The Gospel: Now Available for Blasphemous Youtubers!--Why "The Blasphemy Challenge" is an Epic Fail for Atheists Trying to Avoid Salvation

I must confess that I'm a little late to the party on this one (by almost three years), but I was reminded by this humorous post from my pastor J.D. Greear's blog (if you're reading this note at my blog and not on the Facebook repost, you'll find a link to J.D.'s blog on the side of the page) of the phenomenon of atheists posting videos of themselves on Youtube proudly "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" (you can click around at the link above if you want to figure out how it reminded me of that). The Youtube blasphemy trend originated with a kind of game designed and proposed by a group of atheists (which these days appears to be mostly just one guy, Brian Sapient, but he does have some other folks posting here and there and working on the site) who call themselves the Rational Response Squad (WARNING: some harsh language--and very little rationality, despite the name--at that link). The game was called "The Blasphemy Challenge" and it involved getting atheists to post videos of themselves denying the Holy Spirit, because as everyone knows, that is the one sin that sends you straight to the fire and brimstone, according to no less of an authority than Jesus Himself in Mark 3:29. Basically, it was a chance for atheists to give a shout out and reveal how confident they are in the logic of the absolute negative. After all, if one is not afraid to commit the unforgiveable sin, that demonstrates pretty strongly that he or she is absolutely convinced there is no God, no heaven to gain nor hell to shun, and thus, nothing for any rational atheist to fear by risking "damnation."

But is that really what Jesus is talking about in Mark? Is denying the existence of the Holy Spirit or simply speaking ill of Him what Jesus meant by the blasphemy that was unforgivable? While it's hard to deny that much of what has been posted by atheists on the subject, both in print and on video, has certainly been blasphemous, to really understand what Jesus was talking about, we need to dig just a little deeper and look at the context of Mark 3:29 and consider it in the light of the full context of Scripture--the former because Jesus gave the statement at a certain place and time to a certain group of people in response to a certain situation (the details of which may shed some light on the nature of the infraction in question) and the latter because if one is going to use biblical teaching/Christian doctrine against itself, that one needs to make sure he's representing it properly (remember The Wizard of Oz: straw men don't have brains).

Let's start with the second issue first. To me, it's always seemed like there was a bit of discomfort among evangelicals surrounding the whole concept of the "unforgivable sin," and for good reason. After all, if God is either unable or unwilling to forgive any sin, that doesn't bode well for doctrines like total depravity and sole fide. It seems a little weird to confess that we are separated from God in our natural state and only saved by grace alone through faith alone and then follow that up by saying that if someone commits a certain sin he can never, ever be saved. Is that person somehow more separated from God than he would have been otherwise? Is salvation suddenly a matter of not committing the "wrong" sin (and aren't all sins "wrong" anyway)? That seems to be adding works to grace, doesn't it? Was John the Baptist wrong (or perhaps imprecise) when he said Jesus, "takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29)? What about John 3:16? Should it read, "...that whoever believes in Him--providing, of course that this one has not at some point spoken ill of the Holy Spirit and does not do so from this point on--shall not perish but have eternal life?" James 2:10 says that anyone who has ever broken any commandment is guilty just as if he'd broken them all. So if blaspheming the Holy Spirit is merely a case of one instance of committing one sin, does that mean that everyone who has ever sinned (which is everyone) is potentially guilty of the unforgivable sin already?

Well, that line of thinking could quickly get a little headier than I want to go, but the point is the notion that merely saying the Holy Spirit does not exist or that you've got some kind of a beef with Him is enough to keep someone from ever being saved doesn't seem to jell well with the whole of Scripture. But that just presents the problem. What's the solution? If blaspheming the Holy Spirit is not just the commission of a single sin, what is it? For that, we turn to the immediate context of Mark 3:

22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.

28 “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Now, verse 22 tells us who the potential blasphemers were--"scribes... from Jerusalem." I think it's noteworthy that Mark lets you know their job description right up front. (The parallel passage in Matthew  calls them "Pharisees." Since many scribes--including almost certainly all of those mentioned in the Gospels--were members of the Pharisaical sect, it is safe to assume that Matthew gives their alignment, while Mark gives their position; these are then scribes of the Pharisees.) In the Gospels, all you really get about them is that they liked to challenge Jesus at every turn (in Mark alone, 2:6-7, 2:15-17, 7:1-6, and many more), but vocationally, the scribes were the guys who spent all day studying, copying and teaching the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). In fact, the NIV translates the term rendered "scribes" here as "teachers of the law." They knew God's Word, and as such, you would think they would know better. The fact that they were from Jerusalem only heightens the idea that they were of the theological and religious elite, since Jerusalem was home to the temple and the holiest place in Judaism. They should definitely know not to blaspheme, and they should have some discernment of the things of God based on their knowledge.

We're also told, right from that first verse, that what these scribes are doing is in reaction to the miracles (particularly the exorcisms) Jesus is performing, and that they are claiming that He was only accomplishing them by demonic power. They even go so far to accuse Jesus Himself of being the tool of the lord of the demons, Beelzebul (or "Beelzebub," from "Baal Zebub"--a Philistine god whose name meant "lord of flies" and came to be used by the Jews to refer to Satan as the lord of demons). Jesus responds with parables, basically taking the tact that, if Satan is war with himself, he won't last long (and thus, it doesn't make much sense for him to be breaking up his own demons' parties; vv. 23-26). Moreover, anyone effectively opposing demons and taking what they had claimed would have to be able to restrain their lord (v. 27), not work for him. It is at this point that he makes the pronouncement against blaspheming the Spirit. Verse 30 states explicitly that the scribes' claims that Jesus worked His miracles by satanic power was what led to Jesus' denouncement of blasphemy against the Spirit; in effect, they were actually calling the Holy Spirit Satan by saying Jesus was possessed by, "an unclean spirit." The obvious implication is that the scribes are in fact blaspheming the Holy Spirit by making such a charge--or at the very least that they are in imminent danger of being found guilty of such.

When Luke relates these events (Luke 11:14-23; the account does not include the injunction against Holy Spirit blasphemy, although Luke--who often tends to group Jesus' teachings thematically--includes that as one of a series of teachings that Jesus gives in 12:10, following this scene and a couple of other Pharisaical encounters) he includes a hint that the scribes were well aware that they were distorting the truth. Jesus asks them in Luke 11:19, "If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore," He says, "they will be your judges." He is implying, of course, that the scribes are being hypocritical. They can recognize easily enough the difference between the works of God and the works of the devil when those of their own order ("your sons") claim to cast out demons by the power of God, so they cannot honestly claim that Jesus is doing the same thing demonically. So the scribes, by condemning Jesus, are really condemning themselves, Jesus says. The implication is pretty clear that not only should the scribes know better, but in fact they do know better. They recognize the truth of God's power being worked out through Jesus (based on their knowledge of the Scripture), and yet they deny it anyway and even call it satanic!

So, based on what we've looked at so far, what can we say are the distinctive features of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? I have noted seven points:

1) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit involves a recognition of the reality of the supernatural. The scribes, in their response to the exorcisms performed by Jesus, do not deny but rather affirm that real supernatural power had been used to real supernatural effect.

2) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit involves a recognition of the reality of the devil and/or evil powers. Not only did the scribes note the reality of the supernatural in general. They pointed toward the existence of a real devil and real demons by claiming such as the source of Jesus' power.

3) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit essentially involves equating the true God and his works with a real evil power, such as the devil. The scribes' statements in verse 23 that the Jesus was, "possessed by Beelzebul" and, in verse 30, that He, "had an unclean spirit," amount to a confession by them that the Spirit of God in Christ was actually the spirit of Satan.

4) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is more than just speaking the wrong thing. Jesus states that all blasphemies uttered may be forgiven, along with all other sins (Mark 3:28).

5) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not a single act of sin that condemns a man. The testimony of the whole of Scripture is that men are saved not by avoiding certain sins but by faith in Christ alone (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9) and as noted in the above point, that all sins may be forgiven.

6) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit involves a continual rejection of God and the things of God. This is a corollary to the previous point. The fact that--as referenced above--the scribes directy challenged Jesus' ministry, teaching and authority on numerous occasions confirms that this was not just a statement made in the heat of a moment but their consistent position, which they are merely affirming by their statements.

7) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an intentional distortion of the truth. As shown from the Luke passage, the scribes were not merely confused about what was true or disagreeing with the truth; they were intentionally lying about Jesus and His ministry.

So good news, atheists! Just because you make a Youtube video swearing about the Holy Spirt or saying He doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can't be saved, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is much more than just saying some harsh words. And it's impossible for a true atheist to actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit, anyway, since he would have to actually recognize God's existence and then knowingly and intentionally attribute the works of God to the devil, something you can't do if you don't actually believe in the existence of God or the supernatural. Now, that is good news. And I pray that same Holy Spirit you were attempting to blaspheme opens your heart to see that it really is good news and to believe the message of Christ, so that I may one day truly call you "brother."

Well, it seems "The Blasphemy Challenge" may not be quite blasphemous enough to be a real challenge. So yeah, epic fail there. But the gospel?

Total win.

Always.

"These Are a Few of My Least Favorite Things" OR "Everything I Needed to Know About Christmas I Learned from the Carpenters"

Okay, right up front I will admit it: I'm THAT guy. I'm the guy that changes his entire listening habits while driving in the car this time of year and tunes in...

dunh-dunh--DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! (*Suspenseful music*--in case you were wondering)

...the Christmas songs.

Yeah, I know. I know. I've heard it all before: "It's too early for Christmas music." (You hear that one up until December 24th at 10:30pm, sometimes.) "It's so boring hearing the same songs over and over." (You hear that one from many fans of Top 40 music.) "It cheapens the true meaning of Christmas and the Incarnation to hear Britney Spears sing 'Silent Night.'" (Okay, you got a point with that last one.) But I just can't help it. I love to hear the music and I love to sing along. I like the fun secular stuff like "Rudolph, the Red Nosed Reindeer" (Dean Martin's version is a hoot--although I can't figure out why Santa gets a German accent on the refrain; you think maybe Dean-o was a little...you know...drunk? Yeah, me neither). I love the carols like "O, Holy Night" (Josh Groban's version is about the only one that's really any good there; I mean, really, there are so many singers that don't need to sing that song--I want to say something funny here but there are too many options...um, how about a Kid Rock/Ozzy Osborne duet for that one? Yeah, that makes the point pretty well). And I love the unique new songs that pull the heart strings just right (although I am officially sick to death of "The Christmas Shoes;" sorry, Newsong; I love you guys, but if it hadn't gotten played a thousand too many times for it to actually leave any kind of emotional impression already, the Rob Lowe movies put it way over the top--Rob Lowe? Really? And "movies?" PLURAL?). I still can't wait to hear that song about Maria and the bird in the cage this year. That one makes my eyes all misty every time I hear it (that's not even a joke--I'm like a teenage girl or something; maybe if Rob Lowe made a movie about that one, it would cure me of it). I even like the funny songs.


(Nope, no parenthetical aside for that last one; they're funny already, right?)


But there's one thing that really bugs me about the whole Christmas music thing (although, if I counted that LeAnn Rimes/Elvis Presley duet of "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town," there would be several; seriously, have you heard that thing? It's just the Elvis version with LeAnn Rimes inserted in very awkwardly--like she heard the Nat King Cole/Natalie Cole version of "Unforgettable" and decided that--as the the true musical heir of Elvis--she needed to beat Lisa Marie to the punch, so she just found the first Elvis song she could lay hands on and recorded and mixed it over lunch one Tuesday--but maybe that's just me [EDIT 12/7/09: To be fair to LeAnn, it's actually "Here Comes Santa Claus (Santa Claus Comes Tonight)" not "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town" (the backup singers do actually sing "Santa Claus is comin' to town" in the song though, so I guess I can be forgiven for my mistake; I forgive myself). And no, that doesn't make the song any better.] ): It's all the Christmas songs that not only aren't about the Incarnation or the true meaning of Christmas; they aren't about Christmas AT ALL.

There's this one category of "Songs About Winter That Just Become Songs About Christmas By Default No Matter What The Song Is Actually Talking About" (or "SAWTJBSACBDNMWTSIATA" for the net-savvy). I mean, I guess the "birthday party at the home of Farmer Gray" from "Sleigh Ride" could be for the Christ Child, but I kind of doubt it (the fact that that one version--it might be the one by the Carpenters; I don't know--sometimes it seems like all the really sappy Christmas songs are by the Carpenters--changes the lyric to "Christmas party at the home..." seems to indicate that, whoever did that version--Carpenter or not--thinks the birthday in question was not of the virginal variety and needed to be altered). And while it's lovely to imagine two young lovers walking along and pretending a snow man is the minister they want to marry them (okay, maybe "lovely" isn't the right word at all), what does that have to do with Christmas? I mean, I've never even seen it snow on Christmas Day around here! I think it came close once when I was maybe six or something but there hasn't been anything even near it for years now (must be a global warming thing; Al Gore totally needs to write us some new Christmas songs--they would certainly be inconvenient, if not entirely true). I will say that I give "Frosty the Snowman" a pass here, because "Frosty" got that greatest of all validations of true Christmas-ocity from my youth... a Rankin/Bass TV special.

I need to digress for a moment here and speak of the wonder of the Christmas TV special (a species not entirely removed from the Christmas song and just as curious). Rankin and Bass (presumably they had first names too) were the masters of the art. Most of their specials were pretty poorly stop-motion animated features of about an hour (they were not "claymation," by the way; they used wood puppets--I'm here to educate as well as entertain). The most famous of this variety is Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. However, they also did some cel animated shows like the aforementioned Frosty the Snowman (a few years ago they made a sequel...FAIL...but I'll still watch it if it's on though, and yes, I am a bit of a sap; thanks for noticing). Now you may notice a theme with those two (and the not quite as well-known Santa Claus is Comin' to Town for that matter) of basing an entire hour of children's entertainment on a 2-3 minute (even shorter in "Rudolph"'s case) song. That meant there had to be a LOT of padding (it's the padding that gives "Frosty the Snowman" its legitimacy as a Christmas song, in my mind, since, in the cartoon, Santa Claus shows up for a little deux ex machina action, explaining that, since the recently melted Frosty was made with magical "Christmas Snow"--again with the snow!--a winter wind will reform him completely, leading Frosty to take off with Santa but promise--slightly twisting the actual lyrics of the song--"I'll be back on Christmas Day!" And yes, all of that is from memory; told you I was a sap). Also these specials featured the strange custom of adding in a narrator by animating in a fairly washed-up celebrity. While Frosty got the weirdest celeb pick--in the form of the Snoz himself, Jimmy Durante--Rudolph did the weirdest thing to its celebrity by representing Burl Ives as a kind of creepy-looking snowman (seriously, was I the only one that found him creepy?! He has these, like, dead eyes). Santa Claus featured Fred Astaire (thought it was Bing Crosby but Wikipedia says otherwise; also Mickey Rooney played Santa in that one!) as a mailman (better than Durante, who appears just to be some old guy following the kids around and talking about them). The celebrity always had to sing the song on which the special was based and tell the story. Later on, they kind of overstayed their welcome with a bunch of spinoffs (like Rudolph's Shiny New Year, Rudolph and Frosty's Christmas in July and Santa Claus is Comin' for Kwanzaa...Okay, I made the last one up, but the others are all too real).

Still, the greatest Christmas special of all was not by Rankin/Bass. That would be the one and only A Charlie Brown Christmas. And while I will never understand how they made that scrawny little tree fill out its branches just by putting decorations on it (that really bugged me as a kid, and it still does; in any other Christmas special, that would be an epic fail, but nothing can ruin Charlie Brown...NOTHING!), how can you not love the sweet story and the weird repetitive dancing. It is also the only time all year you're likely to hear Scripture quoted on network TV (Linus is the MAN) and for that, it gets the mega-props.

Okay, where was I? Oh yeah, Christmas music that isn't even about Christmas! I could talk about "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" (I know it was from a Christmas special--about the only truly classic one I didn't mention above, by the way--but the song is all a bunch of metaphors for how bad the Grinch is and, while it's funny, it ain't about Christmas; and yes, I realize that I just said "Frosty the Snowman" got a pass as a Christmas song because of its place in a Christmas special, and I know that's hypocritical, but it's my blog and I can contradict myself if I want to...Anyway, I like hearing "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" this time of year, so I don't know what I'm complaining about in the first place...so...um, you might want to forget you read this whole parenthetical remark altogether--in fact, you probably already want to forget it...sorry), but it's probably best that I don't say a single word about it, so I won't. For the song that really bugs me, the one that just isn't a Christmas song and never should have been accepted as such, I have to turn to that great duo of the movie musical (no, not Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye; that was an actual Christmas musical, and a great one at that! Oh and you'll notice that all the songs from White Christmas didn't just suddenly become Christmas songs because they were in a Christmas musical--no, just the actual song about Christmas; Irving Berlin FTW). I'm talking about Rogers and Hammerstein (unlike Rankin and Bass, I'm not sure they actually had first names) and the song "My Favorite Things."

To understand my disdain for counting this song as a Christmas song, you need to go back into my childhood. You see, my sister's favorite movie growing up was The Sound of Music (a film that avoids being a total loss by throwing in a chase by Nazis at the end; I kid! I kid! It's actually pretty good and a somewhat true story, although I don't know if the real Maria Von Trapp broke out into song all the time; if she did, I bet the Captain was pretty sick of it before the honeymoon was even over), and she watched it ALL THE TIME. As such, I can sing (sadly) every song from it by memory. "My Favorite Things" is one of those songs. Is it sung at some big Christmas party? Are the children eagerly awaiting the coming of whoever the Austrian version of Santa Claus is? Is Maria, the former nun, telling them about the Christ Child? No, no and no. Maria sings the song to the kids when they all crowd in her room (are you ready for this?) when they're frightened by a thunderstorm. "What does that have to do with Christmas?," I hear you asking. Uh... well, it mentions "brown paper packages tied up with string." Oh, what's that you say? You don't use brown paper to wrap Christmas presents usually? Oh well, I guess maybe "MY FAVORITE THINGS" DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CHRISTMAS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!

Now if only I could convince someone in radio of that, there'd be one more slot for a real Christmas song...probably something by the Carpenters...something involving fireplaces, maybe...

Yeah, suddenly that doesn't sound like such a good idea after all...