non-atheists) interpreting Scripture in a "liberal" way. They believe that God exists, but choose, for various reasons (mainly political correctness), to de-mythologize parts of the Bible's message and stories (this includes e.g. the famous theologian Rudolf Bultmann — see below). "Liberate theology" is often related to the theology put forward by atheist theologians, who assume that God does not exist and that therefore the Bible is a simply human product. The starting points for these two biblical interpretations are thus completely different, but the practical result is similar. As this article is not written for professional theologians, I will continue with the term "liberal theology" for both variants. But, if you want to distinguish between them, it will be clear from the context which variant it is (by the way, liberation theology is something totally different, where Christian faith is combined with marxism and used politically to change the society).

It is evident that the leaderships of most Lutheran churches in the Western World are heavily influenced by liberal theology in either of the two versions mentioned above.

The German theologian Julius Wellhausen, one of the founders of liberal theology, suggested in this spirit that the Bible must be studied as any other ancient book anywhere and be analyzed in the same way.[3] As science was considered to have refuted the existence of the supernatural, the divinity of Jesus must be reduced and the miracles explained away. The only items maintained to be preached was morality and ethics, and the Christian should involve himself in social engagements rather than prayer and worship. Our century's foremost liberal theologian, the German professor Rudolf Bultmann, summated in one of his books his theological perspective as follows:

... the modern historical research... does not expect any intervention by God or devils and demons in bygone times... Modern people think it is obvious that the course of nature and history, as well as their own inner lives and constructive actions, at no point are permeated with the interventions of supernatural powers'.[4]

A contributor to the emergence of the liberal theology was evidently that theology had been reduced to sterile, esoteric dogmatic speculations, and hence was incapable of giving people answers to important questions. The spiritual life of many of the major Churches had waned and was seen mostly as rigid institutions without life, commitment and ability to meet people's real needs.

It proved, however, to be easier said than done to remove the supernatural phenomena in the Bible. The historical events were so intimately interwoven with the supernatural that it was impossible to separate them. If you insisted that Jesus existed, it was necessary to retain at least some of the supernatural. And if you on the other hand erased all the supernatural, there would be no historical Jesus left. To many of these theologians, their belief was reduced from "something", to a belief in "one's own faith." The word "God" just became a word, with no reality behind it.[5]

Perhaps all attempts to reduce God to an impersonal principle, only existing in our own brains and therefore making no demands on us, is rooted in human nature, as Hjalmar Söderberg (Swedish writer) so aptly describes in Martin Bircks Ungdom (Martin Birck's youth):

Gentlemen, you see where I'm going: to stick to a personal god entails a lot of unnecessary trouble: but to be without is just too risky. Therefore, one must have an impersonal god. Such a god sets the imagination in motion and looks good in poetry, but in return brings no obligations. With such a god you will, by all educated people, be considered an enlightened and noble thinking person able to become anything, from Archbishop to radical newspaper editor.

It seems that the more people move away from God, the more "progress" they make in theology and religious studies. And in these disciplines, it seems that everything is done to prove that Jesus never really meant what he said (if he existed at all). If Jesus says for example (John 14:12), "He who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also, and he will do greater works than these...", Jesus really means the opposite, that is "whoever believes in me shall do no works at all". Any theologian or priest who is writing a book in which he tries to prove that the Bible consists only of myths and fairy tales, and that Jesus never really died on the cross, but stepped down from the cross and then traveled to India where he became a guru, will become famous and sympathetically featured in magazines and maybe eventually reach a position as bishop. "How interesting," everybody says. "Imagine, what an exciting theory!" Simultaneously, the priest who believes that the Bible is the word of God and that you can read it straight up and down without reinterpreting every word, and who also courageously preaches this, has to combat the press and mass media, in which he is ridiculed and laughed at.

Man's desire to be liked, respected and admired is very strong. It is of course tempting to compromise a little on the Bible's message so as not to appear foolish in the eyes of other people. The Bible speaks in many places about this kind of false prophets, scratching people's backs with what they want to hear, instead of telling the truth. Jesus says of these, that they will not earn any pay in heaven, as they have already received their reward here on earth.

The way to God, however, is always a folly, as Paul emphasizes in many passages:

..but God chose the foolish things of the world that He might put to shame those who are wise. God chose the weak things of the world, that He might put to shame the things that are strong; and God chose the lowly things of the world, and the things that are despised, and the things that are not, that He might bring to nothing the things that are: that no flesh should boast before God. (1 Corinthians 1:27-29)

Jesus himself said on one occasion:

I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you hid these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to infants. (Matthew 11:25)

The simple message of the Gospels is probably Christianity's biggest stumbling block. Very often people argue that, "The Christian solution is just too easy. It just can't be this obvious. I don't believe in simple remedies...". Somehow you want it to be challenging to be saved, granted salvation does exist, so that other people will admire you because you made it. Hinduism is therefore much more appealing to our egoism, since it requires lots and lots of reincarnations and much fasting and meditation before you become "one with Brahman", i.e. reaching your final destination. The so-called "holy men" of India have acquired tremendous status and are worshiped almost like gods, while a normal Swedish Pentecostal minister hardly can count on any major admiring crowds. Werner von Heidenstam (famous Swedish writer and poet) has very aptly captured this human weakness in a poem, where he says, "I am too proud to see another, a guiltless, atone for what I have sinned."

The recognition that we don't have anything to bring before God, and, as the author of The Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan (we will talk more about him later on), wrote in his autobiography, that we are "saved by abundant grace" does not come easy for our own ego and righteousness to accept. The big secret of salvation is that it is a gift that we never can be worthy of in our own capacity. The only way to be accepted by God is that we abandon all our pride and all our righteousness and in faith receive God's grace.

Every man builds his own worldview on some supreme authority. Among Christians there are basically three such authorities:

1. Tradition
2. Logic
3. Scripture

Based on this authority you define reality. In my pages on church history it is apparent that the established Churches in general seem to have the tradition as its main guiding principle. This, in itself, does not imply that they have completely disregarded common sense or the Bible. But in uncertain situations, they choose to let tradition be decisive. In the same section I show that revival Christians always have Scripture as their ultimate authority. But this does not mean that the Bible-believers detest everything in way of logic and tradition. But yet, their ultimate standard is Scripture. If tradition or reason speaks against Scripture, you choose Scripture. Liberal theologians, finally, choose as their highest principle, logic and science. Even if they, to some extent perhaps, take into account both tradition and the Bible, reasoning and science is still their last word.

The major weakness of the liberal theologians is that they really don't understand the nature of science (and particularly not the natural sciences). Firstly, they do not seem able to distinguish between natural science and historical science. Apparently they attach the same perfection and certainty to their conclusions as were they physical theories, where they can repeat and vary their observations and experiments an endless number of times. Secondly, the liberal theologians have by all appearances not grasped, or wanted to grasp, that natural science (or any kind of science) cannot answer all questions. If they for some reason wants to equate theology with natural science, naturally they will have to accept the restraints of that particular branch of science. Invoking physics, chemistry and logic as an acumen to de-mythologize the Bible, is based on the erroneous belief that natural science has proven that nothing supernatural exists. In other sections of this site this has proved to be a wrong conclusion. The essence of liberal theology is thus not logically sustainable, being a philosophical assumption only, which has been given the status of absolute truth due to misguided zeal. This shows that liberal theology rather is based on ideology than science.

As already pointed out in another section, science, to put it simply, can be regarded as Man's attempt to discover regularities (patterns) in nature, and then explain these regularities using models. This involves observations and experiments, giving us facts, and then interpreting these facts, and from these interpretations formulate laws of nature. To find patterns it is necessary to make long series of observations. Wonders and miracles are exemptions from the laws of nature, and can therefore not be studied by the scientific method. The origin of our universe, of life and of the different species lies in the border region between science and metaphysics, as they are all examples of non- repeatable phenomenon — isolated happenings — our universe has e.g. only originated once). As absurd as it is to conjugate strong verbs (irregular verbs like go, went gone) by the same rules as when conjugating weak verbs (regular verbs like happen, happened, happened), it is to believe that science can deal with miracles. A tool that can explain regularities can simply not explain exceptions from those regularities. If so, the exceptions would not be exceptions! The scientific approach has thus, even though it is extremely valuable and usable, its limitations.

Liberal theologians, and indeed most Westerners today, apparently ignore these restraints. What cannot be observed with our five senses — possibly reinforced by various instruments such as binoculars, microscopes, voltmeters, etc — and what cannot be explained scientifically/logically, is considered having no substantial, objective existence outside our own brain or soul. This opinion, however, is as much a faith as the faith in God! And, besides, a very illogical faith considering Man's incredibly strong spiritual needs. Even assuming that Man is but the product of blind evolution, it seems unlikely that this evolution should lead to needs that can never be satisfied. To exclude, by definition, the possibility that the cause of Man's spiritual needs is the existence of a spiritual reality, is not only illogical but also irrational! Physicist Henry Margenau argues in his book Einstein's Space and Van Gogh's Sky how, like theology, the behavioral sciences have often decided on certain questions in advance and then built their reasoning on them as if were they scientific facts (this way of reasoning is called a vicious circle).[6] He says, among other things:

...the origin of the sense of God has been dealt with by Taylor, Durkheim, Freud and a wide variety of modern psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and others. Completely unacceptable in advance to all of them was the possibility that the origin of the sense of God was, in fact, God.[7]

A common attempt to explain Man's desire for God is that it is passed over to the children by the parents or the school or the community. So it's nothing more than a social function. However, there is research contradicting this. In Dagen (a Swedish Christian newspaper) on 26 November 2008, an article entitled "Do children believe in God because grownups taught them to?" with the subtitle "A researcher in Oxford says contrary, that belief in a higher power is in the mind of the child from birth." You can read:

If we stranded a handful of children on an island to grow up on their own, they would believe in God, he argues. This week, Justin Barrett, a researcher at Oxford's Center for Anthropology, reports new results from psychological experiments carried out on children. Research shows that children have a tendency to believe in God, because they assume that the world was created with a purpose. Dr. Barrett says that young children have a faith, even if they have not learned faith from their family, school or society around them, Daily Telegraph reports.
— Research during the past decade or so, has made apparent that a lot more seems to be built-in the child's natural development than we previously understood, including a predisposition to comprehend the world as designed and meaningful and that some intelligent force stands behind the essence of it all, he said to the BBC.

In a study, six and seven year olds were asked why the first bird existed. They said, "to make nice music" and "that the world will be fine with the birds." Another experiment with twelvemonth old babies showed that they were surprised when they saw a movie where a rolling ball crashed into a heap of sticks, creating a neat pile. Dr. Barrett argues that children at four years of age can distinguish between what is natural and what is created by humans. He also refers to anthropologists who argue that children in cultures where they do not have access to religion, develop a belief in God.
— Children's normal and natural thinking makes them prone to believe in creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural and very difficult for the human psyche to believe in, Barrett reports. He implies that children believe in creationism rather than evolution, no matter what they learn from parents and teachers.

So, what if the origin of man's longing for God is in fact, God!

One must realize and accept that science is just a tool among many to explain and comprehend the total reality. To claim that the scientific recipe has its limitations does not imply any depreciation of science and logic. In fact, it is no more remarkable than to claim that the theory of electrodynamics is useless when it comes to predicting the next solar eclipse. The fact that it's impossible to solder with a chainsaw, does not mean that chainsaws are useless. However, should you try to fix a circuit board in a computer by using a chainsaw, it would end in total ruin. A lumberjack, however, would hardly be able to support his family if he replaced his chainsaw with a soldering iron.

Science, applied within its limited competence is extremely valuable, while science adopted beyond this, is sheer disaster. August Strindberg, the great Swedish, internationally famous author and poet and radical and amateur scientist, who at the end of his life knelt before Jesus, was very aware of how dangerous was the overconfidence in science. Strindberg, who well knew human nature, both his own and others, summed it up with; "The evil will seeks freedom to do evil things, and the evil mind seeks freedom to think evil thoughts". In his poetry collection Sömngångarnätter på vakna dagar (Sleepwalkers night in days awake — fourth night), he writes (this translation is no attempt to translate the beauty of the poem, just to give the reader an idea of its content):

Science, so confident of your true nature of things,
you, who have discovered that the sheep bleats and Man is an animal;
you, who counted the legs of the ant and put your fish in spirits,
you, who know that bases and acids always meet at the proposal;
you, who weigh the weightless, you, who measure what has no dimensions,
say, you must surely be able to answer which way the dead have gone;
where we all one day must go, where our cradle once stood!
Answers you have, but not to the question, answers to much, that is not of our concern;
You, don't acknowledge your impotence, but lead us deeper into the dark.[8]

The above does not in any way proclaim that a Christian is banned from using his logic or his physical senses. But we have to admit that there are aspects of reality that are not accessible with the help of reason and physical senses. True science, applied within its competence, i.e. to describe the physical reality, is an excellent tool and is not at variance with the Christian faith at all. On the contrary, many scientists have been converted to believers through the beauty revealed on all levels when pondering nature. Isaac Newton asked himself the following question:

How is it that Nature does nothing in vain, and from where comes all order and beauty that we see in the world?

For Newton it was obvious, that the explanation for the intelligent design of the universe was that an intelligent Creator had created it for a particular purpose.

Nature reveals many aspects of God's essence. His greatness, his omnipotence and his sense of beauty. Romans 1:19-20 says, for example, that God's invisible qualities can be perceived in his works. Physical observations and intellect can, however, never give us the full revelation and comprehension of God. Nature allows us to imagine that there must be an awesome Creator who is worthy adoration and admiration. But to really understand who this Creator is, what is his will, and how to restore the contact with him, the revelation given in the Bible combined with the Holy Spirit's assurance and touching of our hearts, is required.

But not only science and natural observations fall short when it comes to reveal God's true nature. Neither is theology capable of this. That the liberal theology is unable is obvious, but not even a believing theologian can, through his theological studies alone, obtain true knowledge of God. Being a Christian is, of course, not primarily about believing in a certain doctrine or having gained some special knowledge, but about having been born again, about having met Jesus Christ. An example of this is found in The Acts. It tells us of Saul or Saulus, a Pharisee, and probably one of the foremost theologians of his time. He was a disciple of Gamaliel, the latter being reputed as one of the highest Jewish religious teachers ever. Gamaliel was even addressed Rabban (our teacher[9]), which is a higher title than the more common rabbi (my teacher). Saul was authorized by the chief priests to direct the persecution of the Christians, which he carried out with great devotion and skill. Although he had studied theology nearly all his life and undoubtedly knew the Scripture by heart, as well as believed in it, he had failed to understand God's true essence, or the will of God. Not until Jesus emerged before him (Acts 9) on the road to Damascus, and he met with God on a personal level, were his eyes opened. Saul changed his name and became the apostle Paul, whose mission it was to bring the gospel to the gentiles. Paul certainly knew from personal experience what he was talking about when he wrote:

In whom the god of this world [i.e. the Devil] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Only when a man turns toward God in faith, is it possible for God to lift the veil that conceals his mind, so he can open his eyes to spiritual things.

To justify itself, the liberal theology has constantly and in various ways attempted to discredit the Word of God. With great effort they have pursued finding errors and contradictions in the Bible, to prompt the explanation why you don't need to take all that's said in the Bible seriously. Just delete the parts you don't like and keep those that are consistent with your own opinions, they apparently say.

In John 5:2 we can e.g. read of a bath situated at Bethesda, just outside Jerusalem. According to John this bath was a pond surrounded by five colonnades. The liberal theologians argued that this must be wrong, as the pond in all probability was rectangular and accordingly must keep four colonnades, one along each side. This was taken as evidence, among many others, of how full of factual inaccuracies the Bible is. When archaeologists eventually, during excavations, found the remains of the Bethesda pond, it turned out, however, that John was quite right. There were four colonnades along each side of the bath, and a fifth colonnade dividing the pond in the middle.

This is just one of a hundred examples, where liberal theologians believe they have found alleged errors in Scripture, whereby they have been proven wrong by archaeologists and historians (an additional example is given here). The eminent archaeologist William F. Albright writes:

The widespread skepticism towards the Bible from prominent historians in the 1700- and 1800's, and which still pops up now and again, has been increasingly discredited. Findings after findings have established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought a greater recognition of the Bible as a historical source.[10]

The Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck was so impressed by the Bible's historical accuracy that he once wrote, "It can categorically be concluded that no archaeological discovery has ever disputed a Biblical reference."[11]

It is often obvious that those striving to create mistrust of the Bible are not honest and objective; they have simply decided that the Bible cannot possibly be supernaturally inspired by God. If, for example you find stories in the Bible that cannot be found anywhere else, it is taken as a proof that the Bible is unreliable. On the other hand, if they find stories in other cultures similar to those in the Bible, they consider it as proof that the Bible is based on other sources and therefore is not the Word of God. That is, irrespective of what observations are made, this proves that the Bible is an common book, with no great importance attached to it.

When archaeologists eventually managed to decipher the Sumerian cuneiform, they found, among their tablets, stories about both the Creation and the Flood. Just like the Bible, the Sumerian creation epic speaks about a time when there was no evil on earth.

At that time there was no snake, no scorpion and no hyena. There was no lion, no wild dog and no wolf. There was neither fear nor terror. Man had no competition.[12]

And you can sense the Fall in the following lines:

The virgin ate what was forbidden. The virgin, the mother of sin, committed an evil deed. It was a painful experience for the mother of sin.[13]

The Bible stories were thus interpreted by many as being late paraphrases of the myths that the Sumerians had written down, while others felt it was proof that the stories had a common source. In either case, this was thought to prove that the Bible by no means is unique, and that it is nothing but a collection of myths among many others. Most cultures also tell about a universal flood, a boat, some kind of mountain and a few being rescued. This points to a great resemblance of the Bible's description of the flood. None of this, however, necessarily indicates that the credibility of the Bible must be challenged. Quite the contrary! The common origin of Man explains in a natural way why different cultures have the same stories. Common origin means common experiences and common memories.

An additional method to discredit the Scripture has been to argue that the various books in the Bible were actually written by completely different authors than what tradition claims. Or it's been suggested that a Bible book might have multiple authors instead of one. In this spirit they argue, that the book of Isaiah, except Isaiah himself, has one or possibly two additional authors (Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah). The argument being that the Isaiah prophesies about the Persian King Cyrus, and Israel's freedom from the Babylonian oppression, which was two hundred years into the future. Since the liberal theologians consider it proven that nothing supernatural exists, e.g. prophetic messages, these verses must have been inserted by more recent writers, when the events had already taken place. Hence the conclusion that there are several "Isaiahs". We can clearly see the viscous circle here in the arguments of the liberal theology. Based on the assumption that prophetic messages and other supernatural events are out of the question, these theologians think it proven that prophetic messages and other supernatural occurrences are impossible. An exceptionally impressive conclusion, right (here you can read about how liberal theology seeks to refute the book of Genesis)?!

They also claim that the Gospel of John is not at all written by the disciple John, but by someone else. The same applies to Paul's letters. Language analysis have been made to examine how different words are being applied and how often they occur, and some scholars have come to the conclusion that one and the same author could not, by any chance, have penned all the letters.[14] Furthermore, they consider that Peter, who was a simple fisherman, couldn't possibly have written Peter's letters, as the language is too sophisticated. However, several objections can be raised against such reasoning.

Firstly, the evidence suggests that both Paul and Peter sometimes dictated their letters to secretaries. In 1 Peter 5:12, Peter says, "Through Silvanus, a faithful brother, as I consider him [who also listens to the voice of the Holy Spirit], I have written to you briefly..." The secretary undoubtedly had a certain amount of freedom in the use of language. Hence the linguistic differences in various letters, despite the same "author." And hence perhaps also a more complex language than one would expect.

Secondly, you have to take into account the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That the liberal theologians don't do this, is in itself quite natural and consistent, since they don't believe in the existence of a Holy Spirit. But if the Holy Spirit exists, well, then it alters the situation entirely. A similar fate, as that of Peter's authorship, affected the author of The Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan. He was a simple coppersmith, not a scholar. In his autobiography he tells us, for example, about how his wife had brought two books to their married life, The Simple-minded Man's Way to Heaven and Godly Exercises, hardly a library that would impress the learned professors or the intellectual acrobats who regularly turn their somersaults in the cultural pages of our newspapers.[15] Bunyan spent altogether twelve years in prison for his faith. His crime was preaching the gospel and having prayer meetings in people's homes (i.e. he did what Jesus told his followers to do). When The Pilgrim's Progress was published in 1678, voices were immediately raised that Bunyan could not be the author. It was just unthinkable that a simple coppersmith could produce such a book. The Pilgrim's Progress is written in an very beautiful English and Bernard Shaw, who was never specifically sympathetic to the Christian faith, is supposed to have said that the author of this book composed a more elegant English than even Shakespeare did. Today, it is beyond all doubt that Bunyan is the undeniable author. Next to the Bible, no other book has had a greater spread around the world than The Pilgrim's Progress. Solely in England, Scotland and Ireland the book has been published in 1300 editions! That is to say, not 1300 copies, but 1300 editions! How then could Bunyan write such a wonderful book in such a fantastic language? In his preface he narrates that the book was written during a brief period and under a distinct inspiration. And who the inspirer was, there is no doubt. It was obviously the same source of inspiration that had driven the various authors of the Bible to write their books.

As to whether John wrote the Gospel that bears his name or not, Bishop John Robinson brings us an interesting detail in his book, The Priority of John (1985). In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, the author tells of one of Jesus' most famous miracles, where he feeds 5000 people on five barley loaves and two fish. Normally, the Greek word "ichtus" is used for fish. Here, however, a different word, "opsarion", is put into use. This detail is very important according to Robinson. The word "opsarion" is a special technical term referring to fish having been prepared in a certain way, and was scarcely used by other than fishermen. According to the Gospels, John, the disciple, was a fisherman. Bishop Robinson believes that this indicates that John is the real author. In the other Gospels, where none of the authors were fishermen, only the word "ichtus" is being used.

In John 21 we can read how Peter and three other disciples, after Jesus' death, are out fishing without catching anything. Suddenly, the risen Jesus appears and tells them to cast their nets on the right side of the boat, which they do, and get a big haul. When the disciples come ashore, Jesus meets them on the beach and cooks the fish for them over a fire. While the fish is still in the net, the word "ichtus" is used in this passage, and the word "opsarion" is applied when Jesus invites them to eat the cooked fish. Robinson notes that "no other than a professional fisherman, like John, would bother to make such a distinction?"

Alternative liberal theological attempts to discredit the Bible have been made to claim that the gospels de facto were written very late and are therefore not reliable. It is argued that the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke were put into writing in the late first century and John's gospel still later. It has also, as noted above, made attempts to make John's gospel less credible by claiming that it was not the apostle John who penned it. In recent years, however, facts have emerged that the established Bible theologians have tried to hush. Among the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls, parts of the New Testament were found. By using the most modern of scientific methods, the Israeli Forensic Laboratories have succeeded in deciphering incomplete letters on a papyrus fragment measuring only 2.3 x 3.3 cm. In all probability, it appears most likely to hold a piece of Mark's gospel, namely Mark 6:52-53.

Before we proceed, it may be relevant to briefly discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls. In February or March 1947, a Bedouin boy, who was looking for a lost goat, found a number of ancient scrolls in a cave near the Dead Sea, about 10 miles south of Jericho. The rolls were wrapped in linen cloth and tucked in sealed jars, and had as a result been preserved in an excellent condition for almost 1,900 years. The majority of researchers believe that they descend from the Essenes — a direction in Judaism — who had some kind of monastery at Qumran, near the Dead Sea. In the year 68 the Essenes were forced to abandon the monastery, facing the threat from the advancing Roman armies. They hid their handwritten manuscripts in caves in the desert. It was one of these caves, which had now been recovered. Eventually ten additional caves were found nearby, which contained similar findings. When researchers began to examine the various scrolls, they discovered that they partly consisted of leather rolls with Hebrew and Aramaic text, and partly of some papyrus pieces with Greek text. About a hundred leather rolls with Hebrew text were found to be books from the Old Testament, including the complete book of Isaiah. All the books of the Old Testament, except the book of Esther, were represented among the discoveries. The oldest fragment that has been successfully deciphered so far, contains a text from Exodus, and has been dated to about 250 BC. Many of the papyrus fragments were in very poor condition and therefore difficult to determine, and at first it was assumed that the Greek texts contained translations of the Old Testament or letters and other documents.

Unexpectedly, the Bible researchers had moved nearly a thousand years back in time. Previously, there were no old-testament, Hebrew manuscripts that were older than 1000's AD. Many were of the impression that the text had decidedly been altered during centuries of copying. Now they finally had an opportunity to check this. The analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls would reveal who was right, the fundamentalists or the liberal theologians. When the passages from the Old Testament which were found among the scrolls were compared with the approximately one thousand years younger, already known manuscripts, the older Dead Sea manuscripts proved to contain almost exactly the same texts. The findings confirmed, in every essential detail, that the text used as the basis for our modern translations of the Old Testament, is the original text. God had protected his Word all over the years. Yet another setback for liberal theology!

That some of the papyrus fragments that were found in the caves at Qumran have been found to contain texts from the New Testament is, if possible, even more revolutionary. Since the Essenes left Qumran year 68, these New Testament texts must have been written down at the latest this year. According to some experts on papyri and the Greek language progress, the shape of the characters indicate that they are probably written before year 50, that is, sometime during the 40's. This is completely at odds with the mainstream, liberal theological interpretations. Bible scholar John Wenham, published in 1991 the book Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke. He suggests that the gospel of Matthew is the oldest, written already about year 40, while Mark probably wrote his gospel years 44 - 46.

The discovery of the aforementioned fragment of the gospel of Mark was made in 1972 by a Spanish expert on papyri, José O'Callaghan, who had long been dedicated to analyzing the Greek texts that were included in the rolls. During more than ten years, silence prevailed around the Spaniard's finds. The establishment tried to squelch the matter. No junior Biblical researcher was bold enough to seriously analyze the disputed text fragment for fear of disapproval from his professor.

In an article in the Swedish newspaper Dagen, at Easter 1990, a lecture by professor Harald Riesenfeldt, former Bible scholar at Uppsala University but now retired, was made reference to. In a rather explicit manner he gave an account of how various influential theologians had tried all things possible to hush up O'Callaghan's finds. He also disclosed how they had strived to censor what he himself had written for the Nationalencyklopedin (the major Swedish encyclopedia at that time).

Professor Riesenfeldt also mentioned how they focused on ways to date the Gospels as late as possible. He had specifically written the chapter about the gospels for the National Encyclopedia. But when the proofs got back to him the text was revised. Riesenfeldt had written that some theologians believe the Gospels to have originated during the years 70-90, and others believe the date to be earlier. Now, his text was altered to "the years 70-90 or later."

— A person that I know, and who is not a theologian, had altered this to frame a date as late as possible, because he reckons Jesus to be a myth.
— But I managed to change it back.

Maybe they would have succeeded in squelching the matter had not a young, bold, language researcher named Carsten Peter Thiede decided to do a serious investigation of O'Callaghan's conclusions. Thiede came to the conclusion that the debated text contained a fragment from the Gospel of Mark. He then wrote a book about it and got the snowball rolling. Skeptics, of course, expressed their doubts. Some of the characters were very difficult to interpret. It was here that the aforementioned Israeli Forensic Laboratory entered the scene and made their analysis, which fully supported O'Callaghan's and Thiede's conclusions.[16]

Let's round off by quoting Krister Holmström in the Christian magazine Trons Värld (World of Faith), no. 1 in 1993:

In cave number 7 there was also a small fragment of Paul's first letter to Timothy. This finding totally dispels the perception on the Timothy letters, that are totally dominant at the theological universities. There are very few exegetes [Bible interpreters] who wish to acknowledge that Paul is the author of these letters. The Timothy letters are recognized as being written long after Paul's death, probably about year 100. One argument being that they include an overly developed doctrine of the local church organization, that Paul can't possibly have written that, they dispute…

Now, all these theories fall flat. At least half of the books in the Bible theological libraries can be eliminated, books based on perfectly outdated theories on the origin of the New Testament. The Essenes read 1 Timothy already in the 60's [not the nineteensixtieth but the real sixtieth]!

Even the fact that the Timothy letter and the Gospel of Mark were located in the same cave is significant. It reveals how the 27 books [in the NT] were assembled and perceived as the Word of God. The findings reveal that the oldest gospel was linked with one of Paul's last letters already in 68! This suggests that the New Testament was regarded as Scripture even during the authors' lifetimes. There were no bishops during the 300's who determined which writings were the Word of God, the Holy Spirit had determined this much earlier.

The latter therefore signifies that, contrary to what many believe, it was not really the church and church meetings that determined which penmanships should be included in the (canonical) Bible. During these synods the delegates simply accepted the authority of these scriptures, that was given to them by the Holy Spirit.

As archeology and historical research progress, the Bible has become more and more authenticated and the liberal theologians have been forced to back down. There is a paradox that while, and despite, the convictions of the liberal theology are increasingly undermined, their concepts are rapidly spreading among university theologians. When the above-mentioned professor Riesenfeldt was interviewed in Kyrkans Tidning (the Swedish Church Magazine), in the spring of 1990, he said, "Most university theologians in Sweden as well as in Central Europe, Catholics as well as Protestants, no longer believe in the incarnation (Jesus' virgin birth) or the resurrection: One assumes that Joseph was Jesus' [biological] father and that the resurrection cannot be taken literally".

Trying to hold on to some form of Christianity while denying the resurrection, however, is inconceivable. If we take away the resurrection, we also take away Man's prospect of salvation.

If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:14)

Without faith in the resurrection of Jesus, there is no Christianity. It is then reduced to a secular therapy, with no real solution to Man's problems. And without Christianity, you might as well close down both churches and theological institutions.

The more some theologians and communions deny the supernatural side of the Bible, the more it is opened up for superstition and occultism in other ecclesial connections. At a conference in Prague in 1992 themed "Science, Spirituality and the Global crisis", one of the speakers was the Catholic priest and Dominican monk Matthew Fox. He has founded an institute with study courses on "university level" in e.g. drum rituals and healing, art, ritual songs, medieval mysticism, massage, Tai Chi, African dance, dreams and feminism.[17] From this perspective, it is hardly surprising that, for example, in England in year 2000, there were approximately 30,000 registered Christian priests and pastors, while at the same time the number of witches and magicians were estimated at 80,000. Paganism is apparently on returning. A "Christianity" that either denies the supernatural, or says yes to any form of occultism and superstition — the vaguer the better — will soon be superfluous.

A rather typical example of the established church's permission in this regard, was what took place in Borgvattnet (a small northern Swedish village) more than twenty years ago. In this small community, located about 100 miles north of Östersund, the priest Tore Forslund was deputized as vicar in early 1981. Borgvattnet was widely known for being haunted, included in this was the old vicarage. It turned out that the priest, who previously had held the position for about 30 years, had been heavily involved in occultism and spiritualism. At a meeting Tore offered relief from the spirits that according to the Bible are behind all occult phenomena. A journalist happened to be present, and the next day there was a big article on the first page of the local newspaper Länstidningen, about how the new priest in Borgvattnet wanted to exorcise the demons out of the old vicarage. It was not long before the now so familiar "media drive" went off and running. Newspapers, magazines, Swedish Radio and TV1 and TV2 took offence by the intolerant priest in Borgvattnet, and heated discussions took place whether there actually were spirits or not, and if it was appropriate to have them exorcised. Tore's predecessor went as far as calling Tore "Lucifer's servant" in the media, and Tore generally became known as "the demon priest in Borgvattnet". Several priests and bishops expressed their disgust, and rejected Tore Forslund's intolerance and eccentricity. Since he had not committed any misconduct he could not be dismissed, but it all ended in the withdrawing of his services. Eventually, after having for some time been totally ostracized by his peers, he found it best to withdraw from the Church of Sweden. Today Tore Forslund serves as missionary and evangelist.[18]

A priest involved in spiritualism, which according to the Bible is a mortal sin, may thus retain his services for 30 years without complaints, while a priest who preaches the Word of God, and like Jesus casts out demons, is immediately dismissed. The conclusion must be that apparently, in some theological circles, there are no dilemmas whatsoever in believing in the occult, supernatural phenomena like ghosts or communication with the spirits of the dead, while at the same time there is absolute denial in believing in the supernatural, Biblical Christianity, i.e. the Christianity that Jesus represented.[19] On the contrary, people dissociate from it and even oppose it actively. Personally, I find it difficult to understand how such people on the whole can call themselves Christians. Christianity seems the be the religion they believe in least of all.[20]

While some priests and theologians for imaginary reasons deny the supernatural side of the Christian faith, others, thus, are instead prone to believe in just about anything. Both factions have succumbed to the temptation that instead of speaking the truth, they say what people want to hear, i.e. rubbing people the right way, which makes the newspapers praise you. Or as it says in Isaiah 30:9-10:

For it is a rebellious people, lying children, children who will not hear the law of the Lord, but says to the seers: "Don't see" and to the prophets, "Prophesy not to us right things. Tell us pleasant things. Prophesy deceits.

The consequence of not preaching the truth, the prophet Hosea describes in his fourth chapter:

Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel. For the Lord has a charge against the inhabitants of the land: "Indeed there is no truth, nor goodness, nor knowledge of God in the land. There is murder, lying, cursing, stealing, and committing adultery; they break boundaries, and bloodshed causes bloodshed. Therefore the land shall mourn, and everyone who dwells therein will waste away. All living things in her, even the animals of the field and the birds of the sky; yes the fish of the sea also die... My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you, that you may be no priest to me. (Hos 4:1-3, 6)

This was true of the people of Israel about 700 years before Christ, but it also applies to us in present time. Hosea's description of the state of the country seems almost as taken from a Swedish tabloid newspaper today. Crime, immorality and environmental pollution are all the result of Man's rebellion against God, i.e. sin. The reason that Man is no longer trustee of the Earth but its plunderer, is that he no longer builds his life on truth!

In summary, the basic error with liberal theology is their belief that God can be examined in the same way as one examines the physical creation. By definition, they deny the existence of the supernatural, since this cannot be verified by scientific observations. They say, for example, that "Paul could not have written this letter because it contains far too sophisticated reflections for this period." That the Holy Spirit could have inspired these thoughts in Paul, is considered impossible. The denial-theological conclusion, that the supernatural events in Scripture never occurred, are not based on any scientific or logical argument, but is merely a consequence of the enlightenment philosophers' arrogant assumption that nothing supernatural can exist. How could anything exist that human beings, with their reasoning, cannot comprehend, seems to be their apparent logic.

Some time ago approximately 50 million new galaxies were discovered with the Hubble Space Telescope (the space telescope). A galaxy (like the Milky Way) contains, as the reader may know, hundreds or thousands of millions of stars, many of them much larger than our own sun. That a miniscule limited human being, who lives on a tiny orb, which revolves around one of the universe's billions and billions of suns, a man whose physical life only lasts one second of eternity, that he would be so presumptuous as to believe his brain and his reasoning to constitute the ultimate standard for what is possible and likely, seems, at least to me, as being hubris raised to its highest power (megalomania).

As a reaction against the liberal theology, various Christians (mainly Presbyterians if I remember right) in the U.S. formulated in the late 1800s five points, perceived as fundamental to the Christian faith. These are generally known as "the five fundamentals", hence the word fundamentalism. This concept has now become a kind of buzzword, and just like the Swedish communists in the 70s addressed everyone they disliked "fascist", the word "fundamentalist" is now applied in the negative sense to define all Bible-believing Christians. To the utmost extent media and "intellectuals" try to link this word with Islamic fundamentalism of the worst kind, to give the it an ultimate negative connotation. Fundamentalists appear, therefore, in the public debate as ignorant, retarded and narrow-minded, which is very unfair, as the aforementioned five points from Biblical perspective are extremely reasonable. They are:

1) The Bible is God's infallible Word.
2) Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and was the Son of God.
3) Jesus died a vicarious death on the cross.
4) Jesus rose physically from the dead.
5) Jesus will return in the same way that he left this world.

This is evidently the same belief that Jesus' disciples, the authors of the New Testament, and the early Christians had. And this, incidentally, is also exactly the same belief that every Sunday is proclaimed in the Church of Sweden through the Apostolic confession. Anyone who recites this confession during services is thus, perhaps without being aware of it, in fact a fundamentalist!

The response from liberal theology as to Man's spiritual hunger is not a "bread" but a sterile philosophical "stone"! If the apostate Christendom makes up the "Babylonian prostitute" in Revelation, then the liberal theologians represent the "Babylonian pimps"! Liberal theology is nothing more than a continuation of the age-old lie from the Garden of Eden, where the serpent, by getting Eve to doubt the Word of God, tricked her into committing the first sin. And just like the snake of long ago, the liberal theologians of today repeats with their wheezing voices, "Has God really said... hsssss hsssss?" And just as the serpent's lie gave birth to death, so do the lies of liberal theology give birth to death. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:6, "For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." The cause of today's empty churches, is not what many Christians seem to believe; incorrect marketing. No, the problem is that the living, true Word of God has been replaced by a watered-down, human message. A message that certainly speaks of love and peace (but without substance — love without truth is no real love), but where Jesus has been reduced to a myth and Man has been elevated to his own savior.

Can that which has no flavor be eaten without salt? Or is there any taste in the white of an egg? (Job 6:6)

Only the truth has flavor and zest. As soon as a priest or pastor starts giving his congregation "spicy food", that is, downright preaching God's true Word as it says in Scripture, people will appear in crowds. What then sadly will happen and too often has happened, is that the person concerned, as observed in previous chapters, will shortly be prevented by the theological or ecclesiastical power apparatus (the faith police). First, they try to bring the "rebel" to reason and if that does not help, he will eventually be dismissed. The result will either be that the New that was about to be born will die, or the church or communion will split into factions, provided that the new is strong enough. The truth, however, cannot to be withheld, only delayed.

In the London Daily Mail on 2 Jan 1999 you could read an article entitled, "Rhetoric, refugees and the Archbishop."

What is it about the Archbishop of Canterbury that so unerringly leads him to constantly and accurately strike the wrong note at the wrong time and in the wrong way?
When the nation is totally starved of spiritual direction, with moral values threatened as never before, empty churches, the family, the foundation of religious faith, in crisis, and the Christian contribution to the Millennium Dome (the world's largest domed building, built in London for the millennium shift) banished to the status of degraded stunt — a cross made of old TV-boxes — Dr George Carey (i.e. the archbishop) is content with a New Year's message that oozes political correctness.

The Church of England archbishop seems to have much the same problem as the Swedish archbishop, that is, to ooze "political correctness." To always deliver what is fashionable in the intellectual establishment. I read in a magazine in autumn 2002, that whenever KG Hammar makes his comments on Christian faith, lots of people depart from the Church of Sweden. In a TT (the main Swedish news agency) interview just before Christmas in 2002, Archbishop Hammar, in the spirit of good liberal theology, seized the opportunity to question virtually all key elements of the Christian faith. He doubts, for example, that Jesus is the Son of God. He is skeptical about the virgin birth. In the interview he said, among other things, "It is not important whether Jesus performed miracles or not, what matters is each person's personal relationship with him." Etc, etc. Hammar thus represents a typical sugar sweet, noncommittal, New Age blur-message, where there is no absolute truth, and where Man determines what is true. Certainly, everyone has the right to believe in whatever he wants. But I assume, however, that most people would think it bizarre if George Bush had become the supreme leader of world communism. Why would you make a convinced anti-communist, who basically denies everything in Marx's theory, a communist leader? But why then make a person, who does not seem to believe in anything in classical Christianity, to Christendom's supreme leader in Sweden? Why is it that Hammar doesn't establish his own New Age religion and makes himself a leader of the same? No wonder the churches stand empty. Stanley Sjöberg says in the Christian magazine Världen idag on the occasion of Hammar's statements;

KG Hammar represents a part of an academic faith where it is considered intellectual to attack the revelations of the Bible, with the ambition to adapt Christianity to humanism and Islam in Europe.
— He speaks like Arius in the 300's and as "Judas Iscariot" he betrays the message he was ordained to represent. The hardest thing is that this denial is gaining momentum all the way into the old "revival movements."
— Hammar should be removed from office.

Christer Sturmark's (a famous, media-minded atheist in Sweden) book Personligt. Samtal med fritänkare ("Personal. Conversations with freethinkers", Fri Tanke, Stockholm 2008) relates to, as stated in the title, conversations with various atheists (including Bjorn Ulveaus, Stellan Skarsgard and Richard Dawkins). During a conversation between Sturmark (CS) and the Swedish philosophy professor and outspoken atheist Torbjörn Tännsjö (TT), the following dialogue ensues:

CS: Archbishop KG Hammar was recently asked by a journalist "Does God exist?". His reply was, "It depends on what you mean by god and what you mean by exist." It seems like he sways precariously with respect to the concrete belief that you are talking about.

TT: Yes it's quite obvious that he is not among the believers.

CS: What about Åke Green [see below] then?

TT: Yes, Åke Green actually stands for an honest and firm belief. The god he believes in brought us the hurricane Gudrun as a result of our decadent living in Sweden, so his god is conscious, he wants something and is fully capable of acting [interesting that Sturmark writes "Gudrun" in capital letter and "god" in small — Gudrun is not the name of a person, but a hurricane].

CS: So Åke Green is more honest than KG Hammar?

TT: Yes, without a doubt.

(Åke Green was the Swedish Pentecostal pastor in Öland, who some years ago was charged with having preached against homosexuality, but later was acquitted).

Even an honest and well-reasoned atheist like Torbjörn Tännsjö, understands that KG Hammar should not be reckoned as a believer, and that he is also being dishonest. That a person like Hammar for many years has been the supreme leader of the Church of Sweden (without being sacked), unfortunately conveys something essential (and tragic) about the Church's spiritual condition. It has gone pretty far when an atheist like Tännsjö obviously comprehends more of the Christian faith (though he does not share it) than the supreme leadership of the Church ("I tell you", he [Jesus] replied, "if they [the disciples] keep quiet, the stones will cry out." — Luke 19:40)

You don't have to be particularly observant to realize the desperate situation in the Church of Sweden. In the ICA-Kuriren no. 39/03 there was an article entitled "The Swede has lost his faith in the church."

It is sparse in the pews when pastor Lars Ericson begins today's sermon. As always. A total of seven souls turn up this Sunday in Sånga church, a pink sanctuary from the 1400s, near Ångermanälven outside Sollefteå. The churchwarden, organist and the vicar himself are included.
— It's a bit depressing, of course, says Ericson.
Throughout the years, he has tried to attract people by locating worship services outdoors or in the parish hall, for the sake of the church coffee, at times with a bit of success, but things never really went the right way.

The article refers to Kjell-Albin Abrahamson, Swedish Radio's Eastern Europe correspondent for many years. He argues that the Church of Sweden has become too diluted, wishy-washy and wimpy. And archbishop KG Hammar has, according to Abrahamson, like nobody else given the fuzziness a face. The church preaches only what is politically correct, is never challenging, is never confronting injustices and selfishness, being its calling. Everything breathes the current spirit; the sorting of waste, consideration for animals, positive thinking and gluten-free communion wafers (the latter is great, but can never replace Jesus).

In a way though, Hammar can be considered doing his job very well. He is not appointed by God, but by an atheistic, socialist government. Hammar, thus, does not represent God, but a socialism with spiritual overtones. And there is no doubt that he represents his principals with honor. By extension, one can sense a total disruption of the Church of Sweden in a state-controlled, liberal theological/New Age-blurred pseudo-Christian faction, and a faction where the faithful gather. Unfortunately, there seems to be no other solution. Both the Old and New Testament warn of "false shepherds". There is probably no doubt that KG Hammar belongs with them.

Someone once said, "It is strange that there seems to be an upper limit to how much faith and enthusiasm a priest or a pastor may have. However, there seems to be no lower limit to how little faith or even unbelief and indifference a priest may have, and still remain in his office ". If you preach the words of the Bible and the people crowd the church, well, then you run the risk of being dismissed, while you are gladly free to engage in spiritualism, astrology, freemasonry and other occult activities without anyone reacting (as exemplified above), even though all occultism, according to the Bible, is both wrong and dangerous — in the OT it is even regarded as a mortal sin.

When High Priest Council members wanted to prevent Jesus' disciples from preaching the gospel, and even started talking about killing them, the learned rabbi Gamaliel spoke up and said the following words of wisdom:

Now I tell you, withdraw from these men, and leave them alone. For if this counsel and this work is of men, it will be overthrown. But if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it, and you would be found even to be fighting against God! (Acts 5:38-39)

Too often throughout history it has unfortunately been made evident that various church leaders have been "fighting against God." A tragic battle that is hopeless and impossible to win.

To contemporary religious leaders, Jesus said:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven for men; for you don't enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in, to enter.
You serpents, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the judgment of Gehenna? (Matt 23:13-14,33)

Harsh words! But what does Jesus say to many of today's apostate religious leaders? I wonder if they dare ask themselves that question. If they at all believe in him! Jesus would with dead certainty say the same thing that he said nearly 2,000 years ago:

But he answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father didn't plant will be uprooted. Leave them alone. They are blind guides of the blind. If the blind guide the blind, they shall both fall into the pit". (Matthew 15:13-14)

A blind shepherd is no shepherd. A religious leader lacking the light of the Spirit and revelation, leads people astray. His fruit will be confusion and frustration.

But when he [Jesus] saw the people, he was filled with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep without a shepherd. (Matthew 9:36)

The sheep do not recognize any false shepherds, but the real, good shepherd, they know him by his voice. And that voice is full of both love and truth.

But one who enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name, and leads them out. Whenever he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. And a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers. (John 10:2-5)

The South African Bishop Bill Burnett, who during a period of time was the Archbishop of Cape Town, once recollected the following from his life:

"When I became a bishop, I believed in theology, but not in God. In practice, I was an atheist. I was trying to be righteous by doing good deeds." When he had been bishop for fifteen years, he one day preached at a communion worship service over the text in Romans where it says: "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which is given unto us" (Romans 5:5). When he returned home after the service and sat down with a strong drink to read the newspaper, he felt that the Lord told him, "Go and pray." He went to the chapel, knelt in silence and felt that the Lord said to him: "I want your body." He did not really understand this: he is tall and thin and usually says about himself that he is not exactly a Mr. Universe. Anyway, he gave himself to the Lord completely. "And then," he says, "that happened what I had preached about in church. It was like a series of electric shocks — of love." He found himself lying flat on the floor and heard the Lord say, "You are my son." When he got up he knew with firmest conviction that something special had happened. This experience was a turning point in his life and his divine deed. Since then, many more have received the experience of the meaning of filiation through the testimony of the Holy Spirit (from Life Issues by Nicky Gumbel, released by Proklama in 1999, pp. 118 - 119).

The fallen man's relationship with God
(will not be solved by excuses from the liberal theology)

 

You can read more about Christian faith in: "The Old Testament, the Gospels and the apostle Paul — are they contradicting one another?"

Back to Christian faith and world wiews

---

[1] Published by Freeman and Co, 1978, pp. 116 and 137.
[2] The philosophy of Enlightenment is dealt with here.
[3] A philosopher who has greatly influenced contemporary thinking concerning religious issues, is Baruch Spinoza, who lived in Holland in the seventeenth century. He felt, like most of his modern successors, the liberal theologians, a need to assess the Bible in the light of the rationalist philosophy, where the intellect is the ultimate guiding principle for the truth (he was thus a precursor to the Enlightenment). Spinoza bases his reasoning on certain principles, including it being an error to regard the Bible as a sacred scripture. It should be read as any other ancient book. This approach to the Bible has given rise to the so-called "historical-critical method." According to this, all Biblical texts should be examined in the light of scientific and historical criteria. This leads, as indicated several times before, to a sealed worldview where everything is interpreted as the result of natural and historical causes, and where no place exists for either God or other supernatural phenomena at all. It is definitely not wrong to examine the Bible from history's and other sciences' point of view. The error, however, is when one argues that these scientific statements about the Bible supply us with the whole truth. The historical-critical method only gives us the whole truth, provided that nothing supernatural exists.
[4] Jesus Kristus och avmytologiseringen (Jesus Christ and the de-mythologization), Tema (Gleerup) 1968, p. 13.
[5] A student of Rudolf Bultmann, professor Eta Linnemann, did eventually meet Jesus and has completely rejected the liberal theology. In her book Historical Criticism of the Bible, Methodology and Ideology. Reflections of a Bultmannian turned evangelical, Baker Book House, she strongly attacks her former liberal view on the Bible.
[6] Ulrich Victor, classical linguist at the Humboldt University in Germany, made at one instance the following blunt remark, "The liberal theologians have long been dismissing everything they do not like as a latter-day tradition, without any connection to Jesus."
[7] The Harvester Press, 1983, p. 259, note 10.
[8] Strindberg, of course, does not imply that science itself leads us out into the dark. He refers to science being employed incorrectly, i.e., when expecting science to answer existential questions — questions that per definition cannot be answered by science.
Some skeptics have tried to argue that Strindberg never became a convinced Christian. This is, however, well documented in the book Strindbergs systrar berätta om barndomshemmet och om bror August (Strindberg's sisters tell of their childhood home and their brother August), published by Norstedt & Sons Publishers, 1926. On page 59 his sister Nora writes, "The primary cause for his recovery [after having been sick], I would like to attribute to his deep hidden, innate religiosity, which over the years surfaced and just like a source of light and power, from which he scooped, brought him forward to peace and serenity, until the gates of death circled about him." His sister Anna concludes the book with (p. 104), "He fought patiently and without complaint through his severe suffering, until he on a sunny spring morning irrevocably broke up into the sanctuary, over which he himself had put the inscription 'O crux, ave spes unica' ('Hail cross, my only hope')".

 

A photo taken in 2009 of Strindberg's burial site at the Northern Cemetery in Solna

Swedish Wikipedia writes: "At Strindberg's deathbed the end was nearing and he made a sign that he wanted his Bible placed on the nightstand; he took it and spoke his farewell words to life, with daughter Greta sitting at his bedside, 'I've made up my accounts with this life. Now there is nothing more personal left.'"
[9] Presumably, both "rabbi" and "rabban" derive from the Hebrew word "rab", which means "great". "My teacher" and "our teacher" are thus not accurate translations. However, this does not play any real crucial role in this context. In any case, "rabban" was reserved for a few of the foremost interpreters of the scriptures. One of them was Gamaliel.
[10] The Archeology of Palestine, revised edition Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Pelican Books, 1960, pp. 127-128.
[11] Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: History of Neteg. Philadelphia, Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969, p. 31.
[12] S N Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, Philadelphia, 1944, title page.
[13] Alfred Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orient, 4th ed., Leipzig, 1930, p. 99.
[14] Such analyzes are also considered to support the theory that the book of Isaiah has multiple authors.
[15] It is said that the learned Dr. John Owen used to listen to Bunyan when he preached in London before great crowds. When the king on one occasion expressed his surprise how a scholar such as Dr. Owen could appreciate a coppersmith's preaching, Dr. Owen said, "Your Majesty, if I only possessed the extraordinary gifts of this coppersmith, I would gladly forego all my learning."
[16] In Time on 10 April 1995 there was an article titled "A Step Closer to Jesus?". It disclosed how Thiede recently had made another sensational discovery. When he examined the papyrus fragments which originally came from Egypt but eventually, in the early 1900s, was donated to Magdalen College, Oxford, he found evidence that these fragments may already may have been written in the 70's and not the 200's as previously assumed. The papyrus contains 10 scattered verses from Matthew 26. Thiede's conclusions are based on analysis of the Greek handwriting. The characteristic drawn-out, upright handwriting depicted on the fragments, disappeared soon after the time of Jesus, he says.
[17] Idagsidan, Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, 8 July 1992.
[18] The facts are obtained from newspaper clippings as well as conversations with Tore Forslund. Furthermore, I am personally acquainted with Tore and know that he is a living Christian who believes that the Bible is the Word of God and thus regards it seriously. I better point out that far from all the priests in the Church of Sweden had distanced themselves from Tore. There are of course many priests who assent with him, but unfortunately, there are also too many in senior positions who neither have a personal belief, nor any actual knowledge of the Bible. Some newspapers were also generally positive, and their attitudes towards him was rather pro than against. Tore Forslund died in March 2000, mourned and missed by many Christian brothers and sisters. Here you find a link to a great page on Tore Forslund's life and achievements. Among other things you can listen to some of his most essential sermons in RealAudio format. Listen, for example, to his farewell sermon in Borgvattnet after him being removed from his office (his crime was that he believed in and lived by the teachings of Jesus). And here's a nice page on Tore, lovingly made in January 2010 by his youngest daughter Sara (I am sorry but both pages I link to are in Swedish — though if you are really interested you can use Google translate to get an idea of the content).
[19] Can there even be any other Christianity than that which Jesus Christ taught us?!
[20] According to an article in Trons Värld (the World of Faith, a Swedish Christian magazine), no 3/91, a survey of 162 sermons held in the Danish Folkekirken (the equivalent of the state church), disclosed that 48 of these were completely lacking in Christian content, while 59 preached a bogus Christianity (i.e., a message that clearly contradicts the Bible). Only 16 were considered to be in line with the Bible. Now, one can of course argue that it's a question of interpretation, and it may well be so in some of the cases. In this study, however, it involves sermons containing assertions directly contrary to the teachings of the Bible.
Another study, presented by Göran Gustafsson in his book Tro, Samfund och Samhälle (Faith, Communions and Society), Libris, 1991, reveals among other things what stance pastors and clergy of various denominations take to the claim, "The Bible is the pure Word of God and therefore it is literally true." Only 11% of the pastors from the Mission Covenant Church felt able to affirm this statement. The corresponding figures for the priests of the Church of Sweden and Pentecostal pastors were 23% and 93% respectively! A communion where only 11% of its preachers believe that the Bible is the Word of God, can downright be declared as a spiritual shipwreck!
When the former chief editor of Svenska Dagbladet (Swedish daily newspaper), Hans Zetterberg, 1987 spoke at the stronghold of the Mission Covenant Church in Stockholm, the Immanuel Church, he said, "The churches must bring forward to the people that what they have, what they are specialized in. Politics are for others. And the same goes for environmental issues etc. But the religious message, the gospel of salvation for the lost, deliverance, hope and faith that can transform life and existence, all that the others cannot convey. But the church can. Or can't it, anymore? "