Why It Might Be Necessary To Compromise On Abortion And Other Related Issues

(Please read through this entire blog post before getting angry and sending me hate mail.)

I was sitting in class last night at Western Seminary, and my professor (Randy Roberts) was discussing the roles and responsibilities that we have as Christians in relationship to the civil government. This was an interesting discussion, but it got really interesting when Randy suggested that at times it might be necessary to compromise on abortion and other related issues. When I heard him say this, I was shocked. How can we compromise on a clearly evil practice like abortion? As these thoughts were going through my head, Randy offered a helpful analogy originally proposed by the Anglican theologian J.I. Packer (I have been unable to find where J.I. Packer originally said this; if you know, please let me know).

According to Packer, the situation we are facing is roughly analogous to an airplane that has been hijacked by terrorists in the middle of a flight. On this plane, there are men, women, and children. As the terrorists begin to negotiate, they offer to release the women and children, but they refuse to release the men. In the midst of this situation, how would you respond? Would you accept the release of the women and children and continue to negotiate for the men, or would you refuse this offer, instead arguing that the only acceptable solution is the simultaneous release of men, women, and children?

Although there are some obvious deficiencies in this analogy, I think you get the point. In our fight against abortion, we are finding it difficult to get legislation passed that would entirely outlaw the practice of abortion. No matter how hard we argue, many people still feel that abortion should be a viable option at least in cases of rape and incest. At the same time, there is a growing trend at least in the United States toward reducing the number of abortions and even placing greater limits on the availability of abortions (see this recent news article detailing this shift: "Poll: More Americans Calling Themselves Pro-Life"). In light of this, how should we respond? Should we refuse these trends toward limiting and reducing abortion since they fall short of our ultimate goal, or should we embrace them as a step in the right direction?

I would suggest that given the current trend toward limiting and reducing abortions in America at large, we should work to find common ground and work toward compromises that will at least reduce the amount of abortions currently being performed. I will be the first to admit that this is not the best possible result, and it is not the goal. At the same time, if we refuse to support any legislation that we do not fully agree with, waiting for the ideal law to come to the table, we have missed an excellent opportunity to make a significant step in the right direction. What is more, by obstinately refusing legislation that might reduce abortions in the near future, we are potentially standing in the way of something that could save many lives in the interim. We certainly cannot be content to stop with reducing and limiting abortion, but we do need to work to find common ground and save as many lives as we can in the present. The problem as I see it is not supporting legislation that falls short of our ultimate goal; the problem is being content with such legislation and not pressing on toward the final goal of completely outlawing and stopping abortion altogether.

I suspect this same principle-that is, the need to work for compromise based on shared interests-is applicable to other areas of Christian ethical concern as well. What might it look like to work toward compromise on the issue of gay marriage? Or on embryonic stem-cell research? Or on human cloning? I certainly do not know where such discussions might lead, but if we are serious about promoting life and combating evil in this country and around the world, we need to begin considering such possibilities rather than rejecting them from the start as something falling short of the goal.

I don't expect everyone (or even most people) reading this blog to agree with me, but I welcome your feedback, and hope that we can move forward in this discussion through openly, honestly, and humbly wrestling with the issue together!

Why Modern Atheism Relies On Theism For Existence

I was listening to a discussion by the late Catholic Archbishop Fulton Sheen today, and he had some incredible insights into the phenomenon of modern atheism that I wanted to share (especially in light of the recent series of posts on aggressive atheism). While Sheen was a devoted adherent of the Roman Catholic Church (which I am obviously not), he had an astonishing mind, and I believe that we can all learn from his life and thought in various ways. I hope this is helpful!

Fulton Sheen on Modern Atheism
(Taken from "The Spirit That Makes War", an address delivered on December 15, 1940, by Msgr. Fulton Sheen)

A few years ago I encountered a young atheist in the vestibule of a Catholic Church in London who, boasting of her atheism, shouted: "Every night I go out to Hyde Park and talk against God. I urge my listeners to drive the illusion from the earth. I circulate England, Scotland, and Wales with pamphlets denouncing a belief in God." When she drew a deep breath thus giving me my just opportunity to speak I said to her: "Suppose I went across the street here to Soho Square and every night talked against 20-footed ghosts and 10-legged centaurs; suppose I circulated England, Scotland. and Wales with pamphlets denouncing a belief in 20-footed ghosts and 10-legged centaurs. What would happen to me?" She said: "You would be crazy; they would lock you up." "Correct," said I "Now, tell me, why don’t they lock you up? Don’t you put God in exactly the same category of illusion as that in which I put a 20-footed ghost and a 10-legged centaur? Why would I be crazy and not you?” I had to tell her the answer: "Because if I attacked ghosts or centaurs the reason of men and the tradition of mankind would tell me I was attacking a figment of my imagination– which is a mark of insanity. But when you attack God you are not attacking an illusion but something just as real as the thrust of a sword or an embrace. It is the reality of God which saves you from insanity and it is the reality of God which gives substance and energy to your attacks." And she answered: "I hate you!” To which I answered: "Now you have answered me. Atheism is not a doctrine, it is a cry of wrath.”

Universalize the case and you have the explanation for the vehemence and ferocity of modern atheism. It could not so hate a myth. lf there were no God, the rage of atheism would be without foundation. They destroy only because there is something to be destroyed. In a word, they believe. Only where the image of God is can there be the counterfeit; man can set himself up as God only because he came from God. Behind every persecution, every human perversion, and every insolence to rid the world of Him, the Divine Original shines forth. Men could not be godless without God; they could not curse God if they were not first loved by God. The wrath of God under which every atheist stands is the Divine Love, which has become a force opposed to him because he has turned against God. The God whom the atheist hates is the God whom the believer loves; God is not hate save to him who hates.

Morality, piety, love of God, are constant reproaches to the atheists immorality and their burdened consciences. They falsely believe that remorse of conscience, a sense of guilt, and the effects of sin, are the creation of priests and religious; if they could kill all priests, ministers, and rabbis, and raze all churches and synagogues, they could sin with impunity, do wrong without feeling guilty, and lift themselves up to the insane stage where there is no longer a distinction between good and evil and therefore one where man is God and God is naught. They cannot drive God out of the world, but they seek to banish His representatives. That is why they persecute! But instead of scaling the heavens and making themselves as gods, they only lay waste the earth.

(Full discourse available at http://www.fultonsheen.com/Fulton-Sheen-articles/The-Spirit-That-Makes-War.cfm?artid=12)

Aggressive Atheism: An Alternative View Of God And Christianity

Here is the third and final installment of my series on aggressive atheism. As opposed to the first two posts, this third post focuses on presenting a view of God and Christianity that serves as an alternative to aggressive atheism. Thanks for reading!

An Alternative View of God and Christianity

If the three central commitments that unite aggressive atheists prove to be unsound and provide an insufficient basis for rejecting the existence of God, is there another approach to understanding God and the world which might be more logical and consistent with reality as humans experience it? The present author would like to suggest that the God who is revealed in both the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible is the God who in reality created the universe and everything contained within it. It is this God, in contrast to the natural and materialistic assumptions of aggressive atheists, who best explains the universe, the earth, and living creatures as they exist today.

In the Bible, God is presented as a self-existent being who had no beginning and will have no end. This God is compassionate, gracious, patient, loving, truthful, forgiving, and just, among other things. In addition, the God of the Bible, although He is one unified being, has always existed as three equal persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is this God who created the heavens, the earth, and everything that is in them. God created everything neither because He was lonely, nor because He was somehow lacking in Himself, but because of His own loving and self-giving nature. God made one particular creature, man, in His own image, so that human beings resemble God to an extent. He did this so that He could have a loving relationship with human beings and share His own goodness with them. He even put the first human beings, Adam and Eve, in an ideal environment, so that they were not lacking any good thing.

Although God created human beings in His own image and provided for all of their needs, He required one thing of Adam and Eve: obedience. As long as humans would walk in obedience with God, they would experience a loving, face-to-face relationship with God that would satisfy all their needs. In spite of all the good things that God did for the first humans, they freely chose to be disobedient to God and break the one commandment He had given them. As a result, God allowed pain, suffering, disease, and death to come to human beings, and He no longer had the same unhindered relationship with them that He had at the beginning. Regardless, God made a promise to the first human beings, stating specifically that someone would come one day to deliver human beings and bring them back into a right relationship with God.

As the years passed after humanity’s initial disobedience, God did many things to show His love and grace to human beings and to give them the opportunity to return to Him. For example, God graciously spared a remnant of eight human beings from a catastrophic judgment in the form of a flood. He called the man Abraham out of a background of serving false gods into a relationship with Himself. Through Abraham He even created a nation which was to be His instrument to reach out to the rest of the world with the knowledge of the one true God. God did all of these good things to bring human beings back into a loving relationship with Himself, but most people chose to ignore God, continue disobeying Him, and worship gods that they themselves had made. Still, God remained faithful to the original promise that He gave the first human beings: He was preparing to bring a great savior to mankind that would bring them back to Himself, and He was doing this through the descendants of Abraham, who He Himself had called.

After thousands of years had passed since pain, suffering, and death had entered the world through the disobedience of the first human beings, a man named Jesus was born in a small town in Israel. He experienced a normal childhood, growing up in the same way that most boys in His city did. He even learned the trade of carpentry from His father Joseph. From all outward appearances, this Jesus was a man like any other. When Jesus was about thirty years old, however, He began to go throughout the cities of Israel, teaching and preaching to His own people, the descendants of Abraham, telling them that He was the one that God had promised to send to deliver human beings so long before. Not only this, but He also claimed to be equal with the God who had created the world, who had a loving relationship with the first human beings in the beginning, and who had called Abraham out from his people to be His friend. Jesus taught many other incredible things that challenged people, so much so that some began to talk about how to get rid of Him. As time passed, Jesus made more and more enemies, and finally, at an opportune time, some of Abraham’s own descendants turned Jesus over to the government to be mocked, tortured, and killed. Once again, from all outward appearances, it looked like this Jesus was a man like any other, because He had been killed, and this seemed to mean that He couldn’t have been God’s promised deliverer.

Three days after Jesus was put to death, something unexpected happened. On the first day of the week, many of the people who had known Jesus and followed Him throughout Israel claimed that they saw Jesus alive! What was more, they even claimed that God had raised Jesus from the dead as evidence that the things Jesus said and did were true! These followers of Jesus were convinced that He was the one that God had promised to send long ago when the first humans were disobedient to God. They also said that He had indeed made it possible for people to come back into a loving relationship with God, as humans were first created for. Even though all people have sinned and done what is wrong in God’s sight, these first followers of Jesus, or “Christians”, claimed that Jesus Himself had taken the punishment that everyone deserves for their sin and lawbreaking. As a result, whoever turns from their sins and trusts in Jesus is brought back into a right relationship with God, and will have a face-to-face relationship with God again after death, just like the first humans had. It was this hope, and this confidence in Jesus as the promised deliverer, that began the Christian church. This same hope continues to inspire people to this day to trust in Jesus as the only way to come into a right relationship with God.

As the years have passed since the Christian church began, many things have changed. Sadly, as some have pointed out, many have called themselves “Christians” and committed evil acts, but when they do these things, they show to the rest of the world that they have not been brought into a right relationship with God. In spite of these people, many today still trust in Jesus, because they recognize that through Jesus’ death, the only thing separating disobedient and sinful humans from the God of love and grace has been removed. The one thing that remains to be done, then, is for individual human beings to make the decision to trust in Christ and follow His teachings. This promise of restored relationship holds true for all: whether the descendants of Abraham, those raised in Christian homes, those who were raised as followers of a different religion, or even aggressive atheists. Anyone who trusts in Jesus will discover the truth and trustworthiness of what He has said and done. Not only will He confirm the truth to them, but He will also give them a new heart and new desires, so that their greatest joy will come in loving God with all of their being and in loving others like they love themselves.

Conclusion

After examining the new phenomenon of aggressive atheism, a Christian response, and an alternative view of God and Christianity, what should be concluded? For various reasons, aggressive atheists do not have sufficient evidence to reject the existence of God. God is the most logical and necessary explanation for the universe and the world as people experience it today. In contrast, Christianity teaches that God exists apart from the world, but that He created the heavens, the earth, and all creatures in love, so that He could give Himself to His creation and have a relationship with human beings. The decision to accept aggressive atheism, Christianity, or any other worldview as valid and trustworthy should not be made lightly, for a person’s view of the world can at times be a matter of life and death. At the same time, the present author strongly believes that Christianity is the explanation which best explains the universe and the condition of human beings today. Furthermore, Christianity offers a better solution than any other presented for the solving of the world’s problems: being restored to a right relationship with the creator of the universe through His Son, Jesus Christ. In conclusion, any decision about what to believe must be made individually, but upon careful and honest inspection, the evidence strongly points in the direction of Christianity being the most likely and coherent explanation of the world. For those who will embrace an attitude of “thinking hard” rather than “hardly thinking”, the choice is simple. Nevertheless, it is still a choice, and one that calls for an urgent response. What will you choose?

Gary Thomas On Experiencing God In Nature

I have been reading through a book by Gary Thomas called "Sacred Pathways: Discover Your Soul's Path To God", and so far I have found it to be insightful, well-balanced, and thought-provoking in a number of ways. Let me share with you one portion that I found especially helpful from a chapter in Sacred Pathways entitled "Naturalists: Loving God Out Of Doors".

Psychologists tell us that a child's fear of animals is frequently the result of transferring his or her own aggressions onto the beast. When we enter the woods, we can do the same; we transfer our own anxieties onto the scenery. Walks that are truly helpful are walks in which I lay down my agenda at the first sign of grass and let God lead where he may.

I was headed down a wooded trail once, trying to solve a problem at work. My mind was preoccupied, but as I made my way farther down the trail, I sensed God correcting me. In a matter of yards my mind was clear and my heart was listening to God, loving him, being with him.

The trail bent and began descending slightly. It was the beginning of spring, and a creek bed off Bull Run, which I had run across all winter, was now blocked by a freely flowing stream. I was stunned. That same, small path of earth I had easily crossed for several months was now under water. I had seen it like this before, but the suddenness of the change overwhelmed me and God's voice broke in: Opportunities change. If we don't cross when we can, we may not be able to cross at a later date.

Thoughts, analogies, and ideas then flooded through my mind as I hiked around the creek bed to the small wooden footbridge that crossed it. There God planted new directions in my heart, and I lingered at that bridge, enjoying a rich time of worship. I reveled in the sight of the water running underneath me, the tree limbs catching leaves and small sticks, the sound of the water trickling, the smell of the clean air. I didn't want to leave. Yet I almost missed this blessing because my mind was so full when I entered the woods. God in his mercy broke in, and I left the woods deeply in love with a God who shares his heart and purposes with me.

We cannot receive, however, unless we set aside time for God to speak-and then let him set the agenda for our discussion. I've found that my agenda is frequently different from God's. He must be the initiator in my spiritual walk. He knows what I need to hear. When I'm consumed with my temporal problems, I miss the blessing of being out of doors.

When you come to the woods, come to receive. Leave your worries at home.

(Taken from Gary Thomas's "Sacred Pathways: Discover Your Soul's Pathway To God", pages 46-47. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.)

Aggressive Atheism: A Christian Response

Here is the second of three parts of my blog post series on "Aggressive Atheism". Hope you enjoy!

Aggressive Atheism: A Christian Response

As it was mentioned previously, the central and greatest commitment that unites aggressive atheists together is a commitment to understanding all things through entirely natural and materialistic explanations. From a Christian perspective, it will readily be granted that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection does explain some things as they appear in the world today. Minor differences and variations within the kinds of creatures on the earth is likely due to the fact that genetic variations within a created kind sometimes benefit a particular creature in a given environment, and thus these genetic variations are passed on to offspring. This form of natural selection (sometimes known as “micro-evolution”) is readily demonstrable. However, aggressive atheists, taking micro-evolution for granted, use minor variations within a kind as evidence that an altogether different process (known as “macro-evolution”) has occurred. For example, an aggressive atheist might draw attention to the various breeds of dogs alive in the world (a clear example of micro-evolution), and then state that this same process explains the origin and diversity of all life (macro-evolution)! Not only does macro-evolution not follow logically from micro-evolution, but there is also a growing amount of scientific evidence that suggests that all life on earth cannot be explained through entirely natural and materialistic means.

One of the biggest problems that aggressive atheists face in defending their commitment to natural and material explanations of all things is what is known as the “Cambrian explosion”. Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, explains the problem in these words:

The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the “Cambrian explosion” of around 600 million years ago. Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period, without a trace of evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require. As Richard Dawkins put it, ‘It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.’ In Darwin’s time there was no evidence for pre-Cambrian life, and he conceded in The Origin of Species that ‘The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.’ If his theory was true, Darwin wrote, the pre-Cambrian world must have ‘swarmed with living creatures.’ (54)

The Cambrian explosion is merely one example among many that have been uncovered since the time of Charles Darwin which demonstrates that the theory of evolution through natural selection is not sufficient to explain all life as it exists on the earth today. If natural and materialistic causes are not sufficient to explain life on earth, then it is not logical to hold, as aggressive atheists do, that everything should be explained without reference to God or the supernatural. Simply from looking at the scientific evidence, it seems more logical and less biased to conclude that something beyond natural processes, even God, may have been involved in creating the world. Thus, the first commitment that unites aggressive atheists, when examined, proves to be an insufficient basis for totally denying the existence of God.

The second commitment that aggressive atheists share is the belief that religion, especially in its organized forms, is perhaps the source of the greatest evil in the world, both throughout human history and even until the present. This criticism is usually offered to show that not only is religion false, but it is also harmful. It cannot, and indeed should not be denied that many hideous and evil acts have been committed throughout history in the name of God and religion. The present author will readily admit that events such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and cruel acts of anti-Semitism were barbarous, and if these events represent the true nature of belief in God and religion, then God and religion are indeed evil. However, upon inspecting the evidence, what becomes apparent is not that such events represent religion as a whole; rather, evil events conducted in the name of religion often violate core religious teachings! This is especially the case when one examines violence and atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. Central Christian teachings such as the importance of an all-encompassing love for God and others (cf. Matt. 22:37-40) and injunctions toward passive non-resistance (cf. Matt. 5:38-42) are blatantly violated when people act in the wicked and vile ways that aggressive atheists continually mention. Instead of showing the evil nature of religion, atrocities committed in the name of God and Christianity demonstrate how wicked people naturally are apart from a relationship with God. In bringing up this example, aggressive atheists have actually demonstrated that human beings are so naturally evil that they can take something as good as the belief in God and turn it into something cruel that can be used as a weapon to harm others. In terms of this second commitment of militant atheism, then, it appears that atheists have correctly identified a problem (namely, evil committed in the name of religion), but have incorrectly diagnosed the illness (religion as the illness rather than a corrupted human nature).

The third and final commitment that binds aggressive atheists to one another is the insistence that the world will be a better and more habitable place for all humanity without the presence of religion in it. Aggressive atheists even propose an ethical system apart from religious teachings that will govern human behavior in a world without belief in God: humanism. In this humanistic system, it is believed that people will treat one another with acceptance, tolerance, and mutual respect simply on the basis of shared humanity, without reference to a divine creator or judgment to come. While there are many problems with this approach, the biggest problem is perhaps the fact that this atheistic understanding ignores the origins of humanism. Humanism began as a desire to treat other human beings with respect based on the belief that all people have been specially created in the image of God. With the dawn of the Renaissance and even more so with the Enlightenment, reference to God was removed from public affairs, but this belief in the inherent dignity of humanity was retained, and thus humanism has persisted until the present day. The problem, then, with the proposal of aggressive atheists is that they have failed to recognize that a belief in the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of humankind cannot long exist apart from the belief in a common creator who has created humanity in His image. If human beings are simply a highly evolved form of animal life and have not been made in the image of the divine creator, then there is no unquestionable reason why all human beings should be treated equally. Furthermore, if human beings abandon a belief in the general fatherhood of God and the unity of the human race based on the image of God, there is nothing to stop them from oppressing, harming, and even killing one another. In other words, it is highly unlikely that humanism can remain as a workable ethical system for long apart from a belief in God. Rampant villainy in the name of atheism is not yet common. However, given the eradication of belief in God and the certainty of future judgment which aggressive atheists desire, it will only be a matter of time until people come to the conclusion that treating other human beings as equal is optional. Upon examination, then, this third and final commitment of aggressive atheism is unsound, and it cannot logically and consistently be maintained that the world will be a better place to live in without the presence of belief in God and religion.

Check back next week for the third and final installment of my series on "Aggressive Atheism"!

Stephen Colbert Interviews NT Wright

I just came across this-I thought it might be of interest to some of you!

Aggressive Atheism: A Brief Summary

If you pay any attention to the latest books that have been released, you might have noticed that a group of authors has been releasing a series of books denying the existence of God and actually arguing that the continued belief in God is harmful. This movement, called "aggressive atheism" by some, is by no means disconnected from the past, but it is certainly a new development in the history of philosophic and religious thought. Because of this, I spent a significant amount of time reading the leading works put out by the new aggressive atheists about a year ago, and wrote a paper in response. Over the next couple of weeks, I'd like to share portions of this paper with you so that you could also be aware of what's happening in the realm of secular thinking and how we as Christians can best respond to it. If you have any feedback or comments on my reflections, please don't hesitate to let me know!

Aggressive Atheism: Thinking Hard, or Hardly Thinking?

Since the beginning of human history, there have been individuals who have denied the existence of God for various reasons. In King David’s day, the fact that some were denying the one who created them was demonstrated when David declared in Psalm 14:1, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Even though this belief, or rather disbelief, has been occurring for thousands of years, something new has appeared in the present day and age which is challenging many thinking people and causing them to question traditional beliefs and answers: a phenomenon known as “aggressive” or “militant” atheism. Through examining the beliefs of this phenomenon, offering a Christian response to it, and then presenting an alternative view of God and Christianity, it is hoped that this paper will offer the thoughtful individual much-needed answers to challenges being raised today. Atheism certainly has its origins in the distant past, but it is rearing its head in the modern world in a new way, and as a result a fresh presentation of biblical answers is in order. Through this presentation, it should become apparent to all that belief in the God revealed in the Bible as the creator and sustainer of the universe is the most reasonable and likely explanation of things as they appear today.

Aggressive Atheism: A Brief Summary

As a person begins to study the phenomenon of aggressive atheism, three very vocal authors immediately confront them: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. While these three authors, and countless others whom they represent, undoubtedly have varying reasons for rejecting the existence of God, one underlying commitment unites them all: a commitment to understanding all things through entirely natural and materialistic explanations. These explanations offered by aggressive atheists often rely on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection to explain the origins of biological life, human society, religious belief, and even the universe itself. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins declared his commitment to natural and materialistic explanations by stating:

Design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer? Chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other one regresses to it. Natural selection is the real solution. It is the only workable solution that has ever been suggested. And it is not only a workable solution, it is a solution of stunning elegance and power. (121)

Because aggressive atheism insists on explaining all things through entirely natural and materialistic means, this necessarily implies that a supernatural being, such as God, cannot be involved in any significant way in the universe. As a result, all three of the authors in question reject the existence of God as being extremely unlikely, and regard as illogical and unfounded the belief that God has anything to do with the universe, the earth, or humankind.

A second commitment that unites aggressive atheists is the belief that religion, especially in its organized forms, is perhaps the source of the greatest evil in the world, both throughout human history and even until the present. Militant atheists spend a significant amount of time in their works pointing out the atrocities that religion and belief in God have supposedly caused in the past: wars, genocide, ethnic cleansing, hatred, bigotry, inquisitions, pedophilia, and the like. Christopher Hitchens, who wrote a book entitled God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, explains this commitment of aggressive atheism in the following words:

The level of intensity fluctuates according to time and place, but it can be stated as a truth that religion does not, and in the long run cannot, be content with its own marvelous claims and sublime assurances. It must seek to interfere with the lives of nonbelievers, or heretics, or adherents of other faiths. It may speak about the bliss of the next world, but it wants power in this one. This is only to be expected. It is, after all, wholly man-made. And it does not have the confidence in its own preachings even to allow coexistence between different faiths. (17)

Since from the perspective of aggressive atheists, the very nature of religion is corrupt, it is seen as inevitable that religion will lead to evil and atrocities committed in the name of God. In order to demonstrate their point, aggressive atheists often cite examples such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Jewish pogroms, and even modern-day ethnic cleansing. Since the nature of religion lends itself to evil, then, aggressive atheists suggest that if religion is allowed to persist into the future, it will necessarily lead to more malignant evil and atrocities. Reformation of religion is no solution to this problem either, for reformation would merely be like putting nice, new clothes on an already corrupted and dying person. The solution is not reformation, then; it is to dispose of religion once and for all, so that it will not continue to infect the world with its vileness.

Related to the second point, one final commitment that binds aggressive atheists together is the insistence that the world will be a better and more habitable place for all humanity without the presence of religion in it. In the conclusion to his short book, Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:

Clearly, it is time we learned to meet our emotional needs without embracing the preposterous. We must find ways to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity-birth, marriage, death-without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality. Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish be widely recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is. And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world. (88)

For aggressive atheists, the prospect that religion will soon be eradicated from the face of the earth seems unlikely. Regardless, they are optimistic that given time, better education, and logical thinking, the majority of human beings will see that belief in God is one of the greatest delusions that has ever overtaken humanity, and they will cast it off like the restrictive chain that it is. When this happens, aggressive atheists believe that all human beings will be better off, accepting and embracing one another simply based on the common humanity that they share, rather than on the basis of an imaginary judgment to come or the fear of punishment.

I hope that this brief summary of aggressive atheism has been informative to you, and that it will cause you to think deeply about how we can best respond to these issues. Check back next week for another blog entitled, "Aggressive Atheism: A Christian Response"!

Are We Willing To Bear The Shame And Reproach Of Christ?

There is an interesting passage in that great chapter of faith, Hebrews 11, that I have been thinking about lately. The chapter describes a number of incredible men and women of God who through faith in the unseen God lived extraordinary lives. In particular, the chapter talks about Moses. It states:

Hebrews 11:24-26: "By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward."

This passage is fascinating for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that it raises the question, "How in the world did Moses know of Christ in general, or about the reproach of Christ in particular?" Regardless of how he knew these things, that he did know and bear the shame and reproach of Christ is clear, and in many ways he served as a type and shadow of the greater prophet who was yet to come (cf. Deut. 18:15-22).

The one key thing that fascinates me about Hebrews 11:24-26 is the way in which it speaks of the "reproach of Christ". What is this reproach of Christ that Moses sought after, and what effect should it have on our lives? One of the best ways to answer this question is through looking at the broader context of Hebrews. Later on, we find this same key word ("reproach") in a similar yet distinct discussion of the efficacy of the Levitical Priesthood. We read:

Hebrews 13:9-14: "Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited. We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come."

This passage is clearly referring back to the practice (instituted by the law of Moses) that the bodies of certain sacrificed animals were to be taken outside of the camp to an "unclean" place and there burned (cf. Lev. 16:27). In keeping with this practice, Jesus Himself was taken outside of the "camp" (or to be specific, the city) and given up as an offering to make atonement for sin. In doing this, Jesus died not only as a common criminal, but also He also died bearing an unspeakable burden of shame, reproach, and wretchedness that we can barely grasp being so far separated by time. While we may not see it, the idea of a "crucified Messiah" was a hideous idea to those within the Judaism of first-century Palestine, and it was this very horror that led many (if not most) Jews to reject the one that God had sent to be both Lord and Messiah.

If all this is true, then, what are the implications for us? Sure, Jesus died a hideous death, and in doing so He became associated with all that is vile, lowly, and rejected by the system of this world, but does this really mean that we need to live the same way? You certainly can choose to reject this way of life ("the way of the cross"), but your rejection will not be without consequences. Consider this passage from the book of Revelation:

Revelation 14:17-20: "And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, and he also had a sharp sickle. Then another angel, the one who has power over fire, came out from the altar; and he called with a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, saying, “Put in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, because her grapes are ripe.” So the angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the clusters from the vine of the earth, and threw them into the great wine press of the wrath of God. And the wine press was trodden outside the city, and blood came out from the wine press, up to the horses’ bridles, for a distance of two hundred miles."

This is a graphic picture of the horrible fate awaiting those who reject the grace of God. In this picture, however, notice the language: we read specifically that the judgment of God (here referred to as a wine press) is executed "outside the city", a place which we have already discovered is associated with shame and reproach in the Bible. What should we gather from this? Each person is presented with a choice: you can choose to identify yourself with Jesus Christ, who through His atoning life, death, and resurrection died to make atonement for sin for all those who will trust in Him, or you can choose to go your own way. With the first option, you will inevitably take upon yourself the shame, reproach, and ostracization of Christ, with the second, you will bear the full weight of the wrath of God as the penalty for your sin at the end of the age. Regardless, there is a choice to be made, and it must be made soon. You cannot be a friend of this world and everything that it stands for, and at the same time be a friend of Jesus Christ. You must either serve the lamb of Calvary who went outside the city to suffer and die for sinners, or you can serve yourself and see where it takes you. The choice is yours.

I Can't Believe It-Keith Green

I just came across another Keith Green song that has been stuck in my mind for the past few stays, so I thought I would share it with you (so that it can be stuck in your mind also!). The song is called "I Can't Believe It", and the lyrics go like this:

There is nothing new
I could give to you
Just a life that's torn
waiting to be born

Rivers overflow
friends may come and go
But you've been by my side
with every tear I've cried

Oh, I can't believe that You'd give everything for me
I can't believe it no, I can't believe it no, no
I know You never lied and so it's just my foolish pride
That I just won't receive it yeah
It's so hard to receive it in my heart and make the start with you

Help me, help me now
I just don't know how
You know, I've been so alone
please melt this heart of stone

Lah, lah, lah, lah

Oh, I can't believe that You'd give everything for me
I can't believe it no, I can't believe it no, no
I know You never lied and so I'm giving up my pride
So I can receive it yeah
I just want to receive it in my heart and make the start with you

Lah, lah, lah

I hope you enjoy this, and that God uses it to challenge and encourage you today!

How Should We Respond To Swine Flu (H1N1) In Light Of Scripture?

It has been fascinating in the past few days to keep tract of some of the news coverage following the recent outbreak of "Swine Flu". Some people are buying face masks so that they can protect themselves against germs; others are trying desperately to get whatever medicine they can to boost their immune system and be protected against the disease; and still others (such as the Egyptian government) are taking seemingly irrational steps to prevent the spread of this killer (killing 300,000 pigs, which don't actually spread the virus to people). In light of all of this frenzy of activity, I find it interesting that very few people are stopping to ask the seemingly obvious question: Why?

Why is it that this is happening? I understand that viruses mutate, and that when the human immune system is confronted with something it hasn't seen before, it takes longer to respond. But that's not what I'm getting at-why is it that God has allowed (or caused, depending on your perspective) this virus to come onto the scene and cause such havoc and terror?

I certainly don't pretend to have an answer to this question, but I think it's a question worth asking nevertheless. It seems that ever since the germ theory of disease was established as fact, the role of God (or other spiritual powers, for that matter) in disease and pestilence has been emphasized less and less, and the role of germs and microbes has risen to greater and greater prominence. This is definitely an understandable development for atheists and agnostics, but why is there such a great turning away from God among those who claim to know Him? Do we really no longer believe that God is enthroned in the heavens, and He does as He pleases?

Consider these few verses from the Scriptures:

God As Sovereign Over Pestilence And Plague

Leviticus 26:23-25: "And if by these things you are not turned to Me, but act with hostility against Me, then I will act with hostility against you; and I, even I, will strike you seven times for your sins. I will also bring upon you a sword which will execute vengeance for the covenant; and when you gather together into your cities, I will send pestilence among you, so that you shall be delivered into enemy hands."

Ezekiel 14:19: "Or if I should send a plague against that country and pour out My wrath in blood on it to cut off man and beast from it..."

Psalm 78:50-51: "He leveled a path for His anger; He did not spare their soul from death, but gave over their life to the plague, and smote all the firstborn in Egypt, the first issue of their virility in the tents of Ham."

God As The One Who Delivers And Rescues From Pestilence And Plague

Ezekiel 14:19-20: ""Or if I should send a plague against that country and pour out My wrath in blood on it to cut off man and beast from it, even though Noah, Daniel and Job were in its midst, as I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “they could not deliver either their son or their daughter. They would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.”"

Psalm 91:1-3: "He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. I will say to the LORD, “My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust!” For it is He who delivers you from the snare of the trapper and from the deadly pestilence."

So what is it that I am trying to get at from these verses? Please understand, I am not suggesting that we should not take every precaution necessary to stay healthy (I believe we should), but I am suggesting that the responses we are witnessing are a good picture of how far people in general have drifted from a biblical worldview.

From a broadly biblical worldview, we might suggest that God is the one who is in control of all disease, sickness, and plague. From examining the Bible, we can say with confidence that at least at times, illness is a judgment from God on sinful men and women, and what is more, God is the one who is able to deliver from such illness. This understanding of God's control over disease was not radically out of keeping with what was believed elsewhere in the ancient world, either. It was common for people really up until the Renaissance and even more so with the Enlightenment to see physical illness as having a spiritual element to it, and it was not until the rise of Deism as a popular way of thinking that this changed on a broad scale. Now, most people who claim to believe in God don't actually believe in practice (they might in theory) that God is fully in control of disease; they actually believe that God set the world up a long time ago, and now it is operating on natural principles. This is classical Deism, and it is a fitting description of what many (if not most) western Christians believe today.

So to return to the question which sparked this post, how then should we respond to the Swine Flu? As I said, we should certainly do everything in our power to remain healthy, to prevent the spread of this disease, and to help those who are now suffering from it. At the same time, we need to recognize that this illness has not taken God by surprise, and He is fully capable to rescue as He pleases and deliver over to illness by the same token. We need to remember in the midst of this entire situation that there is a spiritual dimension to this story, one which will certainly not be told by your local news media. As you are watching the news coverage, then, and hearing people panic, worry, and act irrationally, pay attention, but also remember that God is in control, and that this disease ought to ultimately remind us to make sure we are right with God ourselves. 

Luke 13:1-5: ""Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."