HERMENEUTICAL
RAPE
October
2009
Dr.
Barry H. Downing
INTRODUCTION
Although I am a
Protestant, and have no desire to be a Roman Catholic, there are
certain aspects of Catholicism that I envy. Catholics have a Pope,
who can speak infallibly according to church doctrine, a doctrine
that Protestants reject as a denial of the humanity of the Pope in
particular, and the humanity of the church in general. I think this
rejection is theologically sound. It is a good part of our
Reformation tradition not to believe any church leaders are
infallible. Unfortunately, some Protestant leaders didn’t get the
memo.
In
order to claim an authority equal to the Pope, many Protestants hold
to a doctrine of biblical infallibility. This is to ensure the
authority of church doctrine. I understand the purpose of this
doctrine, but I have serious doubts about its usefulness, because
even if the Bible is infallible, how do we know our interpretation of
the Bible—our hermeneutics—are infallible? We don’t, of
course.
Nevertheless
, what the doctrine of biblical infallibility seems to do is to
ordain many Protestant fundamentalists as mini-Popes (hereafter
Popetts). They suppose if they quote an infallible verse from the
Bible, that makes them by association infallible, and able to make
infallible papal decrees.
I
have been cursed (depending on the divine authority of the Popetts,
of course) as a “ hermeneutical rapist” by Michael Heiser, as
”downright blasphemous” by Guy Malone, and as a “wolf in
sheep’s clothing” by Gary Bates, all on the Strong Delusion Web
Site. I kind of look with envy at the Catholic Church, with only one
Pope authorized to make infallible condemnations.
But
far be it from me to say these Popetts have no right to make their
decrees of condemnation. Guy Malone delivered a lecture in New Mexico
on September 13, 2009, entitled "Evidence for a Spiritual View of the "Alien" Phenomenon: Why do many Christians think the alien phenomena is demonic?" http://www.alienstranger.com/arealiensdemons.htm
At
the beginning of the lecture, he identifies himself as a “Fundie,”
and confesses his faith in Jesus Christ (I also claim Christ as my
Savior), and senses that having made this confession, he suspects
that his UFO oriented audience may have some anxiety. Malone
comforts the audience by saying, “I’m not going to tell you
you’re going to hell if you disagree with what I present today,
okay?” In other words, ordinarily Malone would claim his authority
as divine judge to decide who is going to hell, but on this occasion
the Popette offers a kind of papal indulgence. For today only,
Malone will give up his authority to send those to hell who disagree
with him. Since in this lecture he pronounced me “downright
blasphemous” (Jesus was crucified for blasphemy; Mt. 26:65), you
can see that his papal indulgence applied only to his audience, not
to me. Obviously, it is bad to be blasphemous, and worse to be
downright blasphemous, so who could object to Malone’s judgment?
Malone
and his friends believe they have the authority to make these
condemnations (in spite of Matthew 7:1), it is obviously part of
their understanding of what fundamentalists are supposed to do. But I
do look with envy at a one Pope church.
It is difficult to
respond to papal decrees, of course. A papal decree may be reasoned,
but it does not have to be. Heiser offers an example of an
unreasoned decree. He says, “I think what Barry Downing and those
like him do to the text is truly a hermeneutical rape of the text.
It’s a textbook (and almost farcical) example of reading what you
want to see in the text into the text, the text be damned if it gets
in the way. Just awful.” (Strong Delusion, “’The’ Christian
View of Aliens, Part 3: Angels, Demons, Gods, Aliens: Are These Terms
Reconcilable?” June 2, 2009)
THE
HERMENEUTICS OF UNREASONED DECREES
One
way to respond to this kind of charge is to take the texts that
Heiser mentions, and show why I think my hermeneutics is not as
radical or serious a violation of the text as he charges. But when
he does not mention a single biblical text, or any of my work in his
condemnation, what am I to say?
He
does not even define hermeneutical rape. It was not a term used when
I was in seminary. One meaning of his charge might be that I have
used the text violently, as he says, that I have “read into the
text” what is not there. (The technical term for reading something
into the text that is not there is eisegesis,
as opposed to exegesis.)
Now this seems to be a strange thing for him to say in light of
other things he has said.
Heiser
has published at a blog called “The Naked Bible.” ( I guess in
Heiser’s world, hermeneutical rape is some kind of sexual sub
division that goes with Bible nakedness.) He has written an article
entitled, “End Times Questions for Left-Behinders: How Everyone
Cheats on Eschatology.” He discusses how everyone tries to make
absolutely certain claims about eschatology, when the hermeneutics of
biblical eschatology is very uncertain. He says, “The Bible didn’t
come with a handbook with the ‘right’ answers to these
[eschatological] questions.”
The
view that hermeneutics has an objective part (Scripture), and a
subjective part (Interpretation) has always been true. One
definition of hermeneutics is “whose meaning is the meaning of the
meaning?” (Oxford Concise Dictionary of
World Religions, ed. John Bowker, p. 240)
So,
when Heiser is doing the interpreting, he admits there are no right
answers. But he has full authority to pronounce that I have given
the wrong answer, and he does not even tell me what the question is.
This used to be called hypocrisy, but in the current UFO debate, it
is called the voice of seminary trained wisdom.
Inconsistency in his
definition of the flexibility of hermeneutics is only part of the
issue. We usually think of rape as a violent male sexual act, and I
believe Heiser intends to use the term in this way. But hermeneutics
is really more like a female sexual act than male.
The
Word of God (logos)is always understood in the biblical tradition to
be like seed sown in a field. Seed is a male property, and
understood to be a God property. This is why the God of the Bible is
thought of in male terms. This understanding is developed in the
Parable of the Sower in Matthew chapter 13. People go to seminary
to study the Word of God, the semen
of God. The church as the bride of Christ is seeking to be faithful
to—in sexual terms—only go to bed with the God of Jesus Christ,
not some other god. “You shall have no other gods [husbands]
before me.” (Ex. 20:3) Thus men and women are both female in
relation to God. (Modern feminist theology has messed up this
understanding a lot.) The hermeneutical task for me is to receive the
Word of God into myself, and have it impregnate my soul with faith
so that a new life springs up inside me, a child of God that more or
less lives inside and co-habits with the first-born me, as Jacob, the
second born twin son of Rebekah and Isaac, struggled with his
first-born brother Esau in the womb, (Genesis 25:19-34). This
struggle between the laws of the spirit, and the laws of the flesh,
is the battle ground of the Christian life. (See also Rom. 9:6-13;
Heb. 12:16) That which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is
born of the spirit is spirit as Jesus said (Jn. 3:6), and as Paul
later confirmed (Rom. 7:4-25). (What I have just done in this
paragraph is an example of my biblical hermeneutics.)
If
I have sinned in the above paragraph, what kind of sin is it likely
to be? It is likely that instead of interpreting the Scripture to
glorify Christ (the Jacob figure in me), I interpret Scripture to
glorify the Flesh (or Satan, Esau) in me. Because the lusts of the
flesh are always there, as Paul says in Romans 7, they tempt me even
to use the Law of God, the Semen of God, to promote my own lusts for
success, sex, food, money, fame, power, all the forms of the gods of
this world. [The devil used this form of temptation with Jesus,
quoting scripture to him. (Mt. 4:1-11)]
Thus
the most likely form of sin for me is not hermeneutical rape, but
rather hermeneutical adultery. As the bride of Christ I am tempted
to take the seed of God into me during the day, but at night to let
the seed of the flesh be sown in my soul by an Evil One, an Enemy of
God. (Mt. 13:25) The Law forbid interbreeding of cattle, and of
sowing two different kinds of seed in a field (Lev. 19:19), a law
which reflected the commandment against adultery (Ex. 20:14).
Idolatry represented a sexual analogy to spiritual unfaithfulness, a
mixing of good and bad spiritual seed, and so our whole modern idea
of religious pluralism, suggesting all religious values are to be
tolerated in some kind of egalitarian stew is not biblical. (Ex.
20:4; 2 Cor. 6:14)
In
my book The Bible and Flying Saucers ,
I have dealt extensively with the Word of God, the Bible. Christian
conservatives know this, and that is why they condemn me so
violently. But my sin, if it is sin, is spiritual adultery,
hermeneutical adultery, not hermeneutical rape. My sin is that I
have mixed the Seed of God with the Seed of UFOs, and if UFOs are
demonic, as my critics charge, then I have claimed that the “UFO
Faith” in me is of Christ, when in fact it is seed sown of the
devil.
This
would be a serious sin, I recognize that, in fact I worry about that.
But my faith is that I am right, and furthermore, my faith is, that
Christ knows I want to be right. I trust Christ is merciful, and
will forgive me in the day of judgment if I am wrong. Christ forgave
a woman caught in adultery, he died to forgive his church, I have had
the courage to present my UFO faith in spite of almost universal
rejection by the church because I trust the mercy of Christ toward
me. But I may be wrong about my UFO faith, and I do not want to be
guilty of leading the church, the bride of Christ, astray. But if I
am right, the church needs to repent of its blindness, and the
quicker the better.
So
here is my defense to the church that condemns me of hermeneutical
rape, blasphemy, or ignores me as someone who is crazy (or has a
demon, see John 7:20).
HOW
I GOT HERE
You
do not become a hermeneutical rapist overnight. I didn’t just
wake up one day and decide to write The Bible
and Flying Saucers . Two important elements
in my early life plowed the field—I started reading the Bible every
day when I was in 8th
grade. By the time I was in my junior year in high school, I had
been through the Bible once, and started again. I came from a
Christian home, both parents were Christians, my mother with a
Baptist background, my father Presbyterian. My great grandfather on
my mother’s side was a Baptist pastor.
The
other element was that I was interested in science, as were my best
friends. We talked about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, the
world of physics seemed to me to be a place where the mysteries of
the universe could be found. For that reason, I planned to major in
physics in college. But toward the end of my senior year in high
school, many things happened that made me feel called to Christian
ministry. I was a Presbyterian at the time, and began talking with
my pastor about my future. At the same time, my father brought me
some books from the local library dealing with flying saucers, books
by Maj. Donald Keyhoe. I believed what Keyhoe wrote, but made no
connection to my Christian faith.
My
view was, in the universe as large as ours, there were probably other
advanced life forms.
I earned a
scholarship in physics to Hartwick College, in Oneonta, New York.
Some have asked me why I majored in physics if I was entering the
ministry. The easy answer was I needed the money, and would lose my
scholarship if I changed majors.
I
entered Princeton Theological Seminary in 1960, and took the basics:
Greek, Hebrew, Old and New Testament studies, theology, church
history, preaching, pastoral care. My senior year I took an
elective in church doctrine, dealing with the Creeds of the church.
We had a small class, not more than eight students I think. The
professor was one of the most respected not only in the seminary, but
in my National Church.
One
day his lecture went something like this. “The Bible was written
in a pre-scientific culture. In biblical cosmology, there was a
three decker universe: heaven above, earth in the middle, hell below.
When the Copernican revolution came, that cosmology was destroyed.
If heaven is no longer ‘up,’ then what? No one today believes in
the Ascension [of Christ] do they? And if he has not ascended,
where is his body? We may only suppose that his bones lie buried
somewhere in the Middle East.”
No
one in the class spoke an objection to this. But I think these words
had more affect on my faith future than any other words spoken in any
class. I could not get them out of my mind. At first glance, this
seemed to be theological heresy—it is. But at the same time, my
scientific side could not deny the point the professor was making.
Modern science has in many ways made the Bible unbelievable for many
people.
There
have been two ways for the modern church to cope with this
believability problem. The first is the liberal way, the way of my
Professor: if something is scientifically impossible, don’t
believe it, even if it is in the Bible. But treat it as mythology,
then you can talk about it in symbolic terms, and some people will
not even know the rules have changed.
And
the conservative way. Declare that the Bible is infallible,
everything in it is literally true. If science and the Bible
conflict, forget science. This pretty well explains the split
between conservative and liberal Protestantism. My Presbyterian
Church (USA) is known by conservatives to be fairly liberal, and thus
we find when Guy Malone is describing who I am, he says I am a
“Presbyterian (cough, cough) minister.” I should perhaps not
risk doing the hermeneutics of Malone’s ‘cough, cough,’ lest I
commit further hermeneutical rape. But my sense is the ‘cough’
is not a sign of praise of my church. Why settle for condemning me
when you can condemn my whole denomination? Whatever the sins of my
church may be, it has given me the freedom to explore my UFO
theology.
I
had a crisis of faith. I wondered what I could say at funerals.
Should I go on talking about the resurrection of Jesus, and our
promised resurrection, as if our church leaders still believed this?
Or fake it? Or should I say, “We used to believe in life after
death, but that is gone now. Still, we can be thankful for the life
of our dearly departed. Too bad. End of story.”
Thomas
G. Long is professor of preaching at Candler School of Theology in
Atlanta. He recently published an article in the liberal Protestant
magazine The Christian Century.
In the article he laments how shallow modern funerals are, because
we have lost belief in life after death. “If Christian funerals
today are impoverished, we must look primarily to the church’s own
history and not look with scorn at the funeral director. The fact is
that many educated Christians in the late 19th
century, the forebears of today’s white suburban Protestants, lost
their eschatological nerve and their vibrant faith in the afterlife,
and we are the theological and liturgical heirs. “ (“The Good
Funeral,” October 6, 2009, p. 22)
The
crisis Long describes was a burning one for me in 1963, as I was
graduating from Princeton Seminary. From my point of view,
Christianity will die unless its eschatology is believable. (My
church at the national level had 4 million members in 1983, and has
about 2 million now.) My fears became more public in the “Honest
to God and Death of God” theology that broke into public
consciousness beginning with the publication of Bishop John A. T.
Robinson’s Honest to God
in 1963. (Bishop John Shelby Spong, author of books such as Why
Christianity Must Change or Die , 1998, has
helped push the Robinson tradition of unbelief to a higher level.)
These issues would be the focus of the first chapter of my book, The
Bible and Flying Saucers , when it was
published in 1968. Notice this: if you are part of a church in
which the hermeneutical rules are “everything in the Bible is true,
no matter what science says,” then the death of God theology is not
an issue. But being a church that is a joke in the eyes of science
becomes the issue (see Gary Bates, Alien
Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection ).
Intelligent Design advocates such as Phillip Johnson, William
Dembski, and Michael Behe, do not want to ignore science, like Gary
Bates, but do not want to give up on the Bible either.
In
light of my faith crisis, I decided that I needed to do graduate
study in the relation between science and religion, and for a number
of reasons elected to go to the University of Edinburgh, Scotland to
do this. Two theological professors were known for their work in the
area of science and religion, Prof. John McIntyre, and Prof. T.F.
Torrance, whose son Iain Torrance, is now President of Princeton
Seminary. I went to Edinburgh with the intention of exploring the
issues of “eschatology, time and space,” I would attempt to
understand how modern cosmology destroyed biblical eschatology.
Before
graduating from Princeton, I happened to run into the professor who
had started my faith crisis, right on the steps of Hodge Hall, my
dormitory. He asked what I was doing after graduation, and I told
him. (I did not tell him his class led to my faith crisis.) His
response to my plan was to say that there were no seminaries in the
United States dealing with the issues of science and religion.
Science and religion were now totally separate disciplines.
I
went to Edinburgh anyway, and eventually produced the dissertation,
Eschatological Implications of the
Understanding of Time and Space in the Thought of Isaac Newton.
The dissertation was well received by Professors McIntyre and
Torrance, as well as my outside reader from Cambridge University, and
I graduated with my Ph.D. in 1966.
During
the fall of 1965 I began exploring connections between UFOs and the
Bible. This was not part of my Ph.D. work, but certainly did relate
to issues of time and space. I wondered if there might be some
connection between biblical angels and UFOs. I reread Exodus, and
concluded that the pillar of cloud and fire (Ex. 13:21,22) seemed
very much to fit the description of modern UFOs, and also it moved
ahead of the Jewish people like a UFO might. This idea hit me with
great emotional power, I thought I should explore writing a book
about this. But I made a prayer deal with God: I would finish my
Ph.D. dissertation first, then go home and work on a UFO book. After
returning to the United States, I wrote The
Bible and Flying Saucers in the basement of
my in-law’s home while seeking a church call during the summer and
fall of 1966. I put the manuscript in the mail to a publisher about
February 1, 1967, the book was rejected several times before being
accepted by J. B. Lippincott. I began work as an assistant pastor at
Northminster Presbyterian Church in Endwell, New York, on February 6,
1967, and was ordained March 5, 1967. Before taking the Endwell
position, I explained my UFO research to the senior pastor, Rev.
George Rynick, and he was very supportive of my project, and helped
the church understand my work. I eventually became senior pastor of
Northminster. I was known in the community as the “UFO nut” for
a while, but by and large, except for conservative Protestant
pastors, it was felt that even if what I was working on turned out
not to be true, it was an area I had a right to explore, and an area
that needed exploring. I find that attitude still prevails in my
church, though I am now retired. And as readers of the Strong
Delusion web site know, many conservative Christians still do not
like me. (Heiser, Malone, Bates)
In
1972 Walter Andrus Jr. invited me to become a consultant in theology
to MUFON. Members of MUFON believed UFOs were real, and that our
government was involved in a cover-up. Many people who believed UFOs
were real read my book, and found both my biblical analysis, and my
scientific point of view, plausible. But this plausibility did not
extend to Conservative Christians. I published many articles in the
MUFON UFO Journal , as
well as speaking at many symposiums, and was well received by this
scientific community. MUFON was willing to give me a voice which the
church would not.
HERMENEUTICS:
RAPE, ADULTERY AND BLINDNESS
Moving
to the present, on Sunday, October 3rd,
2009, the History Channel presented the James Fox program, “I Know
What I Saw.” This program is now available at the Strong Delusion
Web Site. Astronaut Gordon Cooper testified that a UFO landed at an
Air Force Base where he was stationed, it was filmed, he saw the
film, it was sent by currier to Washington. He knows our government
has been lying to us about UFOs from the beginning. The head of the
French government sponsored UFO study testified, with scientific
hedging, that his group concluded that some UFOs are
extraterrestrials, and hesitantly recommended the United States try
telling the truth. For me, there is no question that UFOs are real,
although a reality that is beyond our science to understand. The
James Fox program made it clear that the United States government has
been, and still is, covering up this reality from its citizens.
Here
is my question. Why is it that in all the writings I have seen of
Michael Heiser, or Guy Malone, or Gary Bates, they never condemn the
United States government for its UFO lies? They condemn me for my
unproven hermeneutical sins, but do not condemn our government for
withholding evidence that is extremely important for understanding
what God is doing (or not doing, if you buy the demonic argument), in
our time. My suspicion is that my critics do not have faith in their
own stated convictions. I suspect they know that if the United
States released all its known information, their theories about UFOs
would be blown away by the truth. That is what I suspect.
It
may be that my theories would be blown away by that truth also, but I
want to know. I want my government to stop lying about UFOs. The
government is violating my Constitutional right to explore the truth
of my Christian faith by its continued UFO lies. I cannot “freely”
exercise my religion when government UFO information is locked away
in the name of national security, and the History Channel film “I
Know What I Saw” documents our government cover-up policy in a very
convincing way, except to the doubting Thomas who will not believe
until a UFO lands in his back yard.
I
have no doubts that UFOs exist, and that they are some kind of
intelligent reality from another world. But do these UFOs carry the
angels of God, is this the reality that gave us the biblical
religion? That is another issue, it is a hermeneutical issue. Do
modern UFOs and the Bible go together, or is this “mixing seed,”
is this hermeneutical adultery? This is not just my question, it is
a question to every person who claims to hold to the biblical
tradition. We should be seeking a collective answer, and in a sense
I understand that is what my critics, Heiser, Malone and Bates are
trying to do, but they do not believe I belong in the collection.
I believe Christians should be shouting for our government to release
the UFO truth as they understand it. This is one thing we could do
collectively. Why don’t I hear this demand from the church?
Those
in the church who are trained in biblical theology ought to be
seeking the truth about UFOs, but when I have talked to those who are
in positions of seminary authority, or try to publish in main stream
religious publications, I am treated as if I were a spiritual leper.
What is the task of
those doing biblical interpretation (hermeneutics)? Jesus gave a
very short definition of the hermeneutical task of the trained
professional: “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the
kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his
treasure what is new and what is old.” (Mt. 13:52) No one “scribe”
I have studied is sure exactly what Jesus means by this. Welcome to
hermeneutics. But the image suggests that the religious life must be
a blend of understanding what God has done in the past, and what God
is doing now. Study of Scripture deals with the history of God. But
we have to open our eyes to see what God is doing in the present.
With
this in mind, let us consider Jesus at work in the field of
hermeneutics. During the time of Jesus, the Pharisee Party believed
in the resurrection and eternal life, but the Sadducee Party did not.
Some Sadducees tested Jesus with a hypothetical situation in which a
woman married a man, he died, she married one of his brothers, he
died, this pattern continued for all seven brothers, and then the
question: in the resurrection, whose wife will she be? Jesus
answered that when we die, we become like the angels, we do not
marry. “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the
passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not the God of
the dead, but of the living; for all live to him.” (Lk. 20:37,38)
Jesus
took something old, the story of the burning bush, well known to all
scribes, and put new light on it. If Michael Heiser had been there,
he might have been justified in charging Jesus with eisegesis. If
you did not accept the authority of Jesus, then you could say, “Come
on Jesus, you are just reading your resurrection beliefs into the
text. The text tells us God is alive, it says nothing directly about
whether Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, or not.”
But
Heiser’s charge must be faced. It could be that I am “reading
UFOs into the Bible,” when such reading is not justified. My claim
is that as Jesus “saw” resurrection information in the Burning
Bush text, information that he brought to light, so I am saying that
modern UFOs are throwing light on biblical UFOs, and new light on
biblical angels, including the possibility that the biblical angels
use technology. So this is the debate: am I reading false
interpretation into the text as Heiser says, or have I discovered new
information, in light of UFOs, about the text?
If
eisegesis (or hermeneutical rape, if you prefer), is one sinful way
of dealing with Scripture, there is also a sinful way of dealing with
“something new in the household,” signs of God’s presence in
our times. That sin is to be deliberately blind to God’s signs.
A comical example of this is the story of Jesus healing a man born
blind as related in John chapter 9. Jesus spit into clay, anointed
the blind man’s eyes, and sent him to wash in the pool of Siloam.
His healing caused a huge uproar among religious leaders about how
this could have happened. The religious leaders were so unwilling to
believe the evidence in front of their own eyes that they put the
healed man through a grilling that exceeded what Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke frequently goes through before the United
States Senate.
If
UFOs are carrying the angels of God right in front of the eyes of
millions (14% of Americans or about 40 million have seen a UFO
according to a 2007 Associated Press survey), and we in the church
continue to be blind to this reality, what will be our excuse in the
Day of Judgment? There are indeed false UFO stories, there are
hoaxes, there are those who claim to “channel” truth from some
higher power. I know the UFO field is full of weeds. But we need
the hermeneutical courage to do the hard work of the scribe, and sort
through the UFO story, keep the good fish, and throw out the bad, as
Jesus explained. (Mt. 13:47-52)
WE
NEED A SIGN FROM GOD
It
seems to me we need a sign from God., but if God gave us a sign,
would we have the spiritual wisdom to interpret the sign properly, or
would the church be embarrassed by its blindness? The church in the
world now seems to have little interest in seeking a sign from God.
That might be a good thing, since Jesus says an evil and adulterous
generation seeks a sign. (Mt. 16:1-4) But my sense is our modern
generation, including the modern church, is so evil and adulterous
that we do not even recognize the fabulous sign from God which we
have been given as a wonderful gift of grace to renew the faith of
our faithless generation. I suspect that if the signs that have been
to our generation had been given to Sodom, the city would have
repented. (Mt. 11:20-24)
How
faithless is our generation? Books by atheists like Sam Harris (The
End of Faith), Christopher Hitchens (God
Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything),
and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion),
have sold wonderfully to a generation in love with the scientific
idol that we have created with our own hands. That idol threatens
to destroy us all in one big nuclear blast, of course.
Here
is Richard Dawkins: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the
most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a
petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive bloodthirsty
ethnic cleanser ….” (The God Delusion,
p. 31) Dawkins is best known for his promotion of the theory of
evolution, and has done battle with Christian creationists and
intelligent design advocates. He is to England what Carl Sagan was
to the United States.
Notice
that Dawkins is not just an atheist, he describes himself as an
evangelist for atheism, and he thinks that it is bad for us to allow
anyone to even go on believing in the God of the Bible. Can we
suppose for a moment that none of the thinking of Dawkins, even if he
is not named, does not spill into the class rooms of our public
schools, and our universities? Are we surprised that a kind of
nihilism has broken out among our students, who sometimes express
their despair by shooting a few classmates (instead of expressing
nihilism in the approved way, by shopping addictively?)
Modern
theology has no answer to Dawkins, other than to say, “I don’t
care what you say, I still believe.” And of course to tell Dawkins
he should believe the Bible is infallible would be to joke with him,
and he would joke back: prove it! So I believe our generation needs
God’s help. We need a sign, a sign that may not make Dawkins
believe, but will make him less certain. For I believe in God by
faith, but it is a faith not just in the Bible, but a faith that God
is alive and well, and knows the mess the church, and our atheistic
culture, is now in. God needs to do something to restore the
plausibility (not the provability) of Christian eschatology. I
believe UFOs in the midst of our space age culture have done that
redemptive work, making our eschatology plausible again, but the
church is blind to God’s sign, God’s gift to us.
MY
EXODUS HERMENEUTICS
If
I am to be charged with hermeneutical rape, it likely has to do with
my interpretation of Exodus that my critics have in mind. Notice
where we are now not only in liberal biblical studies, but also in
all our secular university “religious studies” programs, in
understanding Exodus. Walter Brueggemann is one of liberal
Protestantism’s most respected Old Testament scholars. He is
Professor Emeritus at Columbia Theological Seminary in Georgia,
author of many books, including An
Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian
Imagination (2003). I have attended some of
his lectures, and respect him very much.
But
what is his basic assumption about the “historicity” of the book
of Exodus? Basically, he agrees with archaeologist William Dever,
that Exodus never happened. He quotes Dever who says, “The whole
‘Exodus-Conquest’ cycle of stories must now be set aside as
largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term ‘myth’;
perhaps ‘historical fiction,’ but tales told primarily to
validate religious beliefs.” (Quoted in Brueggemann, p. 54; in
Dever’s book What
Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?
P. 121)
For many modern
scholars, including seminary professors, Moses is now a literary
figure in a religious play, somewhat like Hamlet in a Shakespeare
play. Thus modern scholars come at the Bible with a literary
interest, and religious interest in the sense that the book of Exodus
illustrates how a unique ethnic group developed their sense of their
god, and their destiny. (Mythology in the good sense, whatever that
is.)
The
modern church has no chance of making its way through the wilderness
on Brueggemann’s manna from the sky, no matter that he is one of
the best manna bakers we have. This is stone, not bread. (Mt. 7:9)
Obviously right at the center of this mythology is the central power
of God, the angel of God who led the Exodus in the “pillar of cloud
by day and the pillar of fire by night” (Ex. 13:21,22) This
strange Exodus UFO is said to hover in the sky during the 40 years
of the Exodus. I have suggested that the pillar of cloud and fire
is not only shaped like many modern UFOs are reported to look, but if
UFOs carry the angels of God, then we may be looking at the reality
that created the biblical religion. That means, what we now call
UFOs were the power of the Exodus, and it is my faith that they are a
power working under the direction of the God of the Universe.
Of
course, it is for this belief that I am charged with hermeneutical
rape, downright blasphemy, or being a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
(For my response to the wolf charge, see my article at Strong
Delusion: “Barry Downing’s Response to Gary Bates.” )
I
am not going to repeat here what I have treated at length elsewhere.
(See Chapter 3 in my book, The Bible and
Flying Saucers , which deals almost
exclusively with Exodus; also see “Did a UFO Part the Red Sea?”
UFO Magazine , Vol. 5,
No. 2, 1990. Also see my Strong Delusion article: “UFOs: What Does
Christ Require of Us?” ; “Exodus as a Paradigm of UFO Strategy,”
MUFON UFO Journal ,
October 1994; “Radiation Symptoms in Exodus,” Flying
Saucer Review, May-June 1972; “Some
Questions Concerning Dr. Menzel’s Biblical Exegesis,” 1973
MUFON Conference Proceedings, Kansas City,
Missouri.)
I
suggest that the pillar of cloud, the Exodus UFO met Moses at the
burning bush, orchestrated the plagues in Egypt, including Passover,
led the Jews up to the Red Sea, parted the Red Sea, fed the Jews
manna on their wilderness journey, gave them the law at Sinai, and
left them in the promised land to work out their, and our, salvation.
Let
me quote just one and a half verses regarding the parting of the Red
Sea to explain the hermeneutical issue: “And in the morning watch
the Lord in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down upon the host
of the Egyptians, discomfiting the host of the Egyptians, [breaking]
their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily.” (Ex 14:24, 25a)
At
this point in the text, the Jews have crossed on dry ground to the
other side. But the Egyptians are in hot pursuit, in their chariots,
in the open sea channel. What happens next? Most of us, with our
Sunday School memory, would say Moses raised his hands, and the walls
of water collapsed on the Egyptians. This did happen, but later.
The
Egyptians were tooling along in their chariots just fine, perhaps it
looked to the Jews, safe on the other side, that they were not safe
after all. The miracle that seemed to save them may have been a hoax.
The Jews watched with anxiety when suddenly things changed. Notice
that the Exodus UFO is hovering directly over the open channel.
(Imagine a long fluorescent light tube, hovering parallel to the sea,
and just above it.) The Lord, in the pillar of cloud and fire,
“looked down.” What does this mean? The Egyptians were knocked
flat, the horses struggled under a heavy burden, the chariot wheels
broke—from the Lord’s ‘look down.” Some invisible force that
came from above, from the Exodus UFO, broke the chariot wheels and
paralyzed the horses. Hmmmm. This is a strange note of
“mythology” to have been saved all these years. The “story”
does not need this part. Just let the walls of water collapse, and
let the Egyptians drown. Why bother with chariot wheels breaking?
By the way, the reason “breaking” is in brackets is because in
the RSV translation, the editors used the word “clogging” in
reference to the chariot wheels, but noted that the actual Hebrew
says the wheels were broken by the force from the pillar of cloud.
The editors could not make sense of breaking wheels, and invented
mud to clog the wheels, which would not be found on dry ground, of
course. (Ex. 14:22; 29)
I
have wondered if the propulsion system of a modern UFO might have the
power to part the Red Sea, or any body of water. I have noticed that
some modern UFOs are huge, up to a mile long. They are sometimes
called “cloud cigars,” in other words, cloud-like cylindrical
columns. Modern UFOs sometimes burn the ground where they land.
Could this power dry the sea bed? And most of all, could modern
UFOs in fact be a sign that the angels of God are still with us?
This
is what I have wondered. Is this eisegesis, am I just “reading
UFOs” into the Exodus text, with no justification? Is this
hermeneutical rape, or more accurately, hermeneutical adultery, or
are my critics blind to the presence of the angels of God in our
skies, as religious leaders were blind to the healing of the blind
man in John chapter 9? Are our modern scribes ignoring what is “new”
in our treasure chest?
CONDEMNED
BY GUY MALONE
In
his New Mexico talk on fundamentalism and UFOs, Guy Malone condemned
my book, and then went on to make fun of the idea that a UFO might
have parted the Red Sea, or dropped manna from the sky during the
Exodus journey. Did he reference my book, and the scripture to go
with it, as his source?
No,
he presented this information from a book by Bonnie Meyer, Alien
Contact: The Messages They Bring . Who is
Bonnie Meyer? She has her own web site, “EARS,” which stands for
Evidence of Alien Contact Revealed In Scripture. Where does Ms Meyer
get her information? From an alien named Lea, according to the web
page. Malone found this information on pages 180-181 in the Meyer
book, which I have not read. I am sure it made good theater to make
this presentation in New Mexico. But if I had been in New Mexico, I
would have asked Malone: why are you using Meyer as a resource,
instead of the Bible, or even my book, which deals with the biblical
evidence? Granted, I did not get my ideas from a space alien named
Lea, but I did get them from the Bible, which should have been
pointed out in the Malone talk if he is in any way sincere in being
fair to what the Bible actually says.
The
Meyers book, Alien Contact,
was published in 2006. Malone knows The
Bible and Flying Saucers was published in
1968, he mentions it is the year Malone was born. Did he wonder if
by any chance Meyer’s alien contact Lea had read my book?
Throughout his lecture Malone quotes scripture that we need to worry
about “being deceived.” I think Malone’s whole presentation is
deceptive, and perhaps that’s the key to understanding the “Fundie”
approach he is defending. My impression is the “Fundies” do not
even dare let people see the Scripture I am interpreting. In any
case, Malone, Heiser, and Bates do not. Conservatives condemn me,
and hope people do not read my book. This has been the practice from
the beginning. When Albert Hedrich reviewed my book in Christianity
Today, (June 21, 1968), he condemned my book,
and suggested that those who share his point of view “can only hope
that this book has a very limited circulation.” The tactic has not
changed. Condemn Downing, and do not let anyone see what is in the
book. It is dangerous. He quotes the Bible a lot!
The Malone lecture is
bizarre in a lot of ways. He is making the point that Fundies
believe UFOs are demonic, and he is right in the sense that there are
more books than I can count making this argument from a conservative
Christian point of view. One would think that if one were going to
make this argument properly, one would refer to passages in the Bible
concerning demon possession, in particular, and demonology in
general, and then compare these texts with modern UFO abduction
events.
As far as I could
find, Malone did not quote a single biblical text in regard to
demons. I thought the Bible mattered to Fundamentalists. What kind
of faithfulness to scripture does not even mention one text
concerning demons?
A
quick examination of biblical demonology gives us this outline.
There is almost no mention of demons in the Old Testament,
Deuteronomy 32:17, and Psalm 106:37, being the exceptions. These
seem to refer to idolatrous religious practices.
In
the New Testament, there are two basic types of references to demons:
the first type of reference suggests there are demons which cause
people either mental or physical illnesses, such as paralysis,
convulsions, epilepsy, or perhaps schizophrenia as a form of mental
illness. This latter case finds Jesus driving out demons from a man
into a herd of pigs, who run down a hill and drown in the sea. (Mt.
8:28-34) In none of these cases do I see any sign that the demons
ever had bodies of their own, ever had a physical form, ever had
“UFOs” to fly around in. I know of no biblical case where anyone
was abducted by a demon, and Jesus had to somehow rescue them from
the abduction, nor did Jesus ever talk about demons abducting anyone.
Do people go through painful things during modern abductions that I
would not want to go through? Absolutely. But I went through a root
canal once, which I did not want to do. I do not think my dentist
was a demon, but did wonder about it at the time.
In
summary: I do not see any biblical textual evidence that links UFO
abductions and demons. That may be the reason that although Malone
gave as his title “Why Christian Fundies Think Aliens Are Really
Demons,” he did not even refer to demons in the Bible.
The
other main reference to demons in the New Testament is to Jesus, or
John the Baptist, either that they had a demon, or that Jesus drove
out demons by the prince of demons. (Mt. 11:18; Jn. 7:20; Mt. 9:34
etc) I do not believe these scriptures help Malone’s case. In
modern thinking, we would say many of the religious leaders thought
both John the Baptist and Jesus were a little crazy. (One step away
from being a UFO nut.)
When
Malone goes on to build his case for UFO demonology, he changes to
the term “fallen angels” as if they were the same as demons.
But then he starts using biblical references to good angels, although
not from Exodus of course. He refers to Daniels’s Vision in
chapter 10, but also to Peter being released from prison by an angel
(Acts 10:9) He makes little distinction between angels in a vision
(Daniel), and those in real time (Acts). And then Malone offers this
summary: “The lecture had a great detail (sic) to say about the
obvious overlap between the abilities that angels have as described
in the Bible—and there’s no reason to think that those same
abilities wouldn’t be true of fallen angels as well.”
There
is no reason to think fallen angels would not have the abilities of
God’s angels? On what biblical basis did he make this statement?
Although I do not recommend Gary Bates for many things, I do think he
has raised proper skepticism about linking UFOs to the fallen angels,
or the Nephilim, of Genesis 6. (See Bates, Alien
Intrusion , “Who Were The ‘Sons of God’
In Genesis 6?”, pp. 350-369)
At
the end of his lecture, Malone mentions that his wife did a lot of
his biblical research about angels. My hope is she will look far
enough to find the angel in the pillar of cloud and fire. In the
end, Malone even mentions Satan, so that at the end of his lecture I
did not know whether he was linking UFOs to demons, fallen angels,
Satan, or what. Satan is actually the best choice of those three,
provided that we understand that Satan only works with God’s
permission. (See the book of Job.) That would mean that if UFOs are
Satanic, they are testing us as part of God’s purpose, as Jesus was
led into the wilderness by the Spirit of God to be tested as part of
God’s purpose. (Mt. 4:1-11) Likewise the Exodus wilderness
journey was led by the angel of God in the pillar of cloud, as part
of God’s testing. Moses tells Israel that God “fed you in the
wilderness with manna which your fathers did not know, that he might
humble you and test you, to do you good in the end.” (Deut. 8:16)
Modern
UFOs are testing the nuclear powers of the world, and testing the
faith of the Church in Christ. Do we understand the signs we have
been given? I believe that right now, we are flunking God’s test.
Instead of condemning those who disagree with them, I think it would
be better if Fundamentalists paid closer attention to what the Bible
says.
ABDUCTION
PASSOVER
Malone might suppose
that my above treatment of his work is unfair, he is not trained in
biblical studies, and one might say I am splitting hairs in the
objections I have raised. But I believe if Fundamentalists paid more
attention to what the Bible says, they would not be condemning me.
A
lay person might say, “Come on Downing, if UFOs are doing bad
things, they are our enemy, call them demons, fallen angels, Satan,
anything you like. If they are evil, we should pray the U.S. Air
Force can shoot them down.” Notice how this plays nicely into our
modern popular secular UFO myth, as in the film “Independence Day,”
when we cheer Will Smith as he shoots down the alien bad guys. The
Christian demonic theory provides nice religious cover for our U.S.
military powers. But I suspect these same Christians would have been
cheering for Pharaoh’s chariots at the Red Sea, and cursing the
pillar of cloud and fire as demonic.
We
are in bondage to a world wide military industrial complex, as Dwight
Eisenhower warned. Many countries have nuclear weapons, we fear
others like Iran may soon join the nuclear club. UFOs started making
their presence felt right after the United States dropped two nuclear
bombs on Japan. Notice who is the only nation in the history of the
world to use nuclear weapons. We are the modern Pharaoh, and our
weapons, as well as the weapons of other countries, hold the world
hostage to terror as the Egyptian Pharaoh held the Jews hostage. All
of us are working hard, and being taxed, to support the war machine.
This is not a shocking reality. When Israel established Saul as its
first king, the prophet Samuel warned people of the ways of the king,
taking young men to support his own military complex, and taking
young women to run his industry. (1 Samuel 8:4-22) That world
governments can be oppressive is no new thing. But the way in which
science and technology united with military goals is a thing which
reached a new level: we can now destroy the whole human race.
Might
we suppose that the angels of God might think it would be a good time
to draw a line in the sand, and send a message to the nuclear powers
of the world, that their war games were now out of bounds? What have
UFOs done? Here are reports I have heard or read. They have flown
frequently, and slowly over our nuclear bases. They have used beams
of energy to disable the firing mechanisms of embedded nuclear
weapons. They have even reprogrammed the computers in our under
ground nuclear missiles. Think of this memo to a General at the
Pentagon: “Sir, remember that missile in silo number 4 that was
programmed to hit Moscow? It is now programmed to hit Washington,
thanks to UFO interference. Await your reply. “ The reply was to
build underground protection for “chosen people” in the
Washington area. UFOs have disabled the electronic firing systems
in our fighter jets when the jets challenge a UFO. And UFOs may even
have shot down some of the military jets that have challenged them,
both in Cuba and the United States. (See Lawrence Fawcett, and Barry
Greenwood, Clear Intent: The Government
Coverup of the UFO Experience , and Donald E.
Keyhoe, Flying Saucers: Top Secret ,
as resources for the information in this paragraph.)
If UFOs have acted
to make sport of our modern Pharaohs (Ex. 10:2), we should thank God.
And maybe the message from the aliens was to start nuclear
disarmament. Maybe our human leaders only “saw the light” with a
little help from our UFO friends.
With that in mind, I
come to modern UFO abduction reports with wonder. I wonder if UFO
abductions are part of the process by which the aliens are humbling
the powers of this world, which was a very godly thing to do to the
Egyptian Pharaoh.
The
argument of Guy Malone, and his partner Joe Jordan in the MUFON
Florida CE 4 abduction study group, is that UFO beings are demonic
because they do bad things to people during abductions. But if
Christian people cry out, or pray, “Jesus save me,” or words to
that effect, the abduction is stopped. Malone would argue that as
demons in the Bible obeyed Jesus, so modern demons obey Jesus during
attempted UFO abductions. (Mark 1:34) Jordan and Malone argue that
this is “scientific research,” because of the repeatability of
the scenario: An abduction is imminent, the potential victim says,
“Save me Jesus,” and stops the abduction. This has happened in
dozens of cases. I am thankful to Malone and Jordan for this
research, and if I am ever in danger of an abduction, I plan to shout
“Save me Jesus.”
But
it seems to me that if we are in an Exodus situation, where the
political and military powers of the world are in danger of
destroying us all, and if modern UFOs have stepped in to challenge
our military powers, then we should look to modern UFOs to be like
the angels of the Exodus.
The
final blow against Pharaoh was the killing of the first-born of Egypt
at midnight, but the first-born in the Jewish homes were spared
(passed over) because of blood on the doorposts of their homes. (Ex.
12) If modern UFOs are carrying out abductions in order to
demonstrate their power of dominance over our modern Pharaohs, then
“Save me Jesus” may be the equivalent of the blood of a lamb on
the doorposts of Christians. “Save me Jesus” may be the blood
that leads to a modern Abduction Passover.
This would mean the
angels of God are at war with our modern military powers, and we
Christians should be cheering the angels, not calling the angels
demons.
Some have suggested
to me that some MUFON leaders have not taken the Florida MUFON CE 4
research seriously enough. It is not being treated with proper
respect. I would suggest that putting the “demonic”
interpretation on the data does not help the cause that Malone and
Jordan want supported.
Furthermore,
from a scientific point of view, there are issues. Imagine the
following. A man walks into a bank wearing a baseball cap, colored
glasses, and a trench coat, and walks up to a teller carrying a brown
paper sack in one hand, and a paper note in the other. As he walks
up to the teller window, the female teller starts saying, “Save me
Jesus, save me Jesus,” and the man turns and walks away, leaving
the bank.
The
teller rushes to the bank manager and says, “This strange guy was
going to rob the bank, but I prayed to Jesus, and he went away.”
The bank manager, before calling the police, goes outside to see if
the alleged robber is still in sight. He was standing outside the
building. The manager says to the man, “Could I see the note in
your hand?” The man hands over the note which reads, “I am mute,
and cannot talk. In the brown paper bag are 20 five dollar bills.
Could you give me four 20’s and two 10’s?” The bank manager
asks for the bag. Inside are 20 five dollar bills.
The bank manager
says, “Why did you leave the bank?” The alleged robber takes out
a note pad and writes, “As I approached the teller, she started
saying ‘Save me Jesus, save me Jesus,’ and I did not want to deal
with a religious fanatic.”
Here
is the scientific issue: if I say an alien was going to abduct me,
that implies knowledge of alien motives and plans. From a scientific
point of view there is no way to go outside the bank and interview
the alien, and see if an abduction was really part of the alien plan.
The CE 4 study needs to be included in the process of abduction
analysis, but it is does not “prove” what Malone and Jordan want
to prove.
From
my Christian point of view, I like what Malone and Jordan have found.
But UFO researchers who want nothing to do with Jesus will find
scientific reasons not to accept the evidence. The fact that the
evidence is not conclusive means we are left to “walk by faith.”
I trust Christians know what this means.
To summarize, I
believe that the research of Jordan and Malone is important, and I
respect what they have done. But I think their lack of understanding
of the relation, in the Bible, between demons, fallen angels , the
Satanic, and the protecting, judging, powerful angels of God, such as
we see in Exodus, has caused them to give a very false and dangerous
interpretation of the evidence. They have come down on the side of
Pharaoh, rather than on the side of the angels of God.
A
BLASPHEMOUS HALF SENTENCE
The
usual approach of conservatives to my work (liberals just ignore me)
is to look in my UFO work for one hanging sentence, quote it, condemn
me, and then move on. The Pharisees used the same technique to try
to get rid of Jesus. (Mt. 22:15-32) In his speech Malone mentions
that I have suggested UFOs carry the angels of God, like other cult
leaders, and then he quotes part of a sentence from my book. “Jesus
came to our world by a perfect cover story: By means of the Virgin
Birth Jesus was able to come from another world…” The rest of
the sentence which Malone left out reads, “…..but could appear to
have come naturally, to be a ‘natural born citizen’ of this
world.” (The Bible and Flying Saucers ,
Lippincott and Marlowe editions, p. 146; Avon Books, p. 126; Berkley Books, p. 147; Sphere Books, p. 109.) I used the analogy of our
modern spy stories, in which a spy from one country is an “under
cover” agent in another world to explain why the incarnation of
Jesus caught religious leaders off guard. Malone sees this as the
reason to reject all of my book. This statement is not only
offensive to Malone, “but downright blasphemous.” He goes on to
explain, “The idea that Jesus is an alien, or even part alien,
denies the Godhead that is THE fundamental staple of all true
Christian doctrine, that Jesus is fully God, and fully man.” I
would not deny that the issues Malone raises are important for
Christian belief.
But
I would say that the issue of how Jesus can be fully God, and
therefore from the heavenly world, and fully human, has been a topic
of debate for a long time. Malone does not mention that the people
around Jesus could not figure this out. Jesus tells the Jews that he
“came down from heaven,” (John 6:49-51) and they are not too
impressed. They said, “’Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know?’ How does he now say, ‘I have
come down from heaven’?” (Jn.6:42)
I
used the “under cover alien image” as a space age analogy to
explain exactly the mystery that Malone presents: Jesus as both
human and divine. One problem is that fundamentalists are so
literalistic that they don’t get analogies. Jesus spoke frequently
in parables, which are analogies.
Jesus
says “the kingdom of heaven is like…” a sower who goes out to
sow, or a man who has two sons, the younger son asks for his
inheritance, or a man on the Jericho road is attacked by thieves, and
a Samaritan rescues him . Parables, analogies, are critical to any
hermeneutical process. Fundamentalists with their literal mind sets
have trouble understanding analogies as a hermeneutical tool.
I
have found it painful dealing with Christian conservatives. They
believe in the God of Jesus Christ, they want to be faithful, but for
whatever reason, I feel strange about the way my UFO material has
been treated by conservatives. When my book was reviewed by Albert
Hedrich in the June 21, 1968 issue of Christianity
Today, I sent a letter of complaint to editor
Carl Henry, dated July 3, 1968. In my letter I complained that the
reviewer never even mentioned the word ‘angel’ in his review, and
that my whole book depended on a realistic view of angels in the
Bible. To help with this oversight, I enclosed an article entitled
“Angels and UFOs,” which I asked them to consider for
publication. I pointed out that there was no serious modern
consideration of angels, even in conservative Protestant theology,
and the Hedrich review illustrated that neglect.
I
received a letter dated July 18, 1968, from Janet Rohler, Editorial
Assistant, saying that my manuscript had been received, but “the
committee is divided about its use” in the magazine. Henry was
retiring as editor, and Harold Lindsell was coming in as new editor.
Eventually the manuscript was rejected. Billy Graham was one of the
founders of Christianity Today,
and I have long wondered if he read my book, and was part of the
discussion of the “divided committee.”
Needless
to say, I wondered even more when Billy Graham published his book,
Angels: God’s Secret Agents
in 1975. I would say to Guy Malone, “Maybe you are right, maybe my
‘secret agents’ or ‘under cover agents’ analogy means I am
being blasphemous, and am going to hell.” That would indeed be
bad news. But the good news is, if I go to hell, I should have Billy
Graham with me.
HERMENEUTICAL
BARRENNESS
From
my point of view, the problem with Christian attempts to interpret
the UFO signs for our generation is not so much hermeneutical rape,
as Michael Heiser has suggested. Rather what I see is hermeneutical
blindness, of both the left and the right, and therefore spiritual
barrenness is the result.
If
you do not see both the Word of God, and the signs of God in our
time, you will not get pregnant with faith. I believe the modern
church is only going through the motions of faith, in the best case,
with eyes on Scripture, but with no hope that God sees our modern
scientific/military/atheistic oppression.
I
believe the angels of Christ are flying in our skies, and the bride
of Christ does not even recognize them. Now, indeed, Christ has been
away on a long trip. (Mt. 21:33-44) We knew he might sneak back
like a thief in the night (Mt. 24:43), but this is not fair. UFOs
have not exactly come, they are just kind of hovering outside the
door. Instead of Christians being caught up to heaven with true
believers, feeling badly for those Michael Heiser calls the “left
behinders,” we have these strange stories of UFO abductions instead
of salvation and a nice trip to heaven.
The
fact that liberal Christians are paying no attention to UFOs is not
surprising. They stopped believing in angels, in heaven, in the
parting of the Red Sea and the Resurrection of Jesus years ago.
Liberal Christians are very busy about their Mother’s business,
liberating the oppressed and being politically correct. Liberals
have no interest in seeing traditional Christian eschatology
restored, it would challenge their theologically driven politics of
envy and earthly entitlement. The “redemption of Christian
eschatology” is exactly what I believe UFOs are about. Christian
faith cannot live without biblical eschatology, liberal Christianity
is proof of that. If we start believing again that we should store
up “treasures in heaven” (Mt. 6:20), many things will change,
including our culture of despair, and our culture of greed.
Conservative Christians should be shouting, “Look up, your
salvation draws near.” (Ex. 14:13; 2 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 19:1,2)
Michael Heiser is
right about this: hermeneutics is the issue. But the issue is not
hermeneutical rape, it is hermeneutical barrenness. God has given
his church an opportunity to witness to the power of God, and thereby
become pregnant as the bride of Christ, using Scripture as the means
to identify the signs that God has graciously given to our evil and
adulterous generation. Liberal Christians do not even look up—they
have no hope. Conservative Christians look up and shout “demons.”
Lord have mercy on us all. Especially me, if I am wrong.
Mike Heisers Response
It’s a response on the part of Dr.
Barry Downing to some thoughts I had on his work some time ago. For
those who don’t know who Barry Downing is, he’s the author of a book
called Flying Saucers and the Bible that promotes the ancient alien hypothesis using the Bible. He has an earned doctorate (I believe in theology). I’m not a big fan of his work, as you’ll figure out from what follows.
I’m actually not even sure when it was, but
I’m guessing it’s six or seven years ago that I called Barry Downing’s
approach to Bible interpretation a rape of the biblical text. I can’t
even recall if it was in print or on radio. That said, my thanks to those who pointed the link out to me. While
readers can go right to the link and read it in full, I’ll be
reproducing it here in installments and blogging through it by way of
response. It’s long enough that this will take a few installments. My responses are the indented portions (MSH).
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Mike Heiser
Barry Downing responds to Mike Heiser and others.
"UFOs, the Bible, and Targeted Intervention."
|
Home 
