Evening 7/21

Spurgeon:

Psalm 42:9

Canst thou answer this, believer? Canst thou find any reason why thou art so often mourning instead of rejoicing? Why yield to gloomy anticipations? Who told thee that the night would never end in day? Who told thee that the sea of circumstances would ebb out till there should be nothing left but long leagues of the mud of horrible poverty? Who told thee that the winter of thy discontent would proceed from frost to frost, from snow, and ice, and hail, to deeper snow, and yet more heavy tempest of despair? Knowest thou not that day follows night, that flood comes after ebb, that spring and summer succeed winter? Hope thou then! Hope thou ever! For God fails thee not. Dost thou not know that thy God loves thee in the midst of all this? Mountains, when in darkness hidden, are as real as in day, and God's love is as true to thee now as it was in thy brightest moments. No father chastens always: thy Lord hates the rod as much as thou dost; he only cares to use it for that reason which should make thee willing to receive it, namely, that it works thy lasting good. Thou shalt yet climb Jacob's ladder with the angels, and behold him who sits at the top of it--thy covenant God. Thou shalt yet, amidst the splendours of eternity, forget the trials of time, or only remember them to bless the God who led thee through them, and wrought thy lasting good by them. Come, sing in the midst of tribulation. Rejoice even while passing through the furnace. Make the wilderness to blossom like the rose! Cause the desert to ring with thine exulting joys, for these light afflictions will soon be over, and then "forever with the Lord," thy bliss shall never wane.

"Faint not nor fear, his arms are near,

He changeth not, and thou art dear;

Only believe and thou shalt see,

That Christ is all in all to thee."

Devo thought

This comes from Spurgeon's Morning and Evening Devotional

Job 13:23

"Therefore, the believer, even when sin rolls like a black flood, and the remembrance of the past is bitter, can yet stand before the blazing throne of the great and holy God, and cry, "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died; yea rather, that hath risen again." While the recollection of his sin fills him with shame and sorrow, he at the same time makes it a foil to show the brightness of mercy--guilt is the dark night in which the fair star of divine love shines with serene splendour."


It reminds me of something Luther said, Do not like Adam and Eve let your guilt, shame, and sin cause you to hide and run from our God, instead, let it press you tighter to His great grace. 

Savior of the World

Angels announced it. Luke 2:11
Jesus corroborated it. John 3:17
Samaritans saw it. John 4:42
Paul explained it. Acts 13:23
Timothy taught it. 1 Timothy 4:10
And John joins in. 1 John 4:14

Jesus is Savior of the world.

This means a lot and has a lot of implications. But just one thing we know from this: our problems are bigger than we think.

We look out at the world and see problems. In our efforts we want to fix them. We attack them intellectually with education. We attack them spiritually with meditation. We attack the behavior with therapy. We attack social issues with social structures. And while these efforts are good we still see problems. It doesn't ultimately work because we do not just have a problem with our minds, or our actions, or our social structures. We have a deep corruption through and through. Our problem(s) is(are) big enough that only God himself must fix them. Our corruption is deep enough that his Son had to die to save and rescue us. He is the Savior of the world because the worlds problems were so big and so thorough that we needed him.

Only God can save us. And he has and he will. A changing of the human heart. A recreation of this world. A living Hope in a Living Father, who sent a (re)living Savior.

Thank you Father. Thank you Jesus. And thank you Spirit. You planned redemption when we accepted corruption. You recreated what we broke. Thank you.

Dawkins v. Lennox

So I watched another video Dan provided to me. It was a debate between Richard Dawkins, the famous Atheist, and John Lennox, a really intelligent Christian.

You can find the link here.

Now Dan I have to warn you, I watched this video a while ago (2 weeks or so), took notes and then let my notes stare at me for a bit. So although this isn't fresh in my mind, I am drawing from notes taken for a bit ago.

This response will be a bit less organized and extensive. But here goes:

There are a few common threads throughout the debate that I want to key on: 1) Faith is blind, 2) Atheism has sight, and 3) Worship is at the heart.


1) FAITH IS BLIND

According to Dawkins, faith is by definition blind and evidence-less. Faith is removing yourself from any source of observation and accepting certain truths blindly and militantly. Therefore it naturally leads people to misunderstandings, half truths, and misconceptions. It is literally a blind guide happily leading humanity to a cliff of stupidity and utter ignorance. According to Dawkins, this is the essence of faith.

Furthermore, because faith is blind, it causes all who have faith to be blind with it. This blindness leads to violence. Religion and faith logically lead to violence and oppression.

Notice how I didn't give a lot of arguments for these statements, because Dawkins gives very little argument to his claims (though he does actually give reason for his scientific claims). So the man that argues faith is by nature without evidence does not give much evidence for that statement (ironic no?). Besides everyone has faith in something. Dawkins admits his faith in eternal material.

Now Dan, I believe that the faith that Jesus teaches and the Bible claims is not a blind, violent guide. One story that best retorts the claims of Dawkins is Thomas the Doubter in John 20.

Thomas doubted not out of blindness, but out of disillusionment and sadness. Remember after Jesus rose from the dead, he appeared to many people, but Thomas missed these events. And when they tell him about it, he says, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

This is not the cry of a man who never believed, but of a man who was saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

He had felt duped, he had been hurt. And when Jesus comes to him, look what he does, look how he responds. He doesn't appear in blazing glory, smiting Thomas. No he appears, and says believe, there is reason to believe. Hope, because there is reason to hope. He says, "Peace be with you." Jesus takes the man who had been burned and gives him a reason and hope for a renewed faith.

This is a very different picture than what Dawkins provides, but it is the picture of Jesus.

The Bible does show one interesting picture. In Matthew 11:25-26 (and in other parts of the Bible as well), God hides himself from unrepentant, self-righteous persons. One of the pictures of God is that he is close to the humble and invisible to the proud. A heart that is proud cannot see God because he shows himself to those who know they need him. Faith might be blind to some because of a proud heart (you see how there are deeper issues than just intellectual arguments because life covers all areas, not just the mind).


2) ATHEISM HAS SIGHT

Another major theme with Dawkins is that the empirical method (and therefore atheism) gives us sight.

First to appreciate the empirical method, one must understand its limits. The empirical method relies on cause and effect. If at one point A leads to B, which then becomes C, I am willing to bet $10 that 10 minutes from now A will lead to B, then C. That is a grossly simplified form of the empirical method.

However, this method does not give us all knowledge. It cannot tell us about history. It cannot tell us about morals. It cannot penetrate our souls because we are not machines. Science does great things and it is a powerful tool, but science (Empirical Method) can prove (or disprove) Jesus' miracles, just as much as it can prove or disprove Napoleon's existence. Those kinds of truths cannot be tested by science.

Second, atheism (or evolutionary materialist philosophy) does not give grounds for science. Lennox keys in on this during the debate. Evolution (which as Dawkins says lead him to Atheism) teaches that circumstances, chance, and chaos lead to life. Evolution teaches that a certain randomness leads to order. But that is much like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. Science demands a logical, cause and effect universe. Science teaches that if I give you and Advil your headache will go away. Randomness teaches that if I gave you an Advil one day your headache will go away, the next day I give you another and butterflies come out of your ears.

You cannot have it both ways. Either there is order from before and in the foundation or there is not.


3) Finally, WORSHIP IS AT THE HEART

Dawkins makes an incredible statement in the debate. He says that all humans throughout all of history have a "natural inclination to worship something."

Dawkins then claims to worship nature, to fill that void in his heart with natural knowledge. Now I don't know his heart, but I would wonder if he is worshiping something else.

Dawkins rather appears to worship not nature (he is not in Wicca), but the god of the human mind in the temple of the enlightenment. He rightly doesn't claim to worship nothing, for it is in all of man's heart to worship. But he seems to worship the mind of man. And if and when you worship your mind or man's intellect, you find and form your identity in what you know, how much you know, and how much more you know than others.

He is worshiping at the wrong temple.

Instead what the Bible teaches us is that Jesus came to earth. When he was here, even though he was smarter than everyone else, and even though he had all the knowledge in the world (because he created it), he took on the flesh of a poor uneducated carpenter. And not only that, but when they brought him and accused him before a council, he remained silent (or dumb if you will). He refused to show his intelligence. He didn't do this because he was stupid or powerless, but because of his love for us. He became silent so that we might know the wisdom of God. He became uneducated that our minds might be renewed with truth and grace.

The first step towards the gospel is to admit that you don't have the power within you and that you don't have all the answers to save yourself. The first step is admitting your foolishness and kneeling before the one who became foolish for your sake and the sake of the world (including Dawkins). The world teaches us that if we admit our simplicity we become more stupid. But the Gospel teaches that when we admit our foolishness, we don't become weak, but are empowered, we don't become ignorant, but wise, we don't become trapped by stupidity, but freed by the truth. And by doing so, we can admit our foolishness, but at the same time, point to our wisdom (Jesus). Do you see how freeing that is? It is not an easy answer or cop-out. It is truth and wisdom.

A man known as CH

My friend Danial (a.k.a. The Mr. G-nome Project, Hotlanta Marathoner, and one day Dr. Christian (seriously he will be a Doctor and his last name is Christian)), sent me this link for Christopher Hitchens, who wrote the book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. He asked what I thought of him and what he taught. I wanted to provide some answer, but I also wanted to post it because we as Christians do need to give some thought to what critiques and arguments are brought against us and what we believe. I broke it down into 5 sections

1. His Basis
2. His Argument
3. Some holes
4. A Christian Response
5. Your Response

So here goes, Let's see what we can make of it all:

The Basis for his argument

Mr. Hitchens is from England. To study European history can at times be like studying what went wrong with the church and why. From European Christianity we find the Crusades, corrupt churches, wars between Christians, and other unlovely mistakes we (or at least those who also claimed Christ in some capacity) have made. We cannot run from this or ignore it. We as the church must face it.

Therefore, when Mr. Hitchens sees religious as a corrupting and essentially violent entity in cultures, we cannot skirt the issue. His land land tells the stories. So it is understandable why he or Richard Dawkins or whoever assumes that religion equals violence. So that is where he comes from and why he comes at it the way he does. Europe is an interesting creature in this sense.

His Argument

The way he argues against religions in general is through morality. The argument throughout is essentially we would be better people, a better society, and a better world without religion. You might liken it to a poison or delusion.

In this argument, he has a big picture and a small picture.

The big picture is this:
Human history has existed for 100,000 to 250,000 years (he presupposes an evolutionary timetable, which makes sense because he believes in evolution). However God only started interacting with humans 3,000 years ago. Therefore for the first 97,000 years heaven watched with indifference while death, rape, and wars spread throughout the land. Then when God did get involved, he chose a backwards people; moved them to a land where they would propagate racism and genocide at his command. (This is part of common history of all three major monotheistic religions; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). And this is from where we were supposed to have learned about morality and moral sense. If this is his plan, this God is cruel, wasteful, and indifferent. How is morality supposed to come from that.

His micro argument is thus:
Morality does not necessarily need God at the foundation. It is innate. The basis for all morality should be based on 2 things. First, morality must be individualistic or concerned for the individual. Second, morality should be based on our instinct in caring for children (e.g. if you saw a child running into traffic you should know what to do).

He then talks about religion cannot be a moral compass because so many awful things are done to INDIVIDUALS in the name of RELIGIOUS MORALITY. For instance, in Yemen a girl recently died giving birth to a child that was stillborn. The girl was married off at 9 years old. Mohammed also married a 9 year old. Abraham tried to kill Isaac. He also mutilated his genitals, along with his all the males in his household. See how cruel men act toward INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN in the name of religion. That is not a compass for morality.

So those are his 2 arguments. He then goes into a question time, which I think is much more telling then his actual presentation.

The main question he is asked to answer is, Is there capacity for good in religion? (I am going to skip to the part when he talks about Martin Luther King Jr. because it is then that things get interesting.)

The moderator: the closest Mr. Hitchens gets to praising a religious persons' morality is Martin Luther King Jr. MLK led a nonviolent resistance based on biblical teaching. He helped a peopled enslaved to become free by following moral teachings from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

CH: If he had truly based his movement on Biblical teaching, he would have called his followers to kill or enslave anyone who got in there way. He based his ideas on Moses. Moses led a people into a land that they might steal it and destroy the people there. Therefore, MLK (if he had really been true to his Biblical imagery) would have also acted in this way.

Mod: But he was basing the morals on Matthew 5-7, not on Moses.

(I skip a bit to keep the flow of the argument)

CH: if he had truly based his movement on the Sermon on the Mount, he would have called his followers to not worry about tomorrow. If tomorrow doesn't matter then investments, your family, and education do not matter. Tomorrow doesn't matter because the end of the world is imminent. Therefore live by the Golden Rule because the world is about to end. Besides the Golden rule and the morality of the Sermon on the Mount don't work.

Mod: But they worked for MLK. Nonviolent resistance did work.

CH: MLK was just lucky. It wasn't the method. Besides if you polled people in that time you would have found that close to 100% of secularists were in favor of voting rights for African Americans, while close to 100% of Christians were against it (Oh Boy).



Then finally the last section of the interview, the Mod asks, Why then do people seek refuge in religion (if it is a poison to society and individuals)?

CH: People need a spiritual experience. people need to find some higher fulfillment. Instead of turning to religion, intellectuals and artists should fulfill people's spiritual needs by creating art, music, or books, apart or free from religion. For example this building (the building he was in, I assume it wasn't a beat up old factory, but a decent piece of architecture). This building shows the ingenuity of the human mind and might. Therefore, we should fulfill our spiritual needs with it.

Also we can look to the natural world, that can also be "worshiped." Looks at the cosmos in wonder and awe.

Then we can rebuild society in a form apart from religion based on the moral and political writings of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire (didn't they already try that), and so on.

Some Holes and Questionable quotes

1. He hides behind petty insults. I think he and others like him (Richard Dawkins) are overly insulting towards religion to sell books. He shocks everyone by saying that religion poisons everything. But then he later backs off it for a more tolerant, as long as religion doesn't bother me, then it is ok (stupid, but ok). It is a plain shock tactic, just like Rush Limbough, Glen Beck, Howard Stern, and Kieth Olbermann use. It is an effective way to get attention and sell books.
   
2. Revealed truth is from epileptics and schizophrenics living in the desert.
3. If you believe in God, you are as stupid or delusional as a Fascist and Nazi (both are totalitarian authority).
4. During his whole question and answer time about MLK is terribly sloppy and contradictory. For instance he claimed that close to 100% of secularists were for emancipation and 100% of Christians were against it. Really. Does that make sense. Again shock tactics.
5. His method throughout is to equalize all religions as the same and then chooses the worst stories to prove how immoral religion is. But if I equalized all philosophers, Nietzsche, Sartre, Plato, Confucius, and so on, then chose their worst teachings, people would rightly cry foul. There are differences and intricacies between religions. You can't just group them all as one. It is unfair to them and to yourself. It is a big intellectual mistake.
6. A morality based on "instincts" will not carry you too far, because there is little instinctual consensus of morality. (For instance, when my wife worked with inner city kids, she found that mothers taught their young daughters how to give oral sex in order to put off them getting pregnant. These were caring mothers. These were their instincts.) It will either lead you to social and cultural elitism or ignoring ills of different cultures. If you base morals only on instincts, when you look to different cultures that you disagree with, you may end up looking at them as unenlightened fools. Or you may do the live and let live, ignoring terrible social practices in different societies. Judgmental intolerance, based on your consensus on instinctual morality, or no justice. This is where it can and will lead.
7. He refuses to admit that religion or religious people do anything good or unselfish in the name of religion. This simply is not true. "Religion" has brought good and bad into the land. We can't just negate it all.
8. He wants to pretend to have all the answers. But in reality no one does, even if you confidently tell people that you do have it all figured out.
9. Here I think is one of the most important points for our culture. In our Western Individualistic culture we believe morality is only what we do that affects others. And it is true that is part of morality, but that is not all of it. CS Lewis in Mere Christianity explains morality in these terms. Think of a group of ships sailing across the ocean to deliver some supplies. There are 3 things they must do to have a successful mission. 1. They must not run into each other and sink each other. 2. They must work internally so they do no sink themselves. 3. They must follow the directions given to them, so that if they are to sail from Portugal to New York and they set sail from Portugal and end up in Rio, they have not successfully completed their mission. In the same way, we cannot run into other and sink them (murder). Also a part of morality is not sinking ourselves. Doing drugs is immoral because it ruins you. Or doing something that leads you to the despair of suicide is very sad and also immoral. Furthermore (something atheists would disagree with) not following God's leading and directions for life is also immoral. If we are told that we must worship him first and foremost and we do not, then this is immoral. Best illustration I have ever read about morality.

There are a few quick holes I noticed as I listened to them program.

A Christian Response

What is a Christian response to some of these arguments.

Christianity is not based morality. In fact, Jesus teaches us that if we are to come to him, we must see ourselves as poor and needing help. That means we have to leave our morality at the door. We cannot say, Lord I know I need your help, but look how good I really am, or look how smart I am. When we come to him, we come poor, needy, and foolish. We do not bring any of our own righteousness to the table.

Let's think back to Genesis. When Adam and Eve sinned, they attempted to cover themselves with fig leaves. Their guilt and shame, nakedness and exposure blocked by man's attempts. These fig leaves did nothing for them. They represent our attempts to cover our shame, guilt, loneliness, and needs. They do nothing for us. In order to be truly covered, God in his graciousness killed an animal and clothed them in the skin. We are also covered, clothed in righteous, bright robes. But these robes called for sacrifice as well. Jesus is the one who clothes us with his righteousness. We cannot do it ourselves.

If you listen closely to Mr. Hitchens, his solution to the problems of the world are through our attempts, technology, and wits. But these are all fig leaves. They cannot cover the our shame. They cannot meet or cover our basic spiritual needs. We need God to help us. Even though we messed things up, he looks to help us. That is his grace. That is the good news.

Your Response to CH or the one who throws these arguments at you

Remember the gospel is not just an intellectual exercise. If it was all in our minds then all we as Christians would have to do is argument with people until they become Christians. But this is not the case. Man is more than his mind. There are more potholes on the road to God than just the mind. Give answers as best you can. Tell them about Jesus and what he has done for you and the whole world. ALSO...

Pray for them. Prayer is such a strong tool we as Christians have because God is stronger than we humans. He moves and acts. Trust in him for how he works and how he moves. Trust in his Sovereignty and his Graciousness. Trust in him and pray. Don't give up on this person or Mr. Hitchens. Keep praying for them that they might find the good news to be good news. Think long term and keep praying.

The Spirit

So I was reading a few passages about the Holy Spirit:
Luke 1:15-16
Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5; 9:17; 11:24

As I was looking at them, one question jumped out, what is the job of the Spirit? What does he do?

Well a lot. But one that stood out in particular to me was that he brings people to the Lord, he points them to him.

Check it. Just a quick thought.

Rehashed Sermon, good thoughts and I wanted to pass them along

Jeremiah 31:15

Matthew 2:18

Genesis 29:30, 35:16

Rachel cries because love does not last.

All the good things in life fade: family, friends, places we love. They all fade and cease and there is nothing good or glamorous about it. We hate and we should hate it. Death is not natural, because the end of life and love is not natural. It is common, but we can’t accept it as natural, because something deep within us hates it and we know we should. This is why Rachel cries. The end of a life, the end of a nation, the untimely deaths we see all around us.

We see Rachel cry three times throughout the Bible.

First in Genesis 35, she cries at her death. Remember she was Jacob’s favorite wife and pregnant with her second child. The family had just recently relocated to his homeland for a better life. And in such an abrupt and untimely manner, it reads, she had great difficulty with her pregnancy and died. A son born and a love lost.

How do you make sense of something like that, other than by crying?

She cries again in Jeremiah 35:15. This time it is the loss of a nation. The capital was destroyed; homes and buildings were crushed all in the name of empire. Everyone lost a loved one or lived to see them stripped and humiliated. How do you make sense of this, other than by crying?

The third time we see her cry is in Matthew 2:18. At this point, a king decides to kill babies to hang on to his power. He sees that the next king has been born and he kills all of them within an age bracket and within a town. What sense does that make? What, a life born only to die? She cries and she refuses to be comforted.

Rachel is full of sorrow and we see that Rachel’s tears are our tears as well. Life ends and love dies. The places we remember crumble. Something inside of us fights this, but why if death is only a part of life?

One of the very few comforts I know is that someone hates death more than me and you. God himself hates it. In John 11, Lazarus dies. Jesus wept bitterly for his friend. He hates death. He hates the loss of love, because love should continue forever. There is nothing sweet in this. We find that Rachel’s tears are not only our tears, but God’s as well.

Because God cries for this, he also has something to say about it. He doesn’t stand back with his arms crossed, nonchalantly looking away from the pain of it all. He is not passive like that.

Here is what God says while Rachel cries in Jeremiah 35, [Dry your eyes and cry no more], they will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your future, declares the LORD.

Death is an enemy to all of us because he takes and refuses to be satisfied. He is an unnatural enemy one that we cannot defeat. But Jesus in his work died for us. He was sent away to the enemy’s land and defeated him by dying on our behalf. What love for us. And his death gives us life. His death takes away love lost because there is a hope that it can continue. There is hope that life continues in a land that will never fade or die. The hope of our hearts is true, it is not just a sentimental wish, but love can continue forever. And Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection not only makes this possible, but also give us evidence of the truth.

Jesus doesn’t just say I found the way to this everlasting life, but instead he says, I am the resurrection (John 11:25). 1 Peter 1 reads, “In his great mercy…[God provided] a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance [beautiful land] that can never perish, spoil, or fade – kept in heaven for you.”

Why do things happen as they do, I cannot say? Sometimes all we can do is cry. We can’t make light of or just try to forget the pain. Instead we cry. Rachel cries for hope, Jesus weeps over death, and we join them in the sadness, waiting for the day that all will be revealed and the beautiful land in which we hope will all be brought about by our Lord and Savior Jesus.