November 6, 2011

Lessons from the Least

In a separate post, I’ve written about the significance of the “widows and orphans” motif in the Bible. I’d like to turn our attention, however, to how closely this follows with other ancient near eastern (ANE) societies. It turns out that care for orphans and widows is a very common concern in the ANE. In the April 1962 edition of the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, F. Charles Fensham wrote that the wisdom literature (a form of social protocol) and legal codes of ancient Sumer (as early as the 25th century) venerated any king who was strong enough to care for widows and orphans. Hammurabi himself additionally claimed that the gods had called him “to make justice appear in the land, to destroy the evil and wicked, and so that the strong might not oppress the weak.” In the epilogue to his famous 18th-century code, he says that he has set up these laws “so that the strong might not oppress the weak, to give justice to the orphan and to the widows.” Fensham further points out that the king is required to obey these commands because he is the living representative of Samas, the sun god and lord of justice.

In ancient Egypt, caring for the poor, widow, and orphan is the boast of any strong and benevolent king. Khety III exhorts his son, telling Merikare that a good king does not confiscate an orphan’s property. In the city Ugarit in ancient Syria, the Aqhat Epic tells of King Keret whose son rebukes him, saying: “You did not judge the cause of the widow. You did not adjudicate the case of the wretched. You did not drive out them that preyed upon the poor. You did not feed the orphan before you or the widow behind you.”

So what does this have to do with defending the Christian faith? Well, I actually have three points to make here:

  1. Morality is universal. From ancient times the world over, certain behaviors, attitudes, and actions are seen as good and others as deplorable. People have not always followed their own laws, and sometimes they have created oppressive and violent laws, but the greatest and best of civilization has always been lawful and moral. More on this at a later date, but suffice it to say that things like marriage, sexuality, and life are always seen as important and sacred in a sense.
  2. The writers of the Bible were not barbaric, ignorant nomads. This seems very obvious to most, but I’ve often been surprised to read some of the more antagonistic atheists who write that the Bible should be rejected because its human penmen had neither the intelligence nor the sensibility to make them worthy of believing or following. On the contrary, I believe these secular accounts of care and concern for the weakest and poorest in society inform us that ancient near-eastern (ANE) peoples at least were relatively civil and intelligent. They were able to work past the might-makes-right mentality and see that humans are inherently valuable.
  3. The above two points lead me to also believe that humans may actually be “devolving” intellectually, socially, and spiritually. Ancient social and legal structures were both complex and beautiful in spite of their flaws. The religious systems of their day were equally complex, and they interconnected various aspects of nature and reality as carefully as any Greek philosophical system. They were absolutely wrong in many of their practices and beliefs, of course, but they were at least as sophisticated as any modern worldview- pluralism, atheism, and the like. We can see in just these few references an attempt at a just social and legal code, a world in which honor was more important than money or possessions. This is in stark contrast to the world we live in today. Atheism is a sophomoric (lit. “wise fool”) attempt at a philosophy, and many in America at least have adopted pragmatism unwittingly. Greed and materialism are rampant in the developed world, and many undeveloped nations are either indifferent to or antagonistic toward the weak and helpless. How have the mighty fallen?
If you haven’t done so yet, compare the above quotes to the verses referenced in my other post (link above). I think you’ll see that the motif of orphans and widows is astonishingly similar to the secular references above. This tells us that God has set an absolute morality in our hearts, that the Bible is the product of intelligent peoples, and that it is quite possible that humanity is unraveling rather than unifying and developing its further potential. If you don’t believe me, Google the Dalits of India, check out abortion statistics, or check out the number of kids in foster care near you. If we want to live up to our own past, we have a long way to go.
Share

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

September 3, 2011

An Open Letter to David Cloud

Casting Crowns

Bro. Cloud,

These days, I’m typically way too busy to write in this format, but an article wound up in my email that I find impossible to ignore. This article condemned West Coast Baptist Bible College and its founding church Lancaster Baptist Church. Those who know me best know that I rarely step up to defend Bible colleges, so this is a bit rare for me. In the article, you attacked WCBBC for adapting “CCM” music for its church services. The songs in question are Casting Crowns’ “Prayer for a Friend“, Hillsong’s “Stronger“, and MercyMe’s “Word of God Speak”, and I’ve attached links to websites that print out the lyrics for those who are unfamiliar. I found your article to be a bit all over the map, quite honestly, but I think I can boil down your primary statements to the following three items:

 

1. The style of CCM songs is inherently  sensual, seductive, sentimental, rebellious, and hypnotic.

2. The doctrines espoused by CCM music are unsound due to the connection with the charismatic movement.

3. Involvement in CCM music will lead churches and individuals to apostasy and ecumenism.

 

MercyMe

Let’s look at the first area: style. I am no expert on music theory, so I’m not going to address the specifics regarding chord structures. I do, however, think that I can address the issue of style. Is CCM music sensual and seductive? I assume by using these words, Bro. Cloud, you mean that the music itself is somehow erotic. To be honest, this seems a bit of a stretch when it comes to any of the songs cited. Perhaps historically some musicians masquerading as Christian were guilty of this, but CCM has matured significantly over the years. Furthermore, I would like to know in what way the music can be said to be rebellious. Is rebellion a spirit or an action, or can it be communicated strictly through music? The lyrics of the songs are far from rebellious, so you must mean that the music itself is inherently rebellious. Musically, the mood of the selected songs ranges from melancholy to contemplative to (dare I say it?) worshipful. The music itself is not harsh, grating, loud, or even energetic. Therefore, I must assume that you mean something in the chord structure is inherently rebellious, and yet there is nothing that seems to drive a listener to rebellion against anything.

It seems to me that all music can affect our emotions and thoughts. It can give us energy, make us sad, or fill us with joy. It can excite or calm. There’s nothing wrong with music driving us emotionally; it’s simply cause and effect. But what happens if the shoe is on the other foot? Does your church include an invitational hymn, Bro. Cloud? I sincerely doubt they sing “Onward Christian Soldiers” during that time. No, they probably sing something more like “Is Your All on the Altar?”, a hymn with all the plaintive bleating of a lost lamb. We choose songs that set the tone for what is being communicated, and the marching of the Army of the Lord is not appropriate for saints and sinners responding to the message. I daresay many have felt the call of God as a result of a well-placed hymn, and many a mission’s conference has benefited from a soloist’s rendition of “People Need the Lord”, which was also originally classified as CCM.

What about the doctrine of CCM music? Does the fact that charismatics create worship music mean that CCM music is infected with doctrinal distortions? In a word- no. Sure, there’s some chaff to be driven away, and that will happen in time. But really, Bro. Cloud, can you say much about a song like “Joy Bells”? That’s in most hymnals, and offers a cheesy, whimsical version of Christianity that flies in the face of human experience. What about “Every Day with Jesus”? I submit that every day with Jesus is not sweeter than the day before! Some days with Jesus, you burst into tears between the car and the front door. Some days with Jesus, you cling to Him because you don’t know what to do with what you faced that day. There is a richness in the bitterest moment on earth that- while not joyful or sweet- is still of tremendous value in the Christian walk. My point, Bro. Cloud, is that every style of music in Christian history includes some less-inspired lyrics. In your missions conferences, do you sing “We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations”? If you do, then you sing a doctrinally-unsound hymn about the Church ushering in the Kingdom of God. Yet this song is in most hymnals. Do you sing “Joy to the World” as a Christmas song? This song refers to the 2nd Coming and has nothing to do with the Nativity and creates doctrinal confusion at the very least.

Fanny Crosby, the Ecumenical Hymn-writer

Now, about the songs mentioned: let’s analyze them. How about “Stronger” by Hillsong, since that is from a Pentecostal/A of G church? The death and resurrection of Christ, salvation and atonement, sinfulness of mankind, deity and eternality of Christ, etc. are all affirmed in this one song. That beats the socks off of some hymns! What the song does not mention in any explicit way is the so-called baptism of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, or “health and wealth” gospel. In other words, it in no way endorses false doctrine and is biblically sound. Therefore, I do not see any reason to avoid the song in a church service.

So what should we do, considering the denominational background of the musicians? Nothing! We Baptists love Fanny Crosby hymns, caring little that she regularly attended Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Reformed churches, was involved in the holiness movement, and finally settled with the Methodist church. Isaac Watts (the founder of English hymnody) followed after Reformed theology, which most IFBs would deny. John Newton, the author of “Amazing Grace” was Anglican. We accept hymns written by men and women with beliefs contrary to Scripture because the hymns themselves are sound; why treat other Christian music differently? (Incidentally, Isaac Watts desired strongly to break away from the Christian music of his day and write “original songs of Christian experience.” Is CCM categorically any different?)

“Word of God Speak” is by MercyMe, and it contains none of the mysticism it is accused of. Frankly, your accusations here absolutely baffle me. Devoid of any direction to view the “Word of God” as anything other than its normal, straight-forward meaning, we are left to assume that the song is either addressing the Bible or Christ Himself (John 1). Because either could be meant, the phrase probably has a double meaning. It calls the believer to shift his focus from himself to God, listening to Him rather than praying selfishly. It also specifically references the holiness and majesty of God. Do you pray in secret, beyond the “quiet” and “beyond the noise”, Bro. Cloud? I sincerely hope so, for that is where our Father hears us, and it is only by praying there that God will reward us openly. God speaks in a still, small voice, and it is for this voice (metaphorically speaking) that the singer in this song yearns.

Isaac Watts, Nonconformist

Finally, there is “Prayer for a Friend” by Casting Crowns. Lyrically, Casting Crowns is typically the most deep of the three groups mentioned. What is perhaps most disturbing by your accusations, sir, is that we’ve all been right where the writer of this song has been. We’ve all known someone that we cannot help, who must make a decision on their own, and we have no other recourse but to beg God to intervene. The song is not one of hopelessness, but one of recognizing where Hope comes from. This song acknowledges the power of God to move and shape our lives, and I think we can all appreciate that.

The last major accusation that you make, Bro. Cloud, is that this music of this sort is a litmus test for apostasy. You tell your readers that churches which adapt CCM music- much less use it in an unadapted form- will no doubt bend toward liberalism and unorthodox practices and beliefs. I beg to differ. It seems to me that the message you are sending reveals apostasy of a very different sort, much after the mold of the Pharisees. You see, the entire article you wrote, as well as the general contents of your website reveals something: an obsession with sin. And being sin-obsessed is always wrong, whether we call it an “addiction” in which we compulsively, habitually contemplate or perform sinful action, or whether we obsess over avoiding anything that we think might be connected to sin. It’s a sort of asceticism. If you look hard enough, Mr. Cloud, everything is tied to sin somehow. Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress” was used as a theme for the Swedish socialist movement in the 1800s, in the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game, and on television shows from HBO’s Deadwood to The Simpsons. Astronomical terms, months, and days of the week are all tied to pagan deities. Christmas and Easter are both tied to pagan holidays. If you look for sin in everything, you will find it. However, not everything about a culture is inherently sinful and may in fact be redeemed from out of that culture. To be sure, the rock movement was birthed in a time of sex, drugs, and rebellion. That doesn’t mean that the style must always be tied to those themes, and it doesn’t mean those themes are present anytime someone uses a guitar and a drum set. Much CCM music is produced by people who aren’t IFB, but then again the IFB’s have never tried. Who can blame them, when Ron Hamilton can’t even escape the penetrating gaze of a Pharisee? If you are going to focus on being biblically sound, sir, you had best be following the whole counsel of God.

Let me close by telling you a bit of my personal experience. I began in a church that taught much as you do. There are wonderful people there, and, in spite of the things that I had to unlearn from that time, they taught me to love God and to appreciate the brilliant and profound depth of the hymns. As I grew older, I went to college and then seminary, discovering a very strong and inconsistent bias against anything that wasn’t IFB approved. The older I got, the more I questioned, and fewer people had good answers. I left the IFB movement in favor of a church on the outside, one that strives to avoid the Phariseeism of the past. But, it does more than simply avoid an error. I learn about God’s Word there outside the paradigm of IFB asceticism and extreme guilt. I’m re-reading my Bible, gaining new insight for the first time in a long time. I’m learning to love to worship God in song, and I’m proud to say we sing hymns, gospel, and modern worship music. It’s Christ-centered through and through. I’m learning compassion for the lost, broken, and hurting in ways that are far more real than I ever thought possible. The church I attend is biblical, and it is filled with Christians from all walks of life who are all on this incredible journey of faith.

In the end I must thank you, Bro. Cloud, for reminding me again of what God has saved me from becoming, and for giving me a chance to express my theology of worship in this very unique setting. Good day.

Share

Leave a Comment

Filed under Bible, Doctrine, Philosophy

April 24, 2011

Should Christians Celebrate Easter?

About this time every year, a small-yet-vocal segment of the Christian populace gets riled up about Easter. They have several reasons why Easter shouldn’t be celebrated: biblical, historical, and cultural. In the strictly biblical sense, Easter isn’t in the Bible. Oh, don’t get me wrong, the resurrection is the central focus of the gospel message, but the word “Easter” isn’t in the original languages. The Greek word for “Passover” (Πάσχα) is translated “Easter” once in the KJV (Acts 12:4), but this is a rare instance of dynamic equivalency in the translation. In short, Easter isn’t a biblical holiday, nor are we commanded to celebrate “Easter”.

The history behind Easter is a bit of a muddled one. It was never celebrated by the Apostles, but there is evidence that Pascha (from the Greek word for passover mentioned above) was a formalized holy day during the 2nd century. Not all Christians celebrated Easter, however, because Scripture tells us that we are free from following the Old Testament Law and traditions. This controversy continued throughout the centuries, not only because of Pascha’s tie to the OT Law, but also because the actual date of the resurrection (Nissan 14) is based on the lunar calendar (360 day year, with 30 days per month) and not the solar/Gregorian calendar that we use today. In other words, Jesus resurrected on the first day of the Jewish week, which isn’t always Sunday on our calendar.

The Protestant Reformation saw many Christians reject all Church holidays as “Pagan”. They did this because the Catholic church often took pagan or cultural traditions and added a religious significance to them. While some have stated that there is a link between Asherah or Ashteroth (“The Queen of Heaven” in the Bible) and the name Easter, I haven’t found much evidence to back up this position. It’d be a reach to expect a Germanic or English culture to name a holiday after a Middle-Eastern deity. There’s really not much of a linguistic connection either. However, a former deity of the Germanic peoples, Eostre, did manage to get her name assigned to our month of April– Eostur-monath. The Venerable Bede mentions that by the 8th century actual worship of Eostre had died out, and “Eostur-monath” became known as the Paschal month. If Bede is to be believed (and not everyone thinks he is always truthful about paganism), Eostre was a goddess of the light or dawn, however, others suggest she may have been yet another fertility symbol.

This leads us to another issue culturally– rabbits and eggs. The rabbit- or more properly, the hare-  has been related to fertility rites for untold centuries. Eggs were painted and given by Zoroastrians centuries ago, and it has been supposed that their tradition was added to folklore sometime after that. Some Orthodox Christians in Europe painted their eggs red to symbolize the death of Christ on the Cross, but others simply boiled their eggs with flowers to tint them in celebration of spring. Protestant Germans kept the tradition of coloring and eating eggs at Easter to remind their children of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, but they also continued this tradition throughout the springtime at least to differentiate themselves from the Catholics, who would not eat eggs during Lent. It was the German Protestants that were responsible- at least in part- for bringing this tradition of colored eggs and the Easter Hare to America in the 1700s.

So, the million-dollar question is: what do we do with this information? Should we abandon Easter due to its connection with Paganism? Well, Romans 14 would have us answer: it’s up to you. You may choose to set certain days aside to commemorate the Resurrection of Christ, or you may choose to recognize the significance of this event throughout the year. However, if I could make a few comments in light of what we have seen…

  1. Celebrating the Resurrection on Sunday rather than Nissan 14 is  not a biblical issue. Christians should be educated regarding Jewish holy days and realize that the calendars don’t line up. This doesn’t mean that Easter as a celebration is a bad idea.
  2. The fact that our word “Easter” is connected to the name of a pagan deity is irrelevant. First of all, I’m not aware of anyone that actually worships Eostre. Secondly, a number of our English words are associated with paganism- days of the week or month, the aurora, the planets, etc.
  3. I’m not aware of anyone who sees a rabbit or a colored egg and thinks about fertility or sexuality. Well, we may say “multiply like rabbits”, but that’s about it. Whether or not we should tell children that the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus are real is another issue entirely.
  4. I’m not really bothered by the Catholic or Protestant churches (and, yes, Baptists, I know there’s some pride in that not everyone was a part of the Reformation) taking traditions and using them for their own purposes. Isn’t a big part of Christianity taking that which has no significance apart from God and giving it significance? There is much in a culture that may be redeemed.
  5. Easter Eggs are a creative, interactive way to teach children about the Passion Week and the Resurrection.

 

Share

Leave a Comment

Filed under Bible, Doctrine, Philosophy

December 24, 2010

God Bless Us: Observations from “A Christmas Carol”

In my humble opinion, you’re virtually a Scrooge if you don’t have a favorite version of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol somewhere in your house, or at least watch one of its many incarnations sometime during the Christmas season. It might be the Owen and Lockhart version from 1939 or the one with Patrick Stewart in 2000. I grew up loving Mickey’s Christmas Carol, but we watched the Flintstones A Christmas Carol today with our son. Even these cartoon versions have some incredible worth. First, a little background.

Dickens originally titled his work A Christmas Carol in Prose, and he titled the five sections of his book “staves” rather than “chapters” to maintain the musical theme of his work. His choice of the word “carol” is pretty interesting in itself, since Christmas carols almost always refer to Christ’s nativity. In fact, one of the oldest carols on record is from the 4th century, written by a bishop named Ambrose:

Come, thou Redeemer of the earth,
Come testify thy virgin birth:
All lands admire, all times applaud:
Such is the birth that fits our God.

Forth from his chamber goeth he,
That royal home of purity,
A giant in twofold substance one,
Rejoicing now his course to run.

From God the Father he proceeds,
To God the Father back he speeds;
Runs out his course to death and hell,
Returns on God’s high throne to dwell.

O Equal to thy Father, thou!
Gird on thy fleshly mantle now;
The weakness of our mortal state
With deathless might invigorate.

All laud, eternal Son, to thee
Whose advent sets thy people free,
Whom with the Father we adore,
And Holy Ghost, for evermore.

Dickens would have thought no differently about what a Christmas carol should proclaim, for carols were almost exclusively about Christ even in his day. Even his choice of names for Scrooge’s employee- Bob Cratchit- is a hint at Dickens’ intention. “Cratchit” comes from an archaic word (crèche), which refers to a nativity scene. However, the thoroughly Christian perspective of Dickens’ writing is much more beautifully woven in the fabric of his prose. Remember those staves I mentioned? Dickens makes a reference to the gospel in each stave:

  • In stave 1, Jacob Marley, Scrooge’s late business partner says: “Why did I walk through crowds of fellow-beings with my eyes turned down, and never raise them to that blessed Star which led the Wise Men to a poor abode!”
  • In stave 2, Scrooge asks the Ghost of Christmas Past what its business is with him, and the Spirit answers him: “Your reclamation”, a word that, according to Webster’s 1828 dictionary, means “to call back from error, wandering, or transgression.”
  • In stave 3, Bob Cratchit says of Tiny Tim: “He told me, coming home, that he hoped the people saw him in the church, because he was a cripple, and it might be pleasant to them to remember upon Christmas Day, Who made lame beggars walk, and blind men see.”
  • In stave 4, young Peter Cratchit reads of Christ’s love for children in Mark 9:36, and Dickens says of Scrooge’s thoughts: “Where had Scrooge heard those words? Why did he not go on?”
  • In stave 5, Dickens said of the now-changed Scrooge: “It was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!”
Share

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

July 24, 2010

Smell the Color 9

Chris Rice wrote a song with that ridiculous title to explain what it’s like to believe in spite of doubt. The title itself is a nonsense phrase for a very obvious reason: “9″ is neither a color nor an odor. You can’t interact with the number 9 at all. You can have 9 pairs of socks, 9 Skittles, 9 chairs, and so forth, but it is impossible to interact with a number in any way. It’s an abstract concept. A necessary one, by the way, but abstract nonetheless.

Which leads me to the point of today’s post. We said last week that, if the universe is matter, energy, and time (at minimum), then whatever caused the universe must be nonphysical and timeless- something or Someone that is truly transcendent. Whoever or whatever existed before and beyond our universe would have to be capable of creating and sustaining a universe intelligently. It would have to be capable of planning the universe and performing actions upon the universe.

Atheists will sometimes say that the universe could be listed among the short lists of things that exist of their own necessity. Numbers have to exist, else the universe would be a place of nonsense. The universe, some would claim, also must exist. The laws of nature exist of their own necessity, perhaps, since our scientific laws are mere descriptions of how matter and energy interacts. But must matter exist? Protons, neutrons, and electrons do not have to be here, nor do they have to exist in their present forms. The scientific laws could have been very different if the subatomic particles that make up our universe were any different at all. Fortunately, most naturalists and atheists don’t resort to this line of thinking, as it’s a very difficult to defend. No, Whoever or whatever created the world must exist of Its own necessity, and It must exist beyond our universe.

Philosophers would point out that only two such categories exist. First, the something: an abstract object, such as numbers. But, as I’ve pointed out, numbers themselves are not capable of interaction, creation, or causation. That’s the entire point of them being abstract rather than concrete. Having ruled out the something (abstract objects/numbers), we are left with Someone. A transcendent Mind that is independent of a physical body is capable of existing outside of, before, and beyond the universe. This is exactly what Christians believe God to be. So in the end, the atheist that uses science as a means to prove God’s irrelevance is using the wrong tool. The answer is not in physics but in metaphysics.

Share

5 Comments

Filed under Atheism, Bible, Philosophy, Science

Tagged as , , , ,

July 17, 2010

Nobody and Nothing

One of the most memorable parts of Homer’s Odyssey is when Odysseus and his men land on the island where Polyphemus the cyclops lives. They are captured and are doomed to be eaten by Polyphemus, but Polyphemus tells Odysseus he will eat him last if he tells the giant his name. Odysseus tells the cyclops that his name is “Nobody”. Since the cyclops was drinking anyway, he doesn’t think much of the name and falls asleep. Odysseus and his men gouge out the eye of the cyclops, but the cyclops is unable to explain to the other giants what has happened because he keeps shouting “Nobody has hurt me!” While the cyclopes are left believing that Polyphemus is either a fool or drunk, Odysseus and his men escape. Even one-eyed brutes know that nothing cannot do something.

‘If you start asking scientific questions to scientists, you’ll find that they’re loaded with information. A good scientist has a love of knowledge and a virtually insatiable curiosity, well, at least in their field of expertise. They love to find out why something happened, when it happened, and how it happens. I’m very glad that these people are out there finding out the answers to all of these questions. However, I’ve found that many of these folks only have an apparent insatiable curiosity. Let me illustrate…

We’ve developed some pretty good theories about how and why continents, for instance, were formed. We’ve developed theories about how and why our planet was formed. We’ve developed theories for solar systems, stars, clusters of stars, galaxies, and galactic clusters. However, if you try to back it all of the way up to how and why the entire universe was formed, you’ll find a lot of folks reluctant to answer. I’m not talking about simply explaining the Big Bang theory. I’m talking about explaining how we got to a point (no pun intended) of having a singularity that needed to expand. Where did that come from?

“The Big Bang doesn’t have to answer that”, some will say. “It’s only trying to explain what happened to the singularity after it expanded.” Or, if you prefer biology, evolutionists will tell us that life developed through natural selection and random mutation from a “simple” single-celled organism. How that organism came to live originally, however, is a mystery. And there have been no successful explanations, partly because, as many have said, “Evolution doesn’t seek to explain how life was originally created. It only seeks to explain how it has developed since it began.” Every aspect of biological life has an explanation for its existence in terms of purpose and origin, but life itself has no purpose or origin. Everything from subatomic particles to entire galaxies has an explanation for its origin, some role to fill, but the entire universe itself, taken as a unit, has no purpose. Why is that? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

It’s a logical fallacy to use good, solid science to determine the function and origin of everything in the universe but then turn around and say that the universe as a whole has no function (purpose) or definable origin, or to act as if such an origin does not matter. Yet, I understand why atheists and other naturalists are reluctant to venture a guess into the origin or means by which a singularity came to be. At least when Christians speak of creation ex nihilo there is a God in back of it all to do all of the work. With naturalism, you have to start with nothing. Just try to picture nothing! Even the “void of space” isn’t really a vacuum, isn’t really a void. There’s always a little bit of something there. And there are heavenly bodies, energy, and dimensions to fill up that space. The naturalistic explanation of the universe must not include time, empty space, matter, or energy. You couldn’t even properly imagine it as sheer darkness, for that would require a place for the darkness to exist in. Without space, energy, or time in our description, science can’t even begin to explain what it was like before the universe began. (And I can’t even use the word “before” here in the chronological sense, since there is no time before the universe began. I merely mean it in the descriptive sense.)

Besides all of this, naturalism must assume that the universe is all there is, which means that it is begging the question. Naturalism assumes that observation is the only source of information and that all our observation is accurate and comprehensive, and since nothing beyond our universe can be observed with either instruments or the five senses, then nothing can exist. Of course, the moment something beyond the universe is posed as an explanation for the universe, the naturalist is immediately implying the existence of the supernatural. I suppose you could appeal to the multiverse theory, but you’ve only pushed the problem back a stage or two. Where did the multiverse come from? What created this series or cluster of universes? Then you’re back at the same problem again. If the universe is all matter and energy, then the cause of the universe must be nonphysical and transcendent. That narrows down our options significantly, now doesn’t it?

Share

Leave a Comment

Filed under Atheism, Philosophy, Science

Tagged as , , ,

July 9, 2010

God, Math, and Existence

Who or what created numbers? The Big Bang? God? I don’t really know that it matters. Now, before my Christian brethren get ready to lynch me as defecting from Theism or creationism, let me explain myself. When I’m talking about numbers, that is not the same as talking about information. There’s really only one explanation for information, and that is intelligence. Numbers themselves are simple abstract concepts. You can have two cars or chicken wings, for instance, but you cannot possess the number two all by itself. You cannot interact with the concept of “two”. We call objects, matter, energy, and so forth concrete objects. (Not to be confused with concretes, which are a very tasty treat found at Ted Drewes.) Anyway, besides being abstract, numbers also happen to be very necessary to our universe. They have to exist as a logical consequence of things (matter, energy, people, objects, etc) simply existing. They are, in a sense, uncreated. No matter how you think the universe got here, neither God nor a cosmic hiccup intentionally produced numbers. Now all of the things that numbers represent- almost- were created at some point in time. Even naturalism’s strongest adherents accept this as fact. Numbers are different, as is the whole of mathematics itself. Numbers exist because they have to.

Now, most people who are Theists believe in the self-existence of God. We believe that God exists in the same way that mathematics exists. I don’t need to explain how He exists or where He came from, really. Like numbers, the God of the Bible is self-existent. Christians do not believe in a contingent god, one that needs an explanation for how he came to be. Christians believe in a God Who is absolutely necessary for existence to even have meaning. Created gods, as John Lennox has pointed out, are a delusion, and I don’t know anybody who believes in a god who needed reason for being. Who needs to worship a being that is dependent on another being for its existence? Ought we not to worship the greater of the two, as that will be who is really in control? If the cosmos spawned God somehow, ought not we to worship the cosmos? In Christianity, God is- by definition- necessary and uncreated. If God exists, my atheist friends, He exists because of Who He is. It is the nature of His being, so to speak. Before atheists, agnostics, and Christians can hope to discuss beliefs, they must agree on the definition of the terms, and atheists and agnostics must understand what a Christian means when he says the word “God.” After proper definitions are provided, I believe we can actually accomplish something.

Share

1 Comment

Filed under Atheism, Doctrine, Philosophy

Tagged as , , ,

July 2, 2010

Existence is Futile

Every true Trekkie, at least the TNG sort anyway, will tell you that the turning point for Star Trek: TNG came with the introduction of the Borg. Before those cybernetic aliens graced the sci-fi scene, TNG was just….well, blah. We, the viewers, needed a real villain, something to make us feel that the crew of the Enterprise didn’t have to win. And, of course, even non-trekkies can quote the infamous “Resistance is futile” line. That phrase summed up how most story lines when with the Borg. Practically everybody, including  the great Jean-Luc Picard, had felt the sting of defeat before the Borg. It was that line that helped make the series what it was. Resistance is futile.

In last week’s post, I talked about how the absence of God leaves us without ultimate value, morals, or purpose. While I’m writing this week’s ahead of time, I’m guessing that the atheists in my readership might already have a response ready. Namely, they will be very quick to point out that a negative consequence doesn’t make a belief wrong. They’re right about this. Some of us have had to accept the hard facts of a very sad afterlife for those we love, but we do not throw out our entire faith simply because of negative consequences.

What I’d like to challenge atheists to do, though, is to live their lives consistently in light of atheism. Or, actually, let me take that back. Please, atheists, don’t live out your lives in light of the absence of God. The chaos, carnage, and despair would be horrendous. Devorah Hilsenrath, a survivor at Auschwitz said: “”In Auschwitz, the Nazis interpreted the [Ten] Commandments backwards.” In Auschwitz, a swift murder was almost merciful. Starvation and cruelty were commonplace. Dr. Josef Mengele, the so-called “Angel of Death” was especially known for his cruelty, even performing vivisections on pregnant Jewish women.

There isn’t much difference between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Consider Richard Wurmbrand‘s experiences at the hands of Russian torturers:

“What the communists have done to Christians surpasses human understanding….I have seen communists whose faces while torturing believers shone with rapturous joy. They cried out while torturing the Christians, ‘We are the devil! There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.’ I heard one torturer say, ‘I thank God in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to see this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.’”

In a prison in the USSR, Wurmbrand met men who had seen their children murdered before their eyes, simply for refusing to renounce Christ. Christians were crucified and made to eat and drink excrement and urine in mockery of Communion. But, if atheism is true, none of these snippets of history should really make you cringe. You see, if there is no Divine Lawgiver, there is nothing wrong with what happened to these men and women. This entire planet is Auschwitz. This entire planet is Soviet Russia. Everything is permitted, provided you can get the government to make it legal.

Atheists don’t behave this way, though. In fact, I know plenty of atheists that are very moral people. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both have a very strong sense of morality. I once sat in on a talk Hitchens gave about the dangers of Islam in Western countries, and I actually applauded at the end. He recognized the atrocities that come with an Islamic state, and he wants nothing of it for America. The man told of nearly winding up in a concentration camp himself for daring to mark out a Nazi swastika graffiti. He knows right from wrong, but is painfully ignorant of the fact that he has no grounds for condemning the actions of militant Islam. Dawkins is no better, stating that there is no absolute morality, only “pitiless indifference”, only to turn around and condemn religious instruction as child abuse.

This is all rather embarrassing for the thinking atheist. Bertrand Russell was opposed to war and sexual restrictions, but wrote that he could not live as though ethics were a matter of opinion. In light of atheism, he found his moral sense to be incredible, saying “I do not know the solution.” Nietzsche believed in living beyond good and evil, yet he condemned anti-Semitism. In 1991, Dr. L. D. Rue addressed the AAAS on the topic of morality, saying that humanity had only three options. We can turn the world into a madhouse, living only for self. We can turn to benevolent dictators for safety, or we can choose to believe what he called “the Noble Lie.” Rue said that we must believe in respecting human life and rights  in order to trick ourselves into doing good for someone other than ourselves.

In the end, it’s impossible to truly live out atheism in all of its ugliness. While atheists are right in pointing out that a negative result is not proof that a belief or philosophy is wrong, they have a very difficult time living life in light of God’s absence. Christianity is a far superior belief system in terms of morality and rights. It provides us with a God Who reigns and loves us, and a Heaven to belong in when this life is done. I’ll be getting to arguments for Theism a little later, but for now let us at least agree that we’ve identified the implications of either belief system. Existence is either meaningful or futile.

Share

2 Comments

Filed under Atheism, Philosophy

Tagged as , , , ,

June 25, 2010

No God, No Peace

Is there anything more dangerous in the world than bumper sticker theology? Whether it’s the ridiculous “Coexist” bumper stickers or the “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” variety, bumper sticker beliefs just make me want to puke. There’s no context, no reasoning. Just a simple statement that is supposed to speak volumes but really just leaves me wondering what the heck the driver was thinking when he pasted something on the back of his car. Which brings me to the title of this post.

“No God, No Peace”, proclaims the bumper sticker. It’s catchy, sort of. I find this one a little less offensive than some I’ve read, but I really honestly think this bumper sticker stopped too soon. It should’ve kept going. “No God. No Peace. No Purpose. No Meaning. No Values.” Not as trendy or memorable, but it’d make a better point. It’d also make atheists realize the absurdity of what they believe and commit a lemming-esque suicide, so perhaps it’s best if we keep such depressing thoughts off of the road. But I digress….

If there is no God, there isn’t really much to this whole “living” thing. What does it matter if I live one year or one hundred if death is ultimately the end of my very existence? What does it matter what humans achieve as a civilization if all that awaits is ultimately the death of our planet, our galaxy, our universe in fire or ice? If I cease to be when I am dead, does it really matter that I existed in the first place? Oh, I’m sure there are some who will mourn my passing. Every human life certainly has relative significance and value, but if there is no God to say that human beings have inherent worth, then in the end….who really cares how it all turns out? Who cares if we find a cure to AIDS? Who cares about peace in the Middle East? Soon enough, there will be no people to contract HIV or fire a weapon. Give it a while, and there won’t be anyone around to remember what we accomplished. How very, very depressing.

If there is no God, then there are no values whatsoever. Jeffrey Dahmer and Mother Teresa are equally moral, for morality isn’t a real thing. There is no such thing as evil, either. By the way, I think this is interesting, since people often call the “Problem of Evil” a Christian’s dilemma. In reality, we know where evil came from, what it does, and what its ultimate fate is. It is the atheist or agnostic that is left to find an answer to the problem. They’re the ones who are left coming up with a baseless code of ethics. There’s no justice, either. If there is no God, then in the end all of the world’s worst criminals have gotten away with it. As Dostoyevsky has written: “If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted.” It would seem that an atheist such as Richard Dawkins would agree: “We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object’s sole reason for living.” In a universe without God, you and I cannot condemn war, rape, or murder, but we can also not praise self-sacrifice, love, or generosity. They are neither good nor evil in the end. They may have some practical benefits, but they are not good or evil.

If atheism is true, then we are left with Bertrand Russell’s “firm foundation of unyielding despair.” As one man has said, if God is dead, then man is dead too. Dr. William Lane Craig sums it up nicely, I think: “As for man, he’s a freak of nature- a blind product of matter plus time plus chance. If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe universe to live a purposeless life.” Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Of course not! But have you ever seen an atheist live like he was really dying? Probably not….

Share

4 Comments

Filed under Atheism, Philosophy

Tagged as , , ,

June 20, 2010

No Ordinary People

When it comes to evangelism, it seems, everybody has an idea about how to do it. There’s so-called “life-style evangelism” for those who want to be good, do good, and look good without having to share the good news. There’s televangelism, door-to-door soul-winning, missions work, street preaching, evangelistic services, evangelistic meals, tracts, and a host of other things people like to do. We tailor different styles of evangelism to meet the needs of the people around us. I’ve been to Chicago, where street preaching can actually be pretty effective, depending on where you are located. I’ve been to the Florida panhandle, where those same street evangelists are largely ignored. Some folks will listen to you preach on television but never darken the door of a church, and some have to see that you really care before they care at all about what you have to say.

There’s a small- but growing- population of people that I believe apologetics can be an effective witnessing tool towards. I’ve heard people say that the number of folks who could be reached through apologetics is so small, it’s hardly worthwhile. I strongly disagree. “There are no ordinary people,” C. S. Lewis writes. “You have never talked to a mere mortal.” The size of the population most likely influenced by apologetics is small, but influential. These are the people who have retained the ability to think critically, logically, and independently without resorting to skepticism. These are, quite often, doctors, lawyers, and other educated professionals. At the other end of the spectrum, though, there’s a much larger group of people who can be influenced by apologetics: students. Yes, students. If there’s one thing I’ve learned by being a teacher, it’s that students listen when you least expect it. Teenagers and college students the world over often think more deeply than people twice their age. They ask the big questions of life: questions of existence, meaning, and purpose. They are often the amateur philosophers of our day, trying to figure life out in the few brief years before they become just as burdened by life as their parents.

And why should apologetics not be used? Apologetics is largely about facts and logic. It’s about reality! If reality is, as we Christians believe, about a loving, all-powerful Creator Whom we may have a personal relationship with, then apologetics should be welcome to the party! The Bible is filled with facts, and logic is an aspect of the mind of God (John 1:1). When we use apologetics and couple it with Scripture, the Spirit is pleased to move in the life of the lost soul.

Share

Leave a Comment

Filed under Bible, Philosophy

Tagged as ,