V: Shaking the Faith?

30 November 2004 Common Era

A marketing campaign is in full gear: for two weeks in a row, somewhat vague advertisements have appeared in Newsweek magazine parroting a new show from The Discovery Channel. The topic? Ancient Egypt, specifically the reign of Ramses II, and the continuing dig in the KV5 tomb, the large tomb for the children of Ramses II.

The purpose? Well, Kent Weeks, KV5 excavator, obviously thinks that he has found the skull of the oldest son of Ramses II. This is being capitalized upon-- whether by Weeks himself or more prompted by TDC I do not know-- as an opportunity to make a splash to promote the subject and the ongoing dig. What is the capital? The Bible, of course. The show is being parroted as a challenge to Judaism and Christianity, a dare to see whether faith can "hold up" to the potential "crack" of the son of Ramses II.

What does all of this mean? Well, the implicit assumption being made is that if the Biblical text is right, Ramses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and therefore his son would have paid the penalty of the tenth plague-- the killing of the Egyptian firstborn. If the skeletal evidence from this child does not show such a death, i.e. he died of some disease or foul play, the Biblical text therefore must be wrong...or that, at least, is how the marketing would make it out to be.

I have watched with dismay how certain channels which used to be somewhat more reliable for disseminating historical and scientific information-- The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, The Learning Channel, and so forth-- have become more "infotainment" than information dissemination. As time wears on the "entertainment" part seems to be triumphing over the "information" part, and it appears that The Discovery Channel is more than willing to promote one theory of the Exodus in order to perhaps tear it down to gain an audience.

Let me say now that I have not seen the show, nor have any idea as to whether or not the child's skeleton will show evidence "for" or "against" the Biblical account. It does not matter to me whatsoever, because there is an underlying problem with the entire presentation: if one believes in the accuracy of the Bible, Ramses II is not the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

1 Kings 6:1, when providing the account of the opening of the Temple in Jerusalem under Solomon, notes that such occurred 480 years after the Exodus. If we assign Solomon a date of around 950 BCE, this would leave us with 1430 BCE as the timeframe of the Exodus. Ramses II reigned during the thirteenth century-- ca. 1290-1220-- which would be more in harmony with the period of the Judges than the Exodus.

Modern scholasticism, if it would even accept the notion of an Exodus, since many believe that the Exodus was an epic narrative invented to glorify an otherwise banal conquest/gradual infiltration of Canaan, may perhaps desire to place the Exodus around the end of the period of Ramses II, or possibly during his son Merneptah, of whom we have a stelae that records a victory over "Israel," the first such reference in Egyptian writing we have to date. The widespread belief about Ramses II being the Pharaoh of the Exodus, however, dates far before the 21st century. Ramses II is one of the best-known pharaohs of Egypt, and he wanted it that way: no one else matched his output of statues and co-opting the statues of his predecessors. Perhaps only Tutankhamun is more well-known thanks to the discovery of his nearly intact tomb in the 1920s. Ramses II was believed for many years to have been the greatest pharaoh in terms of strength and military output. Since American and European societies were dominated by the Bible and ancient Israel, it was natural to combine the most recognized pharaoh of Egypt with greatest event involving Egypt in the Bible. The evidence for an Israelite exodus under Ramses II has more to do with preconception than reality.

Arguably the most powerful and most effective pharaoh militarily was not Ramses II but his predecessor Thutmose III, whose military campaigns resulted in the largest extent of empire Egypt would ever know-- and that without a glorified stalemate! According to the Biblical chronology he would be the Pharaoh of the Oppression, with his son Amenhotep II the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This would put the wanderings during the times of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III, and the conquest under Joshua during the tumultous Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten reign which saw massive internal instability and a laissez-faire attitude toward Egyptian holdings in Canaan. At Akhenaten's capital, today's Tell el-Amarna, a cache of letters was found, full of correspondence between the Canaanite petty kings and Akhenaten, many of them appealing for aid in the face of attacks from the "'Apiru," perhaps a reference to the invading Israelites. This would place Israel in the times of the Judges during the renaissance of the Egyptian New Kingdom under Seti I and Ramses II, and Israel would be present in the land during the invasion of Merneptah.

So will anything The Discovery Channel shows about the child of Ramses II shake the faith? Absolutely not. Far greater and better combatants of the truth have come and gone, and it is almost humorous to see such money expended on a dead-end road. But the concern is that The Discovery Channel may end up shaking the faith of some who do not have this knowledge, who do not know what 1 Kings 6:1 means in terms of the Exodus, who do not know that the answer would lie with Amenhotep II and not Ramses II (the former, by the way, did lose his firstborn son; his younger son, Thutmose IV, commemorated his unlikely accession by placing a stelae in the paws of the Sphinx detailing how his elder brother died). They may have never thought anything else regarding Ramses and the Exodus, and this is why I write about it, and this is why The Discovery Channel currently disgusts me. It parrots itself as a source of legitimate, viable information, and it has sold out to create hype and make a cheap buck. It would rather lose integrity and willingly attempt to erode faith in the God of Israel for their own profit.

As for you, be not disturbed by the show. As for them, well, they will answer to the higher authority for their actions.

ELDV

IV: Post-Election Concerns

03 November 2004 Common Era

It is November 3, and as everyone who pays attention to any media outlet knows, George W. Bush has been re-elected and has been handed a more Republican House of Representatives and Senate.

This has been warmly accepted by all forms of Christians, Evangelical and most members of churches of Christ. There has been much hostility directed at John Kerry and any who would "dare" support such a one. Since all is said and done in this election, I feel compelled to write regarding many of my concerns about Christians and politics.

The first edition of "A Christian's Deliberations" was regarding politics, and most notably, the Biblical basis of voting being for maintaining peace and tranquility per 1 Timothy 2:1-2. It was noted that to vote for either major party on the basis of morality would require a compromise, and that since Christianity sees no distinction between various forms of sin, such is tantamount to hypocrisy.

The Democratic party does not advocate for "moral" positions on many issues of the day. The Democratic party instead advocates for personal freedoms and governmental non-intervention in such matters. Democrats also seemed far more concerned with principles than with people, and the Republicans vice versa, and this most recent campaign has made this fairly evident.

The Republican party, on the other hand, despite previously standing for governmental non-intervention and personal freedom, has proven more than willing to be the party for the "Religious Right" and endorse, if not practice, their platforms. Since they advocate such a platform, and they, overall, desire to be seen as having more "integrity" than the Democrats, we ought to hold them to that standard.

There certainly are many, many Republicans who are men and women of integrity, and I have no desire to malign them. But there are those who do not have such integrity-- take, for example, Tom DeLay. He has voted for "moral values" better than any other, yet himself has been chastised four times for ethics violations by the House Ethics committee (and before anyone screams partisanism, many of thiose rebukes were passed unanimously by both Republicans and Democrats). The Kentucky Senate race was colored by the Republican candidate asserting that his Democratic challenger looked like a son of Saddam Hussein. Hopefully his close call in the election will dissuade him from such ridiculous charges.

I am sure, however, that many Christians voted for these two men, and would justify their vote by excusing the person since they hold to the "correct" platform. If they were Democrats, however, the e-mail lists would never cease speaking about their foibles! The matter, therefore, despite what many say, is not the personal character of the person but the platform they stand for. The matter is obviously also not how "fair" the party plays, since the Republicans have proven, through voter intimidation, outright lies, distortions, and smear campaigns, that they are more than willing to do whatever it takes to win an election. It appears that they have little concern how they look as long as they are the elected candidates. Does this really speak to Christian values?

The platform of the Republican party itself is worth noting. While they do advocate "moral" issues, for the better part of the previous 25 years such has been all talk with little substance. Countless Americans-- and countless Christians-- went to the polls to vote for the "pro-life, anti-gay marriage" candidate. They ended up probably voting, however, for George Bush, who says he is against abortion yet has only enacted two pieces of legislation against it (the first also refusing contraceptives for distribution in foreign countries, causing all kinds of disease and further poverty), and in regards to gay marriage, is against it, but he is not against civil unions. This also happens to be the position of John Kerry!

But what is the rest of the Republican platform? Tax cuts to serve the wealthy and penalize the middle class. They're more than willing to end abortion but not willing at all to subsidize the poor who need help raising such children. They have no desire to respect the environment and are more than willing to allow corporations to rape our natural resources. Bush would like to dismantle the Social Security system through privatization, which will kill the institution and leave nothing for retirement for countless millions. Do you feel compassion for the 75 year old man bagging your groceries? There will be more of them, and even perhaps yourself when the time comes. And last, but certainly not least, is the Iraq distraction, leaving America less safe and more prone to terrorism. One ought not think too deeply about what the future of Iraq looks like, for the vast majority of the possibilities leave that nation and the rest of the world worse off than before. Saddam Hussein was not a good man and a bloodthirsty dictator, but such is far less harmful to American interests than a militant, fundamentalist Islamic state. And do not be fooled into thinking that Republicans are interested in the welfare of Iraqis, for if their true concern was in the betterment of oppressed people, Darfour would no longer be in the news! This is "compassionate conservatism." I shudder to contemplate what "non-compassionate conservatism" would look like!

But, as many would argue, it's the "more moral" choice. After all, "righteousness exalts a nation," Solomon says in the Proverbs. I wish people would really read the texts. Solomon did not say that "righteous laws exalt a nation." He said "righeousNESS exalts a nation." You can write all kinds of laws, and if no one obeys them, they are worthless. It is very true that righteousness exalts a nation, for where there is righteousness there must be obedience, and where there is obedience there will be peace and the betterment of all men. We don't live, however, in a righteous nation. You can outlaw abortion, and it will go back to be in the back alley. You can ban gay marriage and civil unions, but there still will be homosexuals in our society. You want a country with laws upholding all forms of morality? They do exist, after all. There's only one problem with them: they also hate Christianity, Iran and Saudi Arabia and all other states with Islamic Sharia as the basis of their laws, and they represent our enemies!
Go back in history. Look at all the states which imposed morality through laws, and you will find that they all also enforced a particular religion. Sure, adultery, sexual immoralities, abortion, etc., may have been illegal in 17th century Spain, or 13th century England, or in the Byzantine Empire, but it was illegal in those countries to be anything but Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox! Countries imposing moral rules also fostered the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials, and all sorts of other perversities! I wish that people could recognize that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot legislate morality on a large level and remain in a free state and society. The only way to preserve freedom for us to practice New Testament Christianity is to preserve the freedom for others to practice other religions and/or, unfortunately, to choose immorality. No one is advocating for us to engage in their practices. No one is advocating for Christianity and/or any of its principles to be outlawed. If Democrats were to make it illegal for us to practice any truth of Christianity as the Bible has established it, I will be the first in line to vote against them. If Republicans were to try some such thing, would you vote against them?

I find the "gay marriage" issue rather sad. Christians all over have gotten up in arms against gay marriage, declaring that it ruins the sanctity of marriage. Few will go so far as to agree with Dr. Dobson, who has stated that legitimatization of gay marriage will end the earth, it is considered to be a travesty which cannot be tolerated. While I completely agree that gay marriage is abhorrent to God, so is adulterous marriage! So is fornication! Look around, people! Marriage is not held in sanctity anymore! More marriages end in divorce than last these days! We have people in our churches all over advocating for the right for many to commit adultery, and yet we all get up in arms about gay marriage?!?

The final issue I will discuss revolves around the primary argument given by many for not voting Democratic and, somehow, to vote Republican. It asserts that by voting for a Democrat you share in his evil. If you vote for a Democrat, and he is not against abortion, you therefore share in not being against abortion. It is interesting, however, how this argument is never turned around on those who make it. If you vote for a Republican, and he is not against drinking alcohol, are you sharing in not being against alcohol? Likewise, if you vote for a Republican, and he is not against smoking, unethical corporate behavior, destroying the environment, oppressing the poor and middle class for the benefit of the rich, etc., does this mean that you would not be against smoking, unethical corporate behavior, destroying the environment, oppressing the poor and middle class for the benefit of the rich, and so on?

This hopefully should clearly illustrate the inherent difficulties with using any argument of morality for advocating either major political party! If you feel that you can only vote according to moral issues, then vote the Constitution or the Prohibition party. Both of those parties advocate God, moral issues, etc. far more than the Republicans do. Voting on moral grounds for a Republican, however, is a hypocritical venture. You end up implicitly creating a gradation of what moral issues "matter," and you may end up straining the gnat but swallowing the camel. If you feel compelled to vote for a major party, it must be done not on the basis of morality-- since both parties are morally flawed-- but on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:1-2, an intercession to preserve our peace and tranquility. If you honestly feel that the Republican party will preserve your peace and tranqulity as an American citizen and as a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, I completely respect that. I, however, find that my peace and tranquility is best kept by the Democratic party since they advocate freedom for all. That's why I voted as I did, and I have yet to have anyone demonstrate how it can possibly be sinful to vote for a Democrat and yet not sinful to vote for a Republican.

Perhaps, in the end, the person who feels that, as a Christian, they ought to have no involvement in the political affairs of the world and subsequently do not vote, is the best among us, and ought to be considered. My concern is that those who do feel compelled to be involved in political affairs have lost the lesson that this world is not our home, is depraved, and will always be depraved. Peace and tranquility, in the end, can only come from the Gospel, not from politicians, and from the Kingdom of Heaven, not from the USA.

ELDV