The root of all evil?

3

Category : Religion, Society

If you were watching Channel 4 last night you may have watched a program called ‘The root of all evil‘. The documentary was presented by Richard Dawkins, an Oxford professor who set out to ask the question ‘why is the world deluded by religion in the face of opposing scientific evidence that suggests it is all myth and fiction‘. I thought it would be good to discuss some of his ideas and maybe approach them in a less extremist way.

Dawkins has two main arguments as far as I can see:

  1. Firstly there is the issues that Christian’s still can’t agree on such as the issues of creation and evolution where he suggests that the overwhelming scientific evidence should cause us to back down and admit we are wrong.
  2. Then there is the issue that while all the major faiths preach morality, peace and hope in fact they bring violence, intolerance and destruction.

Dawkins is a self-professed atheist and the documentary was very much from that point of view – in fact any mention of Christianity sparked cheesy music and overall even I was left with a tarnished view of my own faith!

So how do we address the issues put forward by this program? I think the issues he raises are ones that need to be talked about and debated – maybe the reason why he has a documentary to do is because they have been swept under the carpet for so long.

One of his main points was on the lines of scientific proof. He recalled a university professor who had passionately believed in a particular theory for many years and had dedicated his life to researching that theory and promoting it. One day, another professor proved to him that what he had in fact believed was completely wrong. Apparently the professor shook him by the hand and thanked him for opening his eyes to this – and apparently that is the attitude which scientists have that us religious people don’t. Whilst I agree with him that if something is proved to be completely false it just looks foolish to continue saying that it is in fact true I think it is ultimately impossible to disprove religious belief using this argument – which may seem arrogant and blinded to someone like Dawkins but really is the essence of faith.

All of scientific knowledge about events such as the big bang are theories – they are theories because there is evidence that suggests they are true, evidence to suggest they are false but no evidence to say conclusively that they cannot be false. I also, as mad as it seems to Dawkins, feel this way about my faith and about events such as creation. There is evidence in the scriptures that God created the world in six days, there is evidence from scientists to say this is madness but no way for this to be conclusively disproved.

In mathematics, complex problems are often solved by assuming a factor holds true and then continuing calculations until the calculations fail in such a way that mean your assuming factor could not have possibly been true. I view issues such as creation in the same way – Dawkins starts by assuming that there could not have possibly been a God and finds evidence that supports his view while I assume that God was instrumental in creation and I find evidence that supports my view. The bad news is for Dawkins is that we are never going to be able to prove in this life one way or the other conclusively. The other frustrating thing that Dawkins may find is that when I assume that God is not only instrumental in creation but in other events throughout history and in my everyday life then, well anything is possible. Scientists such as Dawkins may think this is complete madness – but then we knew he would say that didn’t we?

On the issue of faith preaching faith and hope that it ultimately results in violence and intolerance I feel he used some good examples in his report. I think society has huge problems today and the root of it seems to be intolerance – and to be honest when I think about this issue I have more questions than answers. I completely understand why Jesus set us straight on what is important in life and I think that His message of love is one that if lived out can affect society in un-imaginable ways. I guess what I don’t understand is why there are acts of intolerance in the Old Testament – often perpetrated by God Himself and if Jesus was always the plan why those things had to happen in the first place.

A friend of mine used to have a sticker in their car window that said “If you are living like there is no God then you had better be right!” I believe that my Christian faith is something that gains me everything and looses me nothing. I believe the teaching of Jesus Christ is the most profound teaching ever to echo the ears of the inhabitants of this earth. I believe this through testimony shown in the bible and through testimony and experience in my own life. I believe this not because I was told to, but because I choose to. This, in my humble opinion is what is so amazing about the God we have faith in.

So there we go – a few thoughts but probably raising more questions than they answer!
Any thoughts?

Mark 1 : Who Should We Tell?

Category : Bible

For this years first Bible study type post I thought I would start the Gospel of Mark. There is obviously much I could have commented on but I am going to focus on one area that provoked thought for me.

Anybody who has been in Christian circles for any real length of time would have herd the question of evangelism thrown around. What we say. When we say it. Who we say it to. Do we need to say anything at all? etc, etc, etc…

I’m not going to get into the above debate now. Jesus led a perfect life which challenged all he met and he also preached the word wherever he went so that is probably a suggestion in itself that we need to be doing both; living the life and speaking the word, but that is by the by. In Mark 1 I noticed something about how Jesus went about his preaching. Or more specifically where he was preaching.

When Jesus went to a new town he went to the synagogue to teach. I think that one of the main reasons he did this was because he knew that the spiritually aware people would be at the synagogue (of course I�m sure not all the people there were such).

This model was also followed by the apostles. The first place they tended to go to preach the gospel were places where ‘spiritual’ people gathered. For example, in Acts 16 it was the riverside where they assumed people would gather for prayer (needing the water for ceremonial washing). Another example is in the very next chapter; Acts 17 talks about Paulââ?¬â?¢s visit to the Temple of the Unknown God. He simply went and told them who that God was.

So what is my point? I guess my question would be, should we be focusing our attention, for want of a better word, on people who are spiritually awake. I’m not for a second suggesting that we should become people who just wander around preaching at everything that moves. I am a firm believer that relationship and community is the way that God intended us to evangelise the world. Love people first, not because you want to ‘make Christians’ but simply because you love people. But maybe the people we should be pushing more with the ‘hard sell’ could be those we often try to avoid.

The spiritualist, the witches, the astrologers, members of other faiths, etc. These people are spiritually awake. They are aware that there is something beyond themselves. They have belief but their belief is misguided (maybe that is who Paul is talking about in Romans 1:16).

Obviously we need to discern through the Holy Spirit who we should talk to when and about what. But I wonder if those who are ripe for the truth are actually so obviously searching that as Christians we run scared.

Other posts in the Bible Study series.

Once Saved, Always Saved?

5

Category : Literature

One of a number of questions I have managed to avoid thinking about in my ongoing walk with Jesus is coined in the phrase which is the title for this post. After all, such theological discussion (more often argument) is, while interesting and even enjoyable, not really worth worrying too much about or wasting too much time on. Is it?

For Christmas I was given a book by David Pawson (Once Saved, Always Saved?). He is rapidly becoming one of my favourite teachers and authors after seeing him a few times on God TV (It’s true I am a secret God TV viewer) and reading one of his earlier books; “The Road to Hell“.

From what I can tell he is either called to talk / write about the subjects that the rest of the Christian Church seems to like to ignore or he just likes a good argument. Either way he has produced some very interesting and thought provoking reads.

As I’ve said, I have only just picked this book up but after the first couple of Chapters I am already asking myself some questions I wasn’t expecting.

Once Saved, Always Saved is a phrase which you may be familiar with. It refers to the idea that once you become a Christian you have your ticket to heaven and nobody or nothing can take that away from you. That is possibly an over simplification but you get the idea. What I have found interesting that that without ever thinking about the idea or making any kind of conscience decision I subscribe to a form of this that Pawson calls the “Subtle, Omega” variety.

This variety is such that if you truly commit your life to Jesus then you will never fall away, anybody who does clearly didn’t commit properly in the first place and that our behaviour; our level of holiness to put it in spiritual speak, affects our level of inheritance in the next phase of our existence. The size of the prize.

Having just written that down i know that that is roughly what I think but it just doesn’t sit right. The really concerning thing is that this is not a conclusion I have come to but more ideas that have somehow; through experience, emotion, teaching, how much cheese I’ve eaten, somehow gotten into my head.

I have an idea where Mr Pawson is going with his book and I’m not sure if I will agree with all of his conclusions but I thank him now for provoking this realisation in me.

I’ll let you know where it leads when I get to the end. *smile*