In response to Joe Bennett, March 12, 2011.
CLICK ON ANY CLIPPING FOR ENLARGED VIEW
Northern Advocate March 15
We all have faith
I am glad your piece comes in the page headed- “OPINION”
You say you don’t want to get into whether the demolition of the church you mentioned was justified and yet you do raise the issue- it seems you bring it to our attention but don’t want to be challenged about it. Similarly you prefer your barbed comment about casinos and brothels untouched while churches are flattened left uncommented on also?
When you condemn “self appointed representatives of a loving and omnipotent god” don’t you condemn yourself? Aren’t you acting as a self appointed voice for secularism and atheism? Well perhaps it’s true you get paid to write these opinion pieces and therefore are representing the newspapers view that pays you. Well we could say the same of the clergy. It changes nothing except to confirm the opinions of the unthinking and prejudiced.
If all worldviews could be simplistically reduced to the category of “businesses” exploiting human need then why do you not include your own secular worldview? Why do you conveniently exclude yourself?
Perhaps you like to imagine your worldview as dealing only with facts and therefore decidedly superior but is that really the case? Many people would be shocked to find out that at the bottom of all science lies a statement of “faith”. I invite you to investigate the problem of induction which is a basic assumption of the uniformity of nature, a presupposition that lies at the back of all scientific statements. There is no such thing as the neutrality you imagine you espouse. Whether your worldview is secular-naturalism or religious; you are not neutral, not without assumptions that are every bit as accurately described as “faith based” as any religious creed.
-----------------------------
Northern Advocate March 26
Wisest step a Christian idea
You said “The wisest step taken by Western democratic society was to separate church from state.” The idea of the separation of Church and state was a decidedly Christian idea. James Madison (1751-1836), raised in a culture steeped in Christian principles being “one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state”, politician, political philosopher, fourth president of the United States and considered one of the Founding Fathers of the same- is recognized as the “Father of the Constitution” being its principal author. He alluded to “The genius and courage of Luther” (16th century Christian reformer) in his efforts to separate Church and state, in turn Luther reiterated the ideas of Augustine a 3rd century Christian who was mindful of Christ’s (c5 BC/BCE – c. 30 AD/CE) edict “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” These recognized that questions of conscience such as what beliefs a person subscribes to cannot be enforced by legislation but must be left to individual conscience. It was never a Christian idea to stretch a person on the rack in order to get a confession of “faith”
-------------------------------------------
The following clipping was a response to Joe Bennets tirade, it should be noted that contributors do not choose the heading for their letters. Though John's response is well meaning and right in many respects, I could not let this large heading go uncommented on. Three well meaning Christians wrote letters speaking of Joe's free will. Ought we to confirm people in their delusions or encourage them to understand the nature of their bondage? In much the same way, the heading given to my letter repudiating Joe Bennett's idea, (that rationalism is uncompromisingly logical, but also relies on unproven and unprovable assumptions)- was headed: "WE ALL HAVE FAITH". There is a world of difference between the confidence atheists have in rationalism and the saving faith of a Christian. Essentially atheistic confidence is faith in oneself, worshiping human reason and "saving faith" is an abandonement of trusting in ourselves- our own wisdom, trusting in the Word and Wisdom of God. The headline below spells out only too clearly the natural conclusion that must logically be drawn from the teaching. Here also lies my complaint against the doctrine of freewill as wrongly understood and promulgated by mistaken but well-meaning believers. Human free will is elevated to God-like status when we wrongly believe that "if we will not- God can-not" and all too often this is what it translates out to in everyday belief. What should be abundantly clear is: that it is wrong to attribute faith to human will. Faithfulness towards God is in fact initiated and sustained by an "invasion" of our human nature from above, by the Holy Spirit whereby we are set free to "will, and to do, according to His good pleasure"
Northern Advocate,19th March
--------------------------------------
Northern Advocate March 21
In bondage
John Haddow speaks of Joe’s “Free will” a very misleading term. Truly Joe speaks freely of his beliefs- there is no compulsion on him to say what he does- so is, in a sense, both free and responsible. It is certainly not true to say that his will is free if what he actually believes is untrue. If he speaks deception but sincerely believes in what he says, he is actually in bondage to those lies. To be truly free always involves both the ability to know truth and the will to follow it, and in that sense it is wrong to speak of his “free” will. The will is actually subject or enslaved to the lies one believes. Wills are free only insomuch as we are following truth. Strictly speaking only God who is both perfect in knowledge and action has freewill. Jesus said “you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (this statement assumes bondage). Christians celebrate the privilege of knowing Him who is the personification of truth, not because we found Him, but He us. We did not choose Him, he chose us. Saving faith flows not from our “free” will but “by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”
Briefly it goes like this: We once had free will (in Adam). We decided to interpret reality on our own terms without reference to God and have been bound by the lie ever since. The assumption of human “freewill” is the most universally presumed state of human nature and yet the most certainly and universally evidenced to be untrue. The most secure prison and enslavement in existence is the lie that masquerades as truth and is (almost) universally accepted as such. What need for a saviour if we are already free?
-------------------------------------------
I could not help but notice the cartoon of Hubbard during the nuclear crisis in Japan which appeared right under the eyecatching but erroneous header- "Faith flows from our free will". To many Christians this stands as an unassailable truth but the word of God has not left itself without a witness to this untruth. Certainly the issue today is the Goliath that needs to be overcome. In much the same way as the pervasive nuclear threat-perhaps prophetically- the sovereignty of man is big in his own eyes, mankind in a way feels his free will has the ascendancy over God.
Here is my own take on that situation with grateful thanks (and apologies) to Hubbard:
-------------------------------------
Joe Bennett says:
• “Human kindness does more good than God” In typical naturalistic fashion Joe cannot see the transcendent God working “through” the goodness of people.
• “An earthquake leads inevitably to the conclusion that there cannot be a God who is omnipotent and benevolent”
This is a reference to Epicurus who is credited with this apparent contradiction. It is far from inevitable. If God doesn’t exist why does Joe insist on speaking in moral terms about the earthquake? If this universe is merely a random un-designed cataclysm of chance circumstances, why the moral outrage?
"When I was an atheist...my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A person does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line...Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."
C.S. Lewis points out that to speak of injustice shows a moral ideal, a standard. Meaning and purpose are allied to justice, but how can anything but amorality arise from chance? His unavoidable conclusion counters the idea that the universe ultimately has no purpose and no meaning, but is merely the conclusion of time-plus-matter-plus-chance. If it were indeed so, then we, as parts of the whole, could never arise to say- "there is no meaning" (in meaningful terms!) Atheists are hard pressed to account for the moral law within and the intelligibility of the universe.
As
• “He” (the chaplain) “said ‘I was addressing an outmoded and nursery school version of God’ ”
You said “The chaplain’s God isn’t the Christian God at all” and yet you say the historian and two theologians are “clearly Christian”. I can certainly agree with Joe’s appraisal of the “Chaplains God” this is not the God of Scripture. You obviously feel qualified to discern just who is truly representing God and who is not, therefore you must be addressing a standard from which to make reference. If you apply an arbitrary standard that suits your own purposes it is easy to see that you will never be convinced of the truth of any of those claims. You take a caricature of Christianity and present it as a true representation and then tear it apart as if it were the real Christianity.
• “The word God comes with an historical freight of connotations that simply cannot be escaped. The first of these is a sense of the supernatural”
How can one who is certainly working from a naturalistic framework even comment on the supernatural? A naturalist believes per se that nature is all there is, that’s it, the whole show. By definition a naturalist has precluded the existence of the supernatural believing that the spiritual realm doesn’t exist.
• “The objective study of religious belief is a job for the anthropologists.” Again Joe alludes to the superiority and neutrality of science. In their worship of reason, rationalists have faith that reality may be totally explained in terms of science and reason. Yet (according to them) faith is supposed to be not only superfluous but antithetical to reason. The statement: “Only what can be scientifically proved is true”, is itself in need of proof. It is an assumption based on faith in the scientific enterprise.
As Ravi Zacharias eloquently points out:
"God has put enough into the world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing, and He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone"
What is glossed over is that science itself smuggles in “articles of faith”. Basic to science are first principles based on induction which as Hume (more than two hundred years ago) proved are not consistent with logic. This is not to disparage good science or reason, but simply to say all worldviews, rationalist or whatever- rely on, trust in, have "faith" towards first principles that are presuppositions.
-----------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN COMPLACENCY- SHAME ON US
Northern Advocate April 02
Speak up
Northern Advocate April 02
Speak up
Oh my how the Western world has changed!
As “the apostle for atheism” Richard Dawkins admits-
"Although” (it) “might have been logically tenable before Darwin," said he, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
Joe B. continues to throw down the gauntlet to “dyed in the wool faithheads”. Why are there so few responses to his challenge? Are we, as Christians, “fazed” by his tirades? Are we too busy? Do we not think it is a serious enough problem? Has Christianity swallowed the lie that privatization of religious belief is virtuous? Aren’t others uncomfortable with the marginalization of the Christian worldview? We live in an age where Christianity is openly mocked and put down (by dreary pseudo-intellectuals) as a crutch for the weak, a somewhat harmless diversion for peasants and the ignorant, or dangerous in the minds of zealots- without any serious claim to representing reality. Faith is caricatured, Christianity misrepresented and then (supposedly) torn to shreds as if it were almost a waste of ink.
Not only is Jesus the Christ scoffed at in terms of the personification of truth, but truth itself as a category is under attack. While we think of the change from a $50 dollar note in absolutist terms, (just ask anyone who was short-changed), people think of religious and ethical realities as relative. As G.K.Chesterton said, their feet are planted firmly in mid-air.
Truth by nature is exclusive- irrespective of whether we admit it or not.
At eighteen, as one in the grip of a secular, existential mindset, I responded to an emotional plea of the Gospel. In the many years since then I have continued to be delighted and amazed at the impeccable, unassailable credentials of that same Gospel from any perspective. I count myself fortunate to have listened, watched and read some of the worlds best minds throughout the ages debate both for and against its credibility- and I have not been disappointed.
For an excellent short article on the danger of complacency written over a hundred years ago by JC Ryle, follow this link:
http://www.eternallifeministries.org/jcr_danger.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
I hope, (after the burning of the Qur’an, and subsequent events), we learn that the freedom to speak publicly of ones worldview (be it atheist or Christian ) is a fragile freedom that we must be diligent to protect. The acts of zealots- I do not condone, even less- the fanatics who responded with killings. While we respect those whose beliefs differ from ours, we stridently seek to engage their hearts and minds in healthy debate.
Why?
Because we believe the claims of Christianity are true. And truth brings true freedom. It is precisely because we believe Christianity true, that we need not seek to force people, but win hearts. Christianity, -true Christianity- above all, respects the dignity of humanity. Through reasoning and persuasion, it also pays the highest compliment to human autonomy.
We hold human life sacred because we believe all humankind bear the image of his maker.
I fully concur, atheists may appear morally superior to Christians. But the more an atheist lives consistently and true to his creed, the less reason they have to even consider morality. Secular society bears this out, because atheism has no real basis for morality. Atheists, consciously or not, are living off the borrowed moral capital of a vestigial Christian culture. Atheism, if consistently applied to the existential questions of life, makes life unliveable. Just look at the statistics during the Soviet reign of terror. Better still read the “Gulag Archipelago”.
----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
