In the award-winning hit movie, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," two female fighters combined their efforts for a common, insidious goal. In the world of theology, liberals and atheists also tend to combine their efforts for a common goal. Usually that goal involves attempting to discredit or otherwise debunk orthodox Christian teachings. In my parody of the movie title here, my intention is to show that, for the most part, liberal "Christian" scholars who crouch around looking for "fundamentalist" prey are actually hidden atheists themselves.

But before getting into the "nitty gritty" of exposing "Jesus" Seminar founder Robert Funk as the crouching liberal, hidden atheist (i.e., Unitarian) that he is, I would like to share with you an appropriate Scripture which reveals what I believe is the "funk" of two thousand years which started right after the resurrection of Jesus:

"...some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened. When they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, 'Tell them, 'His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.'...So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." (Matthew 28:11-15).

In other words, the funky, smelly lie of two thousand years is, don't believe what really happened but believe a lie that's not even a very good one. Ask yourself this simple question: How could the guards have known exactly who allegedly stole the body of Jesus IF THEY WERE ASLEEP? Some people didn't think too clearly back then, and I fear that most who swallow the views of the "Jesus" Seminar today have the same problem of uncritically accepting a bad lie. With this series of articles on the book "Honest to Jesus" by "Jesus" Seminar founder Robert Funk, I will demonstrate how his "theology" is not much different from the lie told almost two thousand years ago, and that the views of his "Seminar" are more thoroughly Unitarian than true Christian. But once again into the breech...

Exposing the "Jesus" Seminar for what it is

As many of you should know by now, The "Jesus" Seminar is a group of radical, far left-wing, fringe scholars, the vast majority of which are liberal both in theology and sociology, who have decided to take it upon themselves to determine the "authentic" words and deeds of Jesus in the Gospels. According to their findings found in the book The Five Gospels (Macmillan, 1993), Jesus only said about 18 to 20 percent of the words attributed to Him in the Gospels. These "scholars" have also made other outlandish and unsubstantiated claims which I have already exposed in some detail in chapter 5 of my new book If God Heals Your Eyes, Don't Cut Off Your Head. But suffice it to say that no one should be fooled into thinking that this group represents a majority consensus in modern biblical scholarship, or that it is representative of a fairly mixed group of liberal and conservative scholars. That is simply false and misleading propaganda that is easily discredited by looking at the educational credentials of the members found in the back of The Five Gospels. For the most part, they are liberals propagating a liberal agenda who do a good job of selling liberal theology to an accepting and uncritical media.

The Pattern: How to become dishonest to Jesus

Seminar founder Robert Funk wrote his personal views down in a book called "Honest to Jesus," in which he apparently was under the strange illusion that his book was an attempt to be just that “honest" to Jesus. But then again, the question becomes "Honest" to which Jesus? The Jesus of the Gospels or the one of his own invention? But while he probably meant the Jesus of the Gospels, in the process of his attempt at honesty he abandoned that Jesus for a mythical being that the original disciples would have laughed at more than worshipped.

But to better understand what comes from people like Funk, I think it is always good to look at where they came from. Funk admits to a pattern that I've recognized in my studies and have mentioned before in my article on the other Seminar member, Marcus Borg. Funk apparently never really had a heart-to-heart, personal relationship with God. He had an external religion coupled with a misunderstanding of the "faith" of others around him that led him to where he is today (Honest to Jesus, pp. 3, 4, prologue). Although Funk was known for his speaking abilities and even did some evangelism at one point in his life, it is worthy of notice that it was his pastor that told him he would "make a good minister," not God (p. 4, prologue). Then his pastor sent him to a Bible college. He didn't go because God told him to. This brings to mind that old saying: "Some were sent, and some just went." God apparently did not call Funk to ministry; man did. That is a sure recipe for disaster, as the works of Funk are stinking up the theological scene, even as the stench of the big lie told by the Roman soldiers did in Jesus' day.

After going to Bible college we are told he felt "uneasy" and left the school to enter the liberal Butler University, which apparently believes (according to information from the school website) that all religious traditions are equally valid (p. 5, prologue). He found his way to Christian Theological Seminary, which seems orthodox in its theology according to its website statement of faith, where he received a B.D. degree. Afterwards, Funk went to the liberal Vanderbilt Divinity school where he received a Ph. D. This again is the pattern of a good majority of those who want to claim to be Christian but end up denying everything the Church has believed for centuries based on its experience with God and the Scriptures. People who lack true, inner spiritual regeneration by the power of God, who have a mostly secular humanist mindset and obtain a particular kind of education, end up sounding more like atheists than Christians when they attempt to teach theology. Now that's a fascinating but all too true fact that crouches up on those who research into the backgrounds of people like Mr. Funk.

Atheists in Sheeps' Clothing

Funk and most of his buddies claim to be "Christian scholars" who are only interested in bringing the "best in high scholarship" to bear on religious issues that matter (p. 6, prologue). But as you read Funk's book it becomes all too apparent that he started the Westar Institute (which formed the "Jesus" Seminar) as a reaction to the problems he perceived with the Church and its theology. He did not set out on an "honest" quest for the truth about Jesus, no matter where that truth might lead. He started out on his quest with an ax to grind, and naturally most of what he finds on his quest is pretty much what he started out with (p. 8, prologue). Can anyone say "circular reasoning"?

And what did he start out with? What did Funk believe when he started the Westar Institute? The Gospels, along with the classic creeds of the Church, tell us that Jesus was born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. The third day he arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, was seated at the right hand of God the Father. Furthermore, the Gospels teach that Jesus was both God (the Son) and man while walking the earth, and the whole body of Scripture combines to help us understand that God is indeed a triune Being, a Trinity. Christians who have a clear understanding of the text of Scripture and interpret it through the eyes of the Spirit believe all of this. Atheists deny or disbelieve all of these. The strange thing is---so did Mr. Funk when he started the Westar Institute. As an atheist in Christian rags, he of course may accept that there was a Pontius Pilate and that Jesus did exist and was crucified and buried. Even some pure atheists will go along with that. But is this good enough for a person to claim to be a Christian? Did Funk start his Institute and Seminar with an objective search for truth, or a subjective idea to practically undermine all orthodox Christian teaching? The answer should be obvious, and thus what we have here in Robert Funk is not a true Christian (by biblical definition) engaged in an objective look at the Christian tradition, but a hidden atheist who apparently is afraid to admit what he really is.

Honest to Jesus, or Honest to Unitarianism?

It is actually a matter of both concern and laughter when you read Funk's book and consider that this man somehow thought he was being "honest to Jesus" by writing it. As I said above, he disbelieves the basic foundational and fundamental teachings of the Bible and the Church. But instead of being "honest to Jesus," the fact of the matter is that the evidence shows he was really "honest to Unitarianism." Why do I say this? Let's compare what Unitarians believe to what Funk has stated he believes.

Views on The Bible

Funk: "Declare the New Testament a highly uneven and biased record of the various early attempts to invent Christianity...Eliminate the less deserving parts...In any case, the authority of an iconic Bible is gone forever. It cannot be restored." (p. 314)

Unitarians: "...The doctrine of revelation of the absolute and indisputable authority of the Bible is alien to Unitarian faith and teaching" (Official Unitarian statement by spokesman Carl M. Chorowsky as quoted in Kingdom of the Cults by Dr. Walter Martin, p. 504, Bethany House1985 edition)

Views of Jesus

Funk: "We must begin by giving Jesus a demotion...As divine son of God, coeternal with the Father, pending cosmic judge seated at God's right hand, he is insulated and isolated from his persona as the humble Galilean sage...A demoted Jesus then becomes available as the real founder of the Christian movement...he will no longer be merely its mythical icon, embedded in the myth of the descending/ascending, dying /rising lord of the pagan mystery cults, but of one substance with us all" (p. 306).

Unitarians: "Unitarians hold that the orthodox Christian world has forsaken the real, human Jesus of the Gospel, and has substituted a Christ of dogmatism, metaphysics, and pagan philosophy" (Kingdom, p. 503).

Views of the Virgin Birth of Jesus

Funk: "We can be certain that Mary did not conceive Jesus without the assistance of human male sperm...It is possible that Jesus was illegitimate...A bastard messiah is a more evocative redeemer figure than an unblemished lamb of God...The virgin birth, in the light of other miraculous birth stories in the ancient world, is a mythical way to account for an unusual life" (pp. 294, 313).

Unitarians: "Unitarians repudiate the doctrine and dogma of the Virgin Birth..." (Kingdom, p. 503).

Views of the Deity of Jesus and the Trinity

Funk: "...I prefer to think of Jesus as a poet rather than as the second person of the Trinity" (p. 2, prologue).

Unitarians: "They [Unitarians] do not believe He is 'God Incarnate,' or the Second Person of the Trinity" (Kingdom, p. 503).

Views of Salvation through Atonement

Funk: "The atonement in popular piety is based on a mythology that is no longer credible--that God is appeased by blood sacrifices. Jesus never expressed the view that God was holding humanity hostage until someone paid the bill. Nor did Amos, Hosea, or other prophets of Israel" (p. 312).

Unitarians: "Because of the total depravity of man, supposedly, God sent His only begotten Son to the world to die for sinful men. Such doctrine Unitarians find offensive, un-Biblical, even immoral..." ( Kingdom, p. 503).

In all of these fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith (and this is not a complete list), Funk consistently shows himself to be a Unitarian, not a Christian. As any reasonable person can see, Funk's views are almost identical to the views of a religious pseudo-Christian cult that has always sought to deify flawed human reasoning above the knowledge of God as revealed in the Bible and human experience. What we have in Funk's "theology," then, is the same old lie repackaged and reformulated to meet the needs of a "postmodern" and skeptical society that is filled with unbelief and likes to hide behind words like "science" and "rational inquiry."

Instead of dealing honestly with the truth of the Gospels which reveal the unified Jesus of history who is the same Christ of faith, Funk and his band of merry followers would rather believe their own elaborately concocted lie that really, under closer examination, isn't even a very good one. Just like the religious leaders who bribed the Roman soldiers to tell the silly lie that Jesus' body was stolen by the disciples while they slept, Funk and his "Jesus" Seminar want to bribe us, using the guise of "high" scholarship, into blindly believing their pseudo-scholarly "findings" about Jesus and His gospel. The lie may be more complex and elaborate, and it may seem more plausible to believe; but a lie is a lie no matter how well dressed and cloaked in scholarship it may be. I remember a few years back wondering why some humanists/atheists were looking forward with practical "glee" to the findings of Robert Funk's Seminar. Well, as you can imagine, I don't wonder anymore. In light of this, I've coined the statement: "Beware when atheists love your 'Christian' theology, for it is probably more atheistic than Christian."

In part 2 of this series, I will go into more detail to demonstrate the logical and Scriptural flaws supporting the elaborate and funky lie of two thousand years, showing that no matter how you try to dress up a stench that old, it still smells terrible and will repel more people than it attracts. Until next time, know that truth, and the truth will make you free (John 8:32).