The Positive of Persecution

I have not posted much lately, as my family, job and church responsibilities have taken up much of my time -- I enjoy writing, but sleep is nice too. I have a few posts in the pipeline, including: 1) Why I believe in a god; 2) Why I believe in the God of the Bible and Christ specifically; and 3) Do people go to heaven if they haven't heard the message of Christ. Given the complexity of these three issues, it have taken me a while to wade through everything while posting something of reasonable brevity.

In the meantime, I found this interesting article in Christianity Today regarding the positive side of the recent rise of atheist attacks on Christianity. Christianity flourished in spite of the Roman persecution during the first few centuries after the death of Christ. While we want the message of Christ to be spread the world over, there are dangers when our faith becomes mainstream or common, as it has been in western culture since before the founding of America. The danger, obviously, isn't from the message, but the laziness that can rise when there is no external challenge to being a Christian. We often cherish that which is harder to obtain, but possessions gained through relative ease do not hold the same position in our lives (Christ isn't a possession, but hopefully you get the point). Western Christians have not faced many significant persecutions or challenges to our faith, like for example our Chinese brothers and sisters. Yes, prayer has been banned from schools and it can be argued that many universities are not the most Christian-friendly places. But I can still attend my church on Sunday without having to worry about being thrown in jail.

With the recent rise of atheists such as Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and others, Christians are facing a full-frontal attack to our belief system -- and it is not on a small scale. Since 2006, the three names I just listed have each published anti-God and anti-Christian books that have sold a combined 1 million copies. The questions they raise are not new, but their message is now becoming more widely spread, via television, the Internet, news papers and other media. Thus, Christians are facing a new wave of challenges and we are being called to defend our beliefs. The positive is that under such challenges, the search for answers will strengthen the faith of many and create opportunities to speak about Christ where such opportunities may not have existed before.

Below is an excerpt from the article.

..................................................................................

You would have to have been hitchhiking across Siberia to have missed a striking new phenomenon: The atheists are back. Not just back, mind you, but globally parading in triumph across tv, bookstores, and the Internet...

Why a surge by atheists right now?...American evangelicals, we must admit, have not been immune to triumphal attitudes, arrogance, foolish public statements, and, sometimes, downright hypocrisy in personal behavior. A backlash against evangelicals has been brewing for years.

The good news? First, a bracing frontal assault on faith is actually good for evangelicalism. It compels us to reexamine what we believe and to behave—well, with greater humility.

Second, this backlash has produced a fascinating response among believers. For example, the most effective public debater with Christopher Hitchens to date has been Brooklyn Baptist and verbal flame-thrower the Rev. Al Sharpton.

In a debate, Hitchens disparaged the God-fearing sensibilities of Martin Luther King Jr., angering Sharpton. "In terms of the civil-rights movement," Sharpton responded, "it was absolutely fueled by a belief in God and a belief in right or wrong. Had not there been this belief that there was a right and a wrong, the civil-rights movement that you alluded to and referred to would not have existed."

Third...theists have drawn into the debate highly articulate scientists of fervent Christian faith. In England, Alister McGrath, professor of historical theology at Oxford, has battled Dawkins brilliantly on his home turf of science. McGrath holds a doctorate in molecular biophysics as well as one in theology.

Two other new books put forward important ideas about God's existence, offering magnificent ripostes to the atheists. In The Language of God, Francis Collins, a former atheist and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, refuses to choose between science and God. "Science is not threatened by God," he writes. "[I]t is enhanced." Former Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich, in God's Universe, draws a bright line between theists and materialists. He endorses the view that belief in "a final cause, a Creator-God" gives us truthful, coherent understanding about the design of the universe.

Christians have nothing to fear from the new atheist surge. We evangelicals, in our advocacy for the gospel, also have no need for blunt weaponry.

The 80/20 Rule

This was written by a gentleman the was the pastor of the church I attended when I was a little boy (Jim Taylor). It is worth the read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“…I did not find paradise. It was only a reflection of my lonely mind wanting what’s been missing in my life...” (from Goodbye Alice in Wonderland by Jewel)

Many people are looking for a personal “paradise” ... the perfect job, the perfect mate, the car, a hobby, an advancement or recognition ... the thing that will fulfill them. Quite often they run from relationship to relationship, seeking that “paradise”. Or they get caught up in trying to “climb the ladder” or make their place in the world, seeking what’s missing and never quite finding it.

Oh, there are good things, yes! And quite often that person in your life or that job has brought a lot of satisfaction, but it is not quite everything that you envisioned. There still seems to be something lacking.

Let me share with you a little secret: There is NOTHING in life that will ever give you 100% of what you are expecting from it. Get used to this idea. Nothing will ever be 100%. No car, no job, no career, no sport, no piece of furniture, no house, no spouse. NOTHING and NO ONE will ever live up to 100%.

That’s a fact of life.

Many things and many people however will sometimes reach about 80% of our expectations. And there is nothing wrong with that. However … and this is important …… we can become indifferent to the 80%. We can grow used to the 80%. So used to it in fact, that we sometimes start worrying about the 20% we don’t have. And IF we are not careful, we will be tempted by the 20%.

I have seen it in marriages. One partner says, “You are not giving me everything I need. Oh sure, you are 80%, but I need that other 20%!” If they continue to fixate on what they don’t have, sooner or later 20% is going to come walking by. And many times they will leave the 80% for the 20%! Why? Because by fixating on what they don’t have --- the 20% --- they forget the 80% they do have and suddenly the 20% looks like more than the 80%. And so they give up the 80% and run off with the 20%. Then one day they wake up and realize they settled for 20% when they once had 80%, but now it’s too late to go back.

As parents we rarely are everything we want to be (if ever) and I know that in our children’s eyes we come short of their needs or expectations quite often. How many young people just can’t wait to get out on their own, only to find when they do that they have left 80% and now are living with 20%! If you focus on the 20% it often looks like the answer to your problems. When the 20% appears to us as if it is more than the 80%, it will appear to us as the way to everything we desire. When we pursue the 20% it can be exciting, thrilling, and promising. But when we leave the 80% and settle for the 20% life becomes empty and depression, discouragement or despair can settle in.

How many people neglected family and friends in pursuit of a career only to discover one day that while they reached the top of their career, there was nothing there? They have gotten the 20% but at the expense of 80%. Some people never understand the 80/20 Rule and spend all their life running, leaving, seeking, and never finding what they are searching for. They think if they can just get that special (fill in the blank) they will find contentment, fulfillment, and satisfaction. But because they don’t understand the 80/20 Rule they actually are working against themselves! The very thing that would bring what they want is the thing they constantly run away from!

The key is to learn to appreciate the 80% that you have! Do not listen to the call of the 20%. Do not allow yourself think about or dwell upon the 20%. Begin to explore all the possibilities that are in the 80%. Start being thankful for the 80% you have. It will take some time and requires a “training” of your mind, but in time you will begin to see how foolish it is to dwell on the 20%.

When that happens the 80% actually will become more valuable to you than you believe possible. It may even become more than 80%! Yes. That is possible. It may not look like it is now, but trust me, try it and you will find out whether I am telling the truth or not.

As I said, it will require you to train your mind, discipline it, and bring it under your control. If you have something or someone that is 80%, do not allow yourself to dwell on the 20% you don’t have! Think about the good things. Make yourself become thankful for the good parts. As you endeavor to do that, if you will ask Him, you will find the Lord will enable you to follow through, thinking about the good things. And His peace will invade your life. Not only will His peace come into your life, it will actually guard your mind so that the 20% never looks as large as the 80%.

Give it a try! What have you got to lose but dissatisfaction, discontent and unhappiness? You can live without those things!

Phil 4:4-9 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me-put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. NIV

Can Science and Philosophy Embrace God?

I read two stories this week that, while not directly related to one another, carried the same theme: atheists moving toward belief in God. That an atheist may shift to belief in a god is not unusual. However, the two individuals that were the subjects of the stories are not your ordinary persons. One is an Oxford educated philosopher and the other is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Often I hear that one cannot have a rational or reasoned belief in God. Given these individual's distinguished backgrounds in academics, it is hard to imagine either of them "blindly" believing in anything.

Dr. Rosalind Picard is director of affective computing research in the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Picard was raised an atheist, but later embraced the idea of God and eventually Christianity. "Those who argue that humans are composed only from molecular biology and nothing more aren't basing their argument in science," Picard says. "Science is not capable of making such claims." Furthermore, "Scientists cannot assume that nothing exists beyond what they can measure...It's quite possible that there's still something more." Picard says she personally has faith in scientific progress, but also faith in God.

The story also notes that, "When she speaks about DNA, which is the basic ingredient that forms organisms, Picard raises the notion of there being 'a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are.' DNA, is enormously complex, she says. 'It takes a lot of faith to believe it arose from purely random processes. There's definitely the mark of intervention in that.'"

But she does not support "intelligent design" hook, line and sinker. "Picard also laments that the news media put people who are of different minds on the intelligent- design debate into just two distinct camps -- intelligent design or evolution. 'To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice,' she said."

The other two stories (here and here) were written about Anthony Flew. Once a devout atheist, he has embraced Deism in his older age -- critics would argue it is his age that has caused such lapse in thought. Flew makes it abundantly clear that he is not a Christian. Flew's movement from the atheist camp to the deist camp is not new news, as an announcement was made in 2004. But more interviews have been conducted recently due to the release of his book entitled, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

During a recent interview, Flew states, "I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code."

Two factors were were "decisive," as it relates to his change in view. "One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.”

Flew says to those, such as Richard Dawkins, who argue that life and existence can be attributed to chance, "If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over."

The New York Times article on Flew concludes with a startling commentary by the author, "Flew’s colleagues will wonder how he could sign a petition to the prime minister in favor of intelligent design, but it becomes more understandable if the signatory never hated religious belief the way many philosophers do and if he never hated religious people in the least." I get the sense from the New York Times article that the author questions Flew's so-called "conversion" to Deism. But I am a little miffed by his concluding remarks. The author seems to imply that atheists are driven by hate versus reason and thought.

Science, philosophy and God are not mutually exclusive concepts. One can have a reasoned faith. Even if Flew's shift can be explained by old age, there are many scientists and philosophers like Picard, Francis Collins and others to document such a fact. The claim that religious persons are ignorant (to use a milder term) is becoming tired and trite. Such a claim is a simple way of not having to engage on an issue of great importance.

Do People Need God to be Good?

A sociologist from the University of Lethbridge conducted a nationwide survey of 1,600 Canadians, asking them, "Do people need God to be good?" The study found that Canadians who believe in God are "consistently more likely than atheists to highly value a range of characteristics that includes courtesy, concern for others, forgiveness, and patience. God-believers are also more inclined than those who don't believe in God to place high value on friendship, family life, and being loved."

The author of the study, Dr. Reginald Bibby notes, "There obviously are times when religious beliefs and religious groups do not contribute to the social good. However, if they were to disappear tomorrow, we would have to find functional equivalents in Canadian society that are equally effective in promoting good interpersonal traits...To the extent that Canadians say good-bye to God, we may find that we pay a significant social price."

The primary reason for the values differences, Bibby suggests, are as follows:

"People get their values from groups and people who believe in God are far more likely than atheists to be part of groups that work hard to instill values about being good to other people, and having good relationships. That's not to say that God-believers always translate their values into action. But they at least are inclined to hold the values. Atheists, on the other hand, do not have as many explicit support groups that are committed to intentionally promoting positive interpersonal life."

49 percent of the respondents also said they definitely believe God exists and 33 percent said they think He exists; 11 percent have doubts and don't think there is a higher power; and 7 percent say they definitely do not believe God exists.

The Christian Post ran an article on this study and highlighted a recent debate between Alister McGrath and Christopher Hitchens. The article noted, "Rebutting Hitchens' argument that knowing right from wrong is innate and doesn't come from a higher being, McGrath, who said he is a former atheist, asked how one can have a viable moral system without some sort of transcendent basis of morality. 'There are some forms of religion that are pathological, that damage people. For every one of these atrocities which must cause all of us deep concern, there are 10,000 unreported acts of kindness, generosity, and so forth arising from religious commitment,' McGrath argued."

What the Hell?

I haven't posted in a few days, as I have taken the time to visit and comment (here and here) on other blogs. While I recently wrote on heaven, one of the blogs got me thinking about the doctrine of hell (see the first link). After wrestling with the concept for a few days, these are my thoughts.

Theologians note that there are more important doctrines to the Christian faith than hell. However, critics hold the idea of hell up as one of the main objections to our faith. One Christian writer said, "Of all the doctrines in Christianity, hell is probably the most difficult to defend and the most burdensome to believe..." Given these issues, it is important to more fully understand what the Bible says about hell. Some of the bigger objections I have come across include:

1. Hell is contrary to the love of God -- it is hypocrisy and immoral.
2. Infinite punishment for a finite sin is contrary to justice -- it is cruel.

There are other objections, but I will focus on these two for relative brevity.

We often think of hell as a place of everlasting fire and torture, as this picture portrays (William-Adolphe Bouguereau - Dante And Virgil In Hell, 1850). But is this really what hell is like? Jesus spoke about it often and used images of fire, destruction, torment, and gnashing of teeth.

I do not believe that Hell is a place of eternal physical torture, as if we are being whipped and beaten on a daily basis while God watches in with a vengeful eye. The Bible uses analogy, allegory and figures of speech. It uses fire, gnashing of teeth, etc. as an analogy for what it is like away from God's presence, which is what hell is - separation/banishment from God's presence. As such, there is suffering because one is away from God. I am not downplaying hell, only putting it in perspective. From all accounts, it will be a nasty place. Just not in the way we might expect, like the picture. (For example, God's love may be the fire - if one hates God, then His love will feel like fire and torment. I don't know if I agree with this description, but it is one that has been put forth.)

One blogger I encountered asked a very insightful question relating to hell being separation from God: If God is omnipresent, how is it that we can be separated from His presence? I see a difference between an active and passive presence of God. Those in Hell will not receive the full benefit of His active presence as those in heaven. Further, some theologians believe that there will be degrees of isolation and separation in Hell. If God’s judgment is proportional, Hitler will be judged harsher than a person who might have been a relatively “good” person whose sin is rejection of the Gospel.

It is important to note that hell is not the analogy, only the descriptions used in the Bible. If you have never tasted beef and had to explain its taste to a person who has never even seen a cow, you would say, “Beef is like…” This is exactly what the Bible does. Hell is described as utter darkness, yet with flames. Both are obviously not possible and can be viewed as figurative language.

Hell is contrary to the love of God

Taken at face value, I would not disagree with this statement -- with the caveat that hell was not part of God's initial plan for humanity. He does not want his creation to go there anymore than we want to be there. So in that sense it is contrary. However, given our rebellion, it becomes necessary. God's love gives us freedom -- including the freedom to reject Him.

But if God is so merciful and loving, God should forgive the rebel for rejecting Him, right?. I think that this is a misunderstanding of justice. Mercy cannot contradict justice. By accepting Christ's sacrifice, we have the ability to have our sins forgiven. This is mercy and grace. It is offered to us for free, but it came at a price. By rejecting Christ and never seeking forgiveness for our actions, we are refusing to disassociate with our sins. Sin cannot enter heaven. Our sins are either excluded through Christ, or they stay part of us. Justice says that the price of sin must be paid. We have two options and the ball is in our court.

It is important to keep in mind that if God truly loves us, He will allow us to make our own decisions. As such, God would not pull someone into heaven kicking and screaming. If we are free, rejection of God is possible. Thus, Hell is possible. We have the opportunity to choose our paths. While a person may not want to go to Hell, they chose a path that leads there. God respects us so much and wants a voluntary submission to His will. We will not go to hell against our will, but because of it.

Infinite punishment for a finite sin is contrary to justice
To God, the most heinous thing a person can do, in the words of Dr. J.P. Moreland, is to, “mock and dishonor and refuse to love the person that we owe absolutely everything to, which is our Creator, God Himself.” The Bible says the greatest commandment is to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. The punishment of a lifetime of refusing God will result in an eternity apart from Him (ultimate sanction for the ultimate sin). We have a lifetime to choose Him. If we were to have a second chance after death, what would be the point of this life? Who is to say that one will not reject God after the second opportunity? Is hell okay under these circumstances? Further, such a question assumes that we do not have sufficient opportunities to meet God during our lifetime. If we are to be held to account for our decisions, we must have the opportunity to make the correct one. If God is truly just, such an opportunity will occur.

When we argue against the finality of hell, we are failing to see the horror of what sin really is in God's eye. It is rejection of Him.

Morality

An interesting theme behind the critique of hell is that it is not "moral" or "just." In most accounts, the critic is disavowing God, while at the same time calling hell unjust. C.S. Lewis has this to say, "How had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust." In essence, when one denies the existence of God but refers to good and evil, it becomes a self-defeating argument. When we call something bad, we refer to a standard that is beyond ourselves. Where does that standard come from? If the standard is man-made, then it is subjective. How then can we call crimes such as those committed in Darfur and Nazi Germany truly "bad" if humans are the ones defining good and bad. Our ideas of good and bad can change. If there is not a God, what then can we defer to as the arbiter when we say something is evil?

I have yet to read an atheistic argument relating to morality that does not ultimately end in subjectivity, thus doing away with any notion of inherent human rights or inherent evil. I am not saying that God is required for a person to be "good" (there are many non-Christians whose behavior/actions can be considered moral or good). My argument is that a higher authority is required for an action to be considered inherently moral or evil. A humanistic concept of good/evil is only temporal and thus changes.

Lastly, it is very important to note that Christians (at least the ones I know) do not enjoy the thought of people going to hell. We are not "gleeful" as I have seen some say. I are saddened by the thought of hell. This is why Christians try to reach about to non-believers. Those that take joy in preaching hell should be ashamed of themselves.

While hell may play an initial part in someone becoming a Christian, our continued faith is not necessarily reliant on the fear of damnation. At least in my case, I do not stay a Christian out of fear of hell -- I stay out of love for my creator.

Jesus and Cheese Sandwiches

Every couple of months, a news story is run that highlights what someone believes to be an appearance of either Jesus, Mary or another Christian figure in anything from food, to windows to clouds. For example, a few years ago, someone saw Jesus in this grilled cheese sandwich.

Well...we have another sighting. This time of Pope John Paul II. It appears that Pope JP2 was a big fan of the Fantastic Four, as his image was seen in the form of a giant flame, a la the Human Torch. Makes we wonder if we will see any future divine appearances of Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman or the Thing.

Imagine There's No Heaven

John Lennon wrote a song released in 1971 called Imagine. It has since become one of the top songs of all time. I never really looked at the words until recently, although I was familiar with the tune since I heard it on the radio as a child. While it has redeeming qualities, such as imagining peace and no greed or hunger, there are a few verses that can be less than uplifting if one is a Christian, including imagining there's no heaven or religion --- but, this is exactly what I did today (imagining no heaven, that is).

Specifically, I asked myself I would still follow the will of God if there was not a "reward" (for lack of a better word) in the end. In other words, if Christians did not go to heaven, would I still be motivated to serve God? Part of the greatest commandment is to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, strength and mind. Would I love my creator, then, if He did not offer heaven?

"No heaven" is hard for a Christian to imagine (no pun intended). It does get me thinking about my underlying motivations for serving God. Am I doing it to get my "prize," or am I doing it because I love the Lord my God? I hope it is the latter.

I don't know if this makes sense to anyone else, or if I just have too much time on my hands to think about random things.

Imagine - John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one