This seems like a good place to start a book that answers the tough questions posed of Christianity. After all, if there is no such thing as truth then Christianity cannot possibly be true in the way that Christians hope it is, and so there’s no point writing a book that tries to support and outline the truth of Christianity, is there?

So, is there no such thing as truth? Or, to put it another way, is the statement, ‘There’s no such thing as truth’ actually…true?

We live in a very post-modern world. A world where radical scepticism is king. The most pure definition of post-modernism is simply: not modernism. However, when we talk about things being ‘post-modern’, we often mean that they reject the idea of absolutes – absolute truth, for example.

And it would be lovely to think that truth is whatever we decide it to be. Indeed, you will hear people say, ‘This is my truth; what’s yours?’ But what if my truth is that your truth can’t possibly be true? What happens then? If my truth is true, then my statement that your truth can’t possibly be true is also true, and so your truth can’t possibly be true. Alternatively, if my truth isn’t true, then it’s not truth at all.

Somebody once said, ‘If someone tells you there’s no such thing as truth, they’re asking you not to believe them, so don’t.’ And here’s the problem with the statement, ‘There’s no such thing as truth’: it’s a self-refuting statement. If the statement is true, then it proves itself false. And if the statement itself is false, then it’s still false.

It would seem that using the idea that there is no absolute truth is just a way of making ourselves feel like the kings of our own lives. But nobody really lives as though truth is so easy to manipulate – it’s all around us. If I told you, in my native English tongue, that ‘I only speak Russian and Turkish’, then there isn’t really any way of that being true. It’s obviously untrue from the moment I start telling you in English.

Every adult who has ever died was born. A giraffe has never played Premiership football. There are no married bachelors.

Lots of things are objectively, absolutely true. And we all know it. Nobody is post-modernist when they are reading the warning label on a bottle of poison.

We live in the world of scepticism. We don’t like to commit to truth claims, because it makes us feel controlled. We want to be free, to be critical thinkers. But to be truly sceptical, you have to be sceptical about your own scepticism. How do we know that scepticism is the best way to view the world? If we’re prepared to accept that we need to be sceptical about our own scepticism, and that the idea of truth is a true on – that there are things out there that can be said to be true – then we can ask the next logical question: what, exactly, is true?

This is the first of a series of excerpts from the forthcoming book from the Demolition Squad, tackling #25objections to the Christian faith.

As Bob Dylan said, the times they are a-changing. What a wise man he is, although he also sang this:

Now you see this one-eyed midget
Shouting the word “NOW”
And you say, “For what reason?”
And he says, “How?”
And you say, “What does this mean?”
And he screams back, “You’re a cow
Give me some milk
Or else go home”.

So maybe he’s not all good. Anyway, here at Demolition Squad HQ, the times are indeed a-changing. We’ve reached thousands of people with our blogs and podcasts over the last 18 months, and we are now on the verge of a new season.  At the end of June, I (Andy) will be leaving my role as blogger to focus on a new project we’ll touch on in a bit. I’ll still be contributing semi-regular pieces, and Jonathan Sherwin will continue writing regularly. This will also leave room for some new voices to contribute pieces to the Demolition Squad.
So, this new project! Duh, duh, duuuuhhhh…

New Book

At The Gathering 2015, CVM will be releasing a new resource in the form of the Demolition Squad Survival Handbook: tackling 25 objections to the Christian Faith. I’ll be spending the next few months collating, editing and adding to some of the articles we’ve written over the last 2 years and turning them into a sharp, neat, concise product for blokes to absorb and share with their mates.
Tackling subjects from ‘Isn’t Christianity Intolerant?’ to ‘You Don’t Have To Be A Christian To Be A Good Person’, the DSSH will take a look at key objections to Christianity and deal with how to respond to them. A lot of my time will go into transforming key arguments into everyday language, compressing them into bitesize nuggets, with a focus on practical application.
Defending the Gospel isn’t something that needs to be left to the lawyers and scientists. Every Christian bloke – whether a builder, a bricklayer or a brigadier – should be properly equipped to give a reason for the hope that he has. The Demolition Squad Survival Handbook will be geared towards that. An apologetics book by blokes for blokes.

New Blog Series and Talks

In addition to the new book there will be brand new articles on the blog as we continue to tackle the tough questions that we currently face with sharing our faith. We’ll hear from some top thinkers in the UK on tackling those hard objections.
In addition, we are rolling out new talks for the CVM conferences as well as an accessible introduction to apologetics talk that we can give at your church or men’s group. More news on that soon.
We’ll keep you updated with Andy’s progress as we go along. After this year’s excellent Gathering we we’re really looking forward to TG15, which, from the sound of it, is already bigger and better than last year. We can’t wait!

“Reality is a cocktail of fantasy” Micah Purnell.

We lie to ourselves all the time. I lie to myself about how good-looking I am. I like to imagine that ‘I’ve still got it’. And then I walk past a reflection of myself that I wasn’t expecting to see, and before my brain has chance to readjust to my idealised view, I catch a glimpse of what I actually look like – how other people see me. And it hurts; so I blot it out as quickly as possible.
We all construct our own truth. It’s our way of getting through life. And when a lie gets told and retold, eventually the real truth gets suppressed and our constructed truth becomes our reality.
A great example of this is the film Shutter Island (Spoilers ahead). In this film, Leonardo di Caprio is a man driven insane by the death of his children and murdering of his own wife. Unable to cope with the truth, he constructs his own reality where he is a renowned detective. The doctors at the mental asylum where he is housed decide to use this constructed reality in their favour, and set up a false trail of clues for “Det. Teddy Daniels” to follow – which ultimately lead to the uncomfortable truth that he is not in fact a detective, but is the asylum’s most dangerous patient. At the climax of the film, he rejects the real story in favour of his created universe – and is lobotomised!
So what about you? What if the worldview you’ve constructed is false? And what if you’re missing a greater truth – and, unlike in Shutter Island, a better truth? Here are some signs that you might be intellectually dishonest when it comes to the question of God.
1. You only read/watch what you already agree with.  The books/blogs you read – or videos you watch – fit in with your existing worldview and serve simply to confirm your own prejudices. You deliberately stay away from anything that might challenge you. You start to unfollow people who post things on Twitter and Facebook that you disagree with. This is telling. When we truly feel comfortable with what we believe, we can happily imbibe contrasting or conflicting views. If you’re so sure you’re right, then why do you shy away? There’s a chance that you’re strengthening the foundations of a belief that you’ve built upon the sand.
2. “People who disagree with me are stupid!” That’s why you don’t read or watch anything Christian – they’re so obviously deluded. But it’s not that, is it? Psychologically, when we don’t want to be challenged by something, we need to convince ourselves that it is ridiculous. We need to alienate it and dispose of it. So we start using extreme words like stupid or irrational, which help us distance ourselves from the challenge. This is where terms like Magic Sky Clown and Jewish Zombie come from. By reducing Christianity ‘ad absurdum’, we don’t need to worry about its potential truth. We wrap ourselves in protective labels.
3. You get angry with those who disagree. You swear at or shout down people in conversation, or walk away from a discussion. You convince yourself that your anger is righteous at how immoral their viewpoint is, but is that really true? Anger is what happens when we don’t feel in control and try to re-exert our own power in a situation. Think of any scenario where you’ve lost your temper and you’ll see it follows that process. It’s an emotional response, not an intellectual one. It’s a sign that you’re out of your depth, that you don’t know everything. People sure of what they believe and confident of its truthfulness tend to remain calm in conversation. “I get angry ‘cos they’re stupid!” you might say. See bullet point 2.
If you’re getting angry when talking to Christians, maybe you’re not quite as clued up as you thought you were. That’s OK – just follow the path where it leads.
4. You use words like ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ and ‘free-thinking’ to describe yourself. These words are like verbal placebos. They create a pleasant feeling of security in us without actually proving us to be any of those things. However, calling yourself logical and rational doesn’t somehow magically transform all your ideas into logical, rational ideas.

5. You deliver statements as though they are questions. But you’re not really looking for the answers. A question like ‘How could God allow so much suffering?’ is a good question, but it doesn’t automatically follow that he wouldn’t. The answers to these questions are hard, of course, but they’re out there, if only you’re prepared to look.
Have you considered that maybe you’re using the question to shield yourself from the answer?

6. You use ad-hominem attacks. When you fear that someone ‘on the opposing side’ is more knowledgeable in their viewpoint, or you run out of your own arguments, you try to undermine them by criticising their moral character or appearance. Looking to devalue what someone has said because of something you don’t like about them is a common trick, but totally dishonest. It also commits the genetic fallacy, but I’m probably an idiot for saying that.
7. You quote famous atheists, without being able to back up their arguments. Dawkins, Hitchens, Bertrand Russell. In place of delivering your own ideas and thoughts, you simply quote something that one of your heroes has said. The problem is that you find it much more difficult to build on those sound bites when pushed. An example of this would be ‘You’re an atheist when it comes to Zeus. Atheists just go one God further’. How would you respond when informed that this is a joke, not an argument? What’s your follow-up argument?
See what I mean? A quote from an atheist is not in itself an argument for atheism. We all need to be careful that emotive, persuasive language doesn’t replace actual argumentation.

8. You use generic catch-all phrases which show your poor hand. ‘Everybody knows Jesus never existed’, or ‘It’s a scientific fact that science has disproven God’ work here. Statements like this are usually a dead giveaway that you haven’t really looked into what you’re talking about. Usually, whatever it is that ‘everybody knows’, everybody doesn’t know it – you wouldn’t have to say that if it were the case. And usually, ‘everybody knows’ really means ‘I don’t know’. Top academic debaters don’t go around saying ‘everybody knows’, in the same way that serious scientists don’t talk about science disproving God. For people who do know what they’re talking about, this sort of conversational device just calls your own bluff.

9. You never really critique your own beliefs. Attacking, ignoring or sneering at other viewpoints is often a way of deflecting attention away from yourself. Sadly, despite what we’d like to believe about ourselves, most people in our society aren’t won over by reasoned, rational arguments, but by advertising. Are your reasons for believing what you believe genuinely rational and considered, or are they simply a verbal manifestation of how you feel? And are your reasons for rejecting other worldviews equally rational, or does the idea of a God who has more power than you simply create a negative emotional reaction, which you then reject? Does it cut up your desire for autonomy, or conflict with your trust that you are in control?
My belief is that, if you do any of these 9 things, you may be confusing your intellect with your emotions. Crucially, the reasons most people give for rejecting Jesus are almost never as rational and well-thought-out as they think, but instead a sort of advertising slogan for their desires.
How we feel is not always a good gauge of truth. The truth doesn’t always underwrite our feelings, but often wounds them.
How will you deal with that? What do you want? Your truth? Or The Truth?
Because The Truth might be better than you think.

Ethos – part of Youth for Christ have released a new video looking at the question of morality.
This – part III – was written by Andy of the Demolition Squad.

Catch Up

Missed part I and II? Have a look here:

• Part I – Can We Prove The Existence of God?
• Part II – We Shouldn’t Care

Here we are then, with another exciting instalment of supposed Bible inaccuracies. This week we’re looking at some of the questions posed in the book of Mark. Woohoo!

Mark 6:5 – Why couldn’t Jesus do mighty works?

Problem: If Jesus is God, ‘with all authority in heaven and earth’, why is it that he ‘could do no mighty work’? Surely that would mean He is not all-powerful?
Solution: Jesus is almighty as God, but not as man. For example, as God Jesus never got tired, but as man He did. Furthermore, the issue here is about principle, not metaphysics – which is to say that Jesus chose not to perform miracles because of the people’s ‘unbelief’. He wasn’t an entertainer or a spiritual vending machine. He deemed it a wasted effort. In modern life, too, you will find people who say ‘If God wrote his name across the sky, I’d believe.’  But when you talk to them about the odds of the universe existing by chance (link to first Ethos video) and suggest that God has, in fact, done just that, they fob you off with phrases like ‘someone had to win the lottery!’ God responds to our need for Him, not our need for tricks and wonders!

Mark 10: 17-31 – Did Jesus deny He was God to the rich, young ruler?

Problem: Jesus is called ‘Good Teacher’, which He rebukes, saying, ‘Why do you call me Good? No-one is Good but One, that is, God’. Is he here conceding His lack of full divinity?
Solution: No, He isn’t. Jesus did not deny He was God; He simply asked the man to examine the implications of what he was saying – essentially, ‘Do you understand what it means to call me Good?’ Jesus was forcing the rich young ruler into an uncomfortable dilemma – either He is Good and therefore God, or He is simply a man and therefore flawed. In today’s western culture, we have a very arbitrary idea of what ‘Good’ is. We really use it to mean ‘Nice’, but Nice does not have the same moral implications as Good. Have a think about how you personally might define good, and what reason you have to think that definition is the right one. Going back to the text, Jesus is asking this very question, getting the man to think about what he means by ‘Good’. Realistically, no Good man would deceive people by claiming to be God. The liberal Christ – a good moral teacher but not God – is a flight of fancy, and a figment of our post-modern imagination.

Mark 11: 23-24 – Did Jesus promise to give literally anything we ask for in faith?

Problem: Superficially, this verse does seem to suggest that God will grant any request we make of Him as long as we just believe hard enough. But we all know from our own lives that this isn’t wholly true – in the words of the Rolling Stones, you can’t always get what you want.
Solution: First of all, God cannot literally give us anything. Some things are actually impossible. For example, God could not grant out request to be God, or, much to my own annoyance, the real Batman. He can’t make a square circle or a married bachelor. He can’t go against His own nature and approve of our sin.
Secondly, the context in the passage indicates that it was not an unconditional offer, when the very next verse says ‘If you….’ This is the conditional tense, and so is concerned with conditions.
All difficult passages should be interpreted in harmony with other clear statements of Scripture. Paul wasn’t healed of the thorn in his flesh, though he prayed faithfully and earnestly. Jesus taught that it was not the blind man’s lack of faith that made him blind, rather he was born blind ‘that the works of God should be revealed in him’. (John 9:3) The reality – of which we all sometimes need to be reminded – is that God is not here to do our bidding. We are not cosmic wizards calling down storms like Saruman. Prayer is a means by which we serve God, not the reverse. It is not about getting our will done in heaven, but God getting His will done on earth.
Prayers do get answered, and people do get healed, but God’s greatest promise to us is himself, not signs and wonders. We must ‘abide in Him’ and ask ‘according to His will.’
Tune in next time for some more stimulating Bible-ly difficulty. Same bat-time, same bat-channel.
[For more ‘Bible Contradictions’ – see part I]

At face value, the Bible can seem to be full of contradictions. When people level this at us, we need to take them and it seriously, so let’s see how we can respond. We shall start with the first book of the New Testament. There’s lots to choose from, so let’s look at some of the more interesting ones.

The Book of Matthew

Problem: Ch 2: Verse 2 – The Bible seems to commend (and God blesses) the Magi for following the star, when elsewhere astrology is condemned.
Response: Astrology is a belief that looking at the position and movement of the starts can help us to foretell events. The star in the biblical account is there to announce Jesus’ birth, not to foretell it. The star given to the Magi was a proclamation, not a prediction, of what had already happened. Also, elsewhere in the Bible stars and planets are employed by God to reveal His desires. Psalm 19:1-6 affirms that the heavens declare God’s glory, while Romans 1 teaches that creation reveals God’s existence.

— oooo —

Problem: Ch 4: Verses 14-16 – Does Matthew incorrectly quote Isaiah 9:1-2, or does he change it?
Response: It isn’t necessary to quote a passage verbatim in order to accurately communicate its meaning. Rather than distorting it, Matthew simply condenses the meaning of the passage. To paraphrase accurately is not to distort, otherwise no news report or historical account could ever be accurate, since summary is essential to history.

— oooo —

Problem: Ch 5: Verse 14 – Jesus tells his disciples that they are the light of the world, whereas in John 9:5, he declared: ‘I am the light of the world’. So, who is the light of the world, Jesus or us? (And who’s paying the energy bill for all this?)
Response: Both! Jesus is the primary light of the world, and we are the secondary light. We are the reflectors of Jesus’ source light, in the same way that the moon is the reflector of the sun’s source light.

— oooo —

Problem: Ch 5: Verse 42 – Jesus clearly says ‘Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.’ But, if we took this literally, how would we provide anything for our families. Also, Paul says that those who do not provide for their own families are worse than infidels (1 Timothy 5-8).
Response: Context is key. As we know from other things Jesus says (no good father would give a serpent to his child), this does not mean we should give people what will harm them. Furthermore, it does not mean give to those who flatly refuse to work. Paul is emphatic: ‘If anyone will not work, neither will he eat’ (2 Thessolonians 3:10). Finally, the whole context of Jesus’ words here are to reaffirm the spirit of the law, and to counter the legalistic misinterpretation of the OT that says take revenge on your enemy with ‘an eye for an eye’. By contrast, Jesus says not to retaliate against your enemy: love him, and give him help. Jesus no more expected His listeners to take this command without qualification than He intended them to literally cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes if they offended them!

— oooo —

Problem: Ch 5: Verse 43 – Jesus said of the Old Testament, ‘You have heard it said, you shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ So why did the OT say that it was Ok to hate your enemies, and why would a God of love allow that?
Solution: It didn’t, and He didn’t. Jesus said ‘you have heard’, and not ‘it is written’ as he often did when quoting scripture. He is actually criticising the Jewish tradition that had grown up around the Old Testament – a tradition that was corrupted, based on the pharisaical misinterpretation of the text. God never commanded His people at any time to hate their enemies, while Jesus said that the greatest of all commands were to love God and to love our neighbour as ourselves (Matthew 22: 36-37).

— oooo —

Let us know what passages you struggle with, and we’ll try and cover them in future blog posts. Until next time…

Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother.

Khalil Gibran

A few years ago, I was having a conversation with a guy in a coffee shop. At the time I was trying to speak to more people about God, so I shoehorned into the conversation that I was a Christian. Naturally, this guy then strung out a list of gripes he had with Christianity, and I responded in what I thought was a relevant way, socially acceptable way.
‘Don’t you ever have doubts?’ he asked with a foam moustache.
‘All the time!’ I replied, thinking that by showing that doubt was a regular part of being a Christian, he could become a Christian and still be racked with doubt. I thought it might be an easier sell that way!
I now look back and feel like I got it badly wrong. I conflated too many different things into one big post-modern mess. Let’s try and break it down.
The problem isn’t that Christians struggle with doubt. It’s what we do when we hit a wall of doubt that is vital.
Firstly, a question is not a doubt. We all have questions about God, and as Christians we don’t need to feel that’s problematic. Asking a question, and getting a good answer, strengthens faith and understanding. A worldview that doesn’t allow for genuine heartfelt questions is only going to suffocate and stifle. What we must do, however, is ensure that we act on the questions we have, and earnestly seek the answer. It’s only by refusing or failing to do this that a question burrows and frets its way into the psyche and becomes a doubt. Looking back to my conversation over coffee, what I really meant (and should have said) was that I had *questions* ‘all the time’.
‘It’s sounds really painful, having all these nagging doubts to deal with every day,’ my co-drinker suggested. And it would be, wouldn’t it, if you’re entire worldview was based around the certainty of uncertainty?
My real problem was not my own beliefs about God, but my own desire to be seen as culturally normal. I mistakenly saw doubt as the flipside to the sort of blind faith that leads to extremism, as well as believing glib phrases like the one at the top, where doubt and faith are Siamese twins. By suggesting that Christianity was something I believed but was also something I might be wrong about, I could maintain friendships and not be labelled as a fundamentalist. This sort of behaviour is best summed up by a ‘This is my truth – what’s yours?’ type of approach.
But guess what? God isn’t a postmodernist. The Gospel is either true or it’s the greatest hoax that has ever been pulled. It isn’t a bit true, or true for me but not this other guy. Some things just are black or white.
I realise I’m talking in broad strokes here, but some Christians can overplay the role of doubt within Christian life. The idea is that, by emphasising doubt, we put the focus on always searching for answers, on questioning everything. This is the accepted cultural standard for our time, but the problem is that this sort of approach can turn doubt into an idol, so that you’re own scepticism and rational faculties become, oddly, your God. If you make an idol out of doubt, then when you try and tell people about your faith, what is there to commend it? ‘Come, be like me, and base your life on uncertainty.’ If your message is ‘I’m certain that I don’t know’, then why would anyone see anything true or meaningful about your life?
Jesus didn’t ever say ‘doubt in me’. He asked people to follow Him. Following Jesus doesn’t mean the path is always clear and free from obstacles, but it does require a commitment to follow. Sometimes you’ve just got to dig in, man up, and trust your lead scout. Faith isn’t about blind obedience, but nor is it predicated on a shrugging uncertainty. It is a sure and certain hope that we have in Jesus.

This blog contains (Jesus loves you) a hidden message.
One of the major assaults on Christianity from the heated world of the internet is that, along with all the other religions, it is set up to brainwash people (usually young, vulnerable people) into the unquestioning belief that our particular institutional power system is true, morally right, superior etc.
So, is all religion brainwashing?
First of all, I think we must concede that there are forms of ‘religion’ that are set up to control, to extort money, where thinking for yourself is discouraged, where dutiful mechanical behaviour is valued above individual expression. Now, part of the response to the challenge ‘All Religion is Brainwashing’ is to say that, as Christians, we don’t argue for ‘religion’.
Christians don’t think all religions are basically the same, or that ‘religion’ in a general sense is true. So what other religions do is no concern of ours, and we don’t have to defend them – in the same way that Per Mertesacker doesn’t have to pick up a man when Chelsea concede a corner (For non-football fans or Americans, Mertesacker plays for Arsenal…which is a football team).
However, whether we want to admit it or not, forms of brainwashing also occur within mainstream Christianity – and not just on the cultic fringes. I found the article ‘Cult of Confession’ quite helpful on this.
As Christians, where we see other Christians trying to control or manipulate, we need to challenge it and stamp it out. It is not acceptable for the body of christ to self-harm in this way.
Why?
Well, here’s the thing: an institution that churns out generations of non-thinking moralists; a church that demands money; a spiritual leader who coerces or uses emotional mind games…NONE of this is what Jesus taught or was about. NONE of this is The Gospel, and it has no place here.
But isn’t it still the case that bringing up kids to be Christians is brainwashing them, and stops them making up their own minds?
Well…no.
Why? Because Christianity isn’t the assent to a propositional truth. It isn’t the agreement with a statement about how the world is. It isn’t the maintaining of a set of moral rules to live by. It just isn’t. If you disagree, fine, but you’re wrong.
Being a Christian is not just something you think, or do, or believe. It’s something you are. It’s something you have freely chosen to be. And it happens by freely inviting God’s spirit into your heart, by welcoming into your life the greatest love in the universe. You cannot be brainwashed into love. Forced love isn’t love at all – it’s emotional rape.
I wasn’t raised a Christian, because I don’t think you can be. Until you make that personal free choice about Jesus, you can’t say you were a Christian.
I chose Jesus at 22, but although my parents were both Christians, I could never accuse them of brainwashing. All I ever saw from them was love of people and stories of God’s goodness. They let me make up my own mind, but they never hid the stuff that God was doing in their lives – that would have been dishonest.
I was eventually won over, convinced, but never brainwashed (although I admit that’s exactly the sort of thing someone who’s been brainwashed might say – only in more of a drone).
I wonder whether some people grab for the word brainwashing out of despair, particularly when they know seemingly well-adjusted Christians. ‘Here is a clever, lovely person who believes something that seems so ridiculous to me. They would never have reached those fairytale conclusions on their own, so there must surely be something insidious at work behind it – a sort of religious Kaiser Soze.’
We never want to be threatened or challenged by something we believe is wrong, so a technique that we all use is reductio ad absurdum. If you ridicule something and talk of it in terms that you find alien/offensive, you never have to be challenged by it. (Another technique I sometimes use is ‘Accio car keys’, but it never works. Stupid Harry Potter).
Finally, what we need to be aware of is that every worldview is passed down to you from someone else. You are not the first person to think as you do. You didn’t pluck it out of thin air. You are not, sadly, an original thinker. Tell me this – where did you get the idea that religion is brainwashing? Who caused you to think like that? What if you were brainwashed into thinking that?
Are we free from brainwashing in our society? Do we support wars that turn out to be erroneous? Do we think it’s ok to surround ourselves with luxuries at the expense of the people whose country the raw materials came from? Do we think we should have what we want, or that our own personal happiness is the chief aim of life? Are these things just brute facts, or have we been fed them so many times that we’ve started to accept them as truth?
Furthermore, what’s the difference between a family who tells their children that God exists and should be worshipped, and a family who tells their children that there is no God and the universe has no meaning? That sounds like a joke set-up, but it’s not supposed to. Isn’t it just as easy/apt to accuse secular/atheist parents of brainwashing their children as it is for Christians to be accused?
And you might say, as an atheist, ‘We want them to make up their own minds,’ which is great – so do I – but do you really make it that open-ended? Do you teach them that it might be true that Jesus is their Saviour? Really?
You might also say ‘Ah, yes, well, but the difference is that what we believe is true!’ In which case, the questions isn’t really ‘Is All Religion Brainwashing?’ but, simply, ‘What is True?’
I confess, I am going to bring up my kids telling them that God loves them, that because of that they should love others, and that in Jesus they can and will find life in all its fullness. Because I believe that. I believe it because I’ve met the guy – I trust Him with my life, and with theirs. Deal with it.

Last week we started looking at some of the phrases people quote ‘as scripture’ that can’t actually be found anywhere in the Bible. You can probably guess, what with this article being called Part 2, that we’re doing more of the same here.
Cleanliness is next to godliness
No, Jesus did not say this in the Sermon on the Mount, nor in any of his teachings recorded in the Gospels. This Bible misquote might have its root in James 4:8: “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.” But let’s be clear about this: salvation is through Grace by Faith, and not by having a lovely bubble-bath.
Spare the rod, spoil the child
This could very well be a paraphrase of Proverbs 13:24, but the statement doesn’t really exist in any translation of the Bible. The Bible verse actually reads: “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.” So it still sounds a bit Draconian to our modern ears, but it at least ushers us out of the realms of child abuse.
Samuel Butler, a 17th century British poet, actually coined the phrase “spare the rod and spoil the child” in his satirical poem, “Hudibras”. I’m sure he was a joy to be around. Also probably quite predictable at Cluedo, too.
Money is the root of all evil
This misquote is not too far off from the actual verse, found in 1 Timothy 6:10: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” Interestingly, this particular Bible verse recently won the award for ‘Thing least likely to be heard during a Joel Osteen sermon’.
God will never give you more than you can bear
This common phrase appears to be a misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 10:13: “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.” So the verse is not about external factors, but about personal temptation. During times of huge temptation, it’s important to understand that Jesus has defeated the sin we are prone to. We can abide it, not because of our own self-control, but because of surrender to His love.
All things work together for good
The big question, of course, is ‘What things work together for whose good?’ Romans 8:28 reads in full: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
This is basically a faux-biblical version of ‘it’ll all work out in the end’, which of course is demonstrably false – just look at Game of Thrones! Not everything that happens is for the best, not everything that happens is God’s will, and God never says that everything’s going to be all right. If that were the case, Jesus could have taken that holiday home in Crete that we mentioned last week. The sister phrase to this is equally vague and simpering: ‘Everything happens for a reason.’ I agree, but how often is that reason the right reason? It’s just verbal silage.
Hopefully, this modest collection of phrases will help us all understand the common misconceptions that come up when we start quoting scripture, and will help us to challenge errors where we see them.
 

Recently, a mate and I were watching a game of Rugby Union (it’s like American Football, but without the need for a Kevlar vest. It’s also different in that, whereas American Football has Miley Cyrus singing in the half time break, Rugby Union has a guy in a cagoule shouting out raffle numbers.)
Anyway, the game was a bit boring, so I did what I always do when I’m bored, and started talking about sin. My mate is the sort of guy who would call himself a Christian, but also likes to drink Absinthe from ladies’ cleavage. I was challenging him that (you know) maybe that wasn’t what being a Christian was all about (much as I’d like if to be), and my mate responded with ‘Hey, to thine own self be true – says so in the Bible.’
‘Er…no, it doesn’t.’
‘Does.’
‘Which book?’
‘One of the old ones, I think – the Iliad or something.’
‘Right, well we’ve hit on a problem here…’
I’ve noticed this happening a lot: people trying to argue about the Bible when it’s very obvious they haven’t read it. So I thought it would be a bit of fun to collate a list of biblical phrases that aren’t actually in the Bible. So here goes…
1. To thine own self be true.
This is actually a quote from Polonius in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. In today’s culture, people will probably use to mean ‘do whatever makes you happy’. Philippians 2:3, of course, says ‘Don’t be selfish…be humble, thinking of others as better than yourself’.
2. With great power comes great responsibility.
My brother-in-law once quoted Jesus as saying this in an interview for a youth work position. When the panel pointed out that it was Spider-Man, and not The Lord, he guessed he hadn’t got the job.
3. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
A lovely phrase, but not in the Bible. It was Ghandi who said it. It’s a good starting point for a conversation though. People will often say ‘But if God loves me, then he loves me no matter what I do, surely.’ Yes, but sin is ‘anything that we put above God in our own estimation.’ It becomes like a barrier, and until we are prepared to remove those barriers, we can never truly know God’s love. God’s love is not automatically the same thing as His approval.
4. God moves in mysterious ways.
This phrase is actually thrown at Christians aggressively by people arguing against Christianity. It’s our own fault; it’s only used when people don’t have a suitable grasp on ‘giving a reason for the hope that is in you’, and tends to signify ‘I just don’t know’. This might be a universal confession among all Christians, but this phrase is stated nowhere in Scripture. Perhaps it can be linked to Isaiah 55:8: “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD.”
Now, yes, there is a certain mystery to Faith, and if anyone thinks they understand everything about God, then they are no longer talking about God, but a god made in their own image and contained within their own mind. But when someone challenges us on suffering or creation, there are infinitely better answers than ‘God moves in mysterious ways.’ Stop being so lazy.
5. The Lord helps those who help themselves.
This is probably the most quoted biblical verse that isn’t actually in the Bible, and it’s horrendous. It’s sister phrase is ‘charity begins at home’, which is also heinous. Apparently  it was the Greek storyteller Aesop who used it first, and it can now be heard from the lips of pickpockets and thieves in any number of period BBC dramas. And if charity really did begin at home, Jesus would have chosen against taking the lowly donkey into Jerusalem, and would have bought a holiday home on Crete.
As Rick Warren says, ‘God doesn’t help those who help themselves. He helps those who turn to Him.’
The way to avoid looking silly in conversation, of course, is to actually read the Bible. You might find ‘there’s more to it than meets the eye’. (Corinthians, 3:15…..no, wait, Transformers, episode 3).