Between Two Worlds: Pray for India and Iraq
Please read this, and please pray for our brothers and sisters who are suffering in unthinkable ways for naming the name of Christ.
Posted using ShareThis
14 weeks
3 days ago
16 October 2008
14 September 2008
Is it a good thing to believe in the Christian God?
This was the question recently debated at St. Louis' Powell Symphony Hall by antitheist author, journalist and philosopher Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza, a Christian and former policy analyst for the Reagan administration. Rather than give a blow by blow account of how the debate went, I'll just note some of the highlights and hope that some of you who were there will fill in anything important that I've left out.
One thing that struck me was how passionate Hitchens was in defense of his self-described "antitheism". With voice raised, and with an occasional pounding of his podium, he posited that religion is responsible for every major societal ill that the world faces and suggested that emancipation from religion is the fundamental emancipation that the mind must undergo. The point at which society will become "civilized" is when the populace points their fingers into the faces of their pastors and priests and declare, "I don't believe a word of what you say, and you can't make me." He blamed religion for every master-slave relationship that the world has known; and he offered N. Korea as an example of a hellish place made so by its leader's religious ideology (apparently Kim Jong-Il believes that he is the reincarnation of his long-dead father).
D'Souza quickly pointed out that N. Korea and Cuba were two of the last bastions of communism (left out China for some reason) and were still hellish places as a result of communism's attempt to mandate an atheistic worldview. In other words, it wasn't religion, but the attempt to wipe it out that resulted in the inhumane places that those countries have become. He also asked Hitchens how one accounts for the existence of morality in a Darwinistic worldview - a question that Hitchens never answered. In fact, when D'Souza pointed out that he failed to answer the question and the audience (or part of it) responded with applause, Hitchens angrily came out from behind his podium, walked to the edge of the stage and demanded that anyone who had just applauded explain how he'd failed to answer. A young man politely acquiesced but was interrupted by the moderator who suggested that audience interaction wasn't permitted at that particular time.
D'Souza wasn't without fault though. One of my gripes with him was his answer to this question: "How can you say that your God is good if he sends people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein (people who made significant contributions to society but were not confessing Christians) to hell?" Instead of giving a biblical explanation of "sin" and its odiousness to a holy God, he essentially said, "We can't know if God sent those people to hell." Obviously, in the strictest sense, that's true, but it was hardly a helpful answer.
In closing, what was perhaps most striking to me was that Hitchens' argument was not fundamentally a scientific one - it was a moral one. Freedom and autonomy were what drove him. He made this clear when he noted that he has several atheistic friends who were once "believing" people, either Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.; and that these people will often wax nostalgic about the days when they believed, saying things like, "I wish I could believe again." He said that his response to them is, "Why?! Why?! Why would you want to be a slave?! Why would you want to be a servant?! Why would you want to be ruled?! Why live a servile, abject, groveling, fearful life?!" This was the bassnote that beat beneath every word he breathed. And in listening to him use words like "servant" and "slave" I longed that he come to understand the upside-downness of God's economy: "It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant. And whoever would be first among you must be your slave. Even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt. 20:26-28). I longed for Hitchens to know the perfect patience of Christ as displayed in the life of Paul who wrote, "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life" (I Tim. 1:15-16).
One thing that struck me was how passionate Hitchens was in defense of his self-described "antitheism". With voice raised, and with an occasional pounding of his podium, he posited that religion is responsible for every major societal ill that the world faces and suggested that emancipation from religion is the fundamental emancipation that the mind must undergo. The point at which society will become "civilized" is when the populace points their fingers into the faces of their pastors and priests and declare, "I don't believe a word of what you say, and you can't make me." He blamed religion for every master-slave relationship that the world has known; and he offered N. Korea as an example of a hellish place made so by its leader's religious ideology (apparently Kim Jong-Il believes that he is the reincarnation of his long-dead father).
D'Souza quickly pointed out that N. Korea and Cuba were two of the last bastions of communism (left out China for some reason) and were still hellish places as a result of communism's attempt to mandate an atheistic worldview. In other words, it wasn't religion, but the attempt to wipe it out that resulted in the inhumane places that those countries have become. He also asked Hitchens how one accounts for the existence of morality in a Darwinistic worldview - a question that Hitchens never answered. In fact, when D'Souza pointed out that he failed to answer the question and the audience (or part of it) responded with applause, Hitchens angrily came out from behind his podium, walked to the edge of the stage and demanded that anyone who had just applauded explain how he'd failed to answer. A young man politely acquiesced but was interrupted by the moderator who suggested that audience interaction wasn't permitted at that particular time.
D'Souza wasn't without fault though. One of my gripes with him was his answer to this question: "How can you say that your God is good if he sends people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein (people who made significant contributions to society but were not confessing Christians) to hell?" Instead of giving a biblical explanation of "sin" and its odiousness to a holy God, he essentially said, "We can't know if God sent those people to hell." Obviously, in the strictest sense, that's true, but it was hardly a helpful answer.
In closing, what was perhaps most striking to me was that Hitchens' argument was not fundamentally a scientific one - it was a moral one. Freedom and autonomy were what drove him. He made this clear when he noted that he has several atheistic friends who were once "believing" people, either Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.; and that these people will often wax nostalgic about the days when they believed, saying things like, "I wish I could believe again." He said that his response to them is, "Why?! Why?! Why would you want to be a slave?! Why would you want to be a servant?! Why would you want to be ruled?! Why live a servile, abject, groveling, fearful life?!" This was the bassnote that beat beneath every word he breathed. And in listening to him use words like "servant" and "slave" I longed that he come to understand the upside-downness of God's economy: "It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant. And whoever would be first among you must be your slave. Even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt. 20:26-28). I longed for Hitchens to know the perfect patience of Christ as displayed in the life of Paul who wrote, "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life" (I Tim. 1:15-16).
04 September 2008
Done
Tonight I forfeited nearly 3.5 hours worth of time watching the debacle that was the USC-Vandy football game. Mark this down: I will not watch another USC football game this year. No joke. I'm now looking forward to redeeming the time I'd normally spend making myself miserable watching USC football by spending it with Missy, or my kids, or studying, or in some other profitable way.
26 July 2008
21 July 2008
19 July 2008
A Text for Your First Post-Seminary Sermon
Recently I've been reading The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter. There's no easy way describe the experience. At different times I've felt motivated, daunted, exhilarated, terrified and inspired - and I'm just one chapter in. The book is addressed to pastors and is an exposition of one verse:
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20.28).
After three sobering pages of exhortation to "Take heed to yourselves, lest you be void of that saving grace of God which you offer to others, and be strangers to the effectual working of that gospel which you preach" (53), Baxter suggests the following:
"When such thoughts as these have entered into their souls, and kindly worked a while upon their consciences, I would advise them to go to their congregation, and preach over Origen's sermon on Psalm 50:16-17, 'But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant into thy mouth? seeing thou hatest instruction and castest my words behind thee.' And when they have read this text, to sit down, and expound and apply it by their tears; and then to make a full and free confession of their sin, and lament their case before the whole assembly, and desire their earnest prayers to God for pardoning and renewing grace; that hereafter they may preach a Saviour whom they know, and may feel what they speak, and may commend the riches of the gospel from their own experience" (55-6).
So consider this the alleviation of whatever stress might have arisen from deliberating over what text to preach from for your inaugural sermon. Or, if you're like me, consider it the introduction of new stress as you ponder who the heck you think you are to declare God's statutes to his blood-bought saints.
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20.28).
After three sobering pages of exhortation to "Take heed to yourselves, lest you be void of that saving grace of God which you offer to others, and be strangers to the effectual working of that gospel which you preach" (53), Baxter suggests the following:
"When such thoughts as these have entered into their souls, and kindly worked a while upon their consciences, I would advise them to go to their congregation, and preach over Origen's sermon on Psalm 50:16-17, 'But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant into thy mouth? seeing thou hatest instruction and castest my words behind thee.' And when they have read this text, to sit down, and expound and apply it by their tears; and then to make a full and free confession of their sin, and lament their case before the whole assembly, and desire their earnest prayers to God for pardoning and renewing grace; that hereafter they may preach a Saviour whom they know, and may feel what they speak, and may commend the riches of the gospel from their own experience" (55-6).
So consider this the alleviation of whatever stress might have arisen from deliberating over what text to preach from for your inaugural sermon. Or, if you're like me, consider it the introduction of new stress as you ponder who the heck you think you are to declare God's statutes to his blood-bought saints.
28 June 2008
Disturbing
Saw this article on cnn.com today. It appears that so many underage girls are selling themselves on Craigslist that task forces have been formed by local law enforcement agencies and the FBI to combat the problem. The most heartbreaking quote from the story came in response to the question, "Why would a girl sell her body online?"
"To help answer that question, Sacramento police made arrangements for CNN to interview a 14-year-old girl who said she'd started selling herself as a prostitute at the age of 11.
'I wanted to feel loved. ... I wanted to feel important,' said the teen, who wanted to be identified only as Monique."
I've got some sneaking suspicions as to who/what may have been missing from Monique's childhood home.
Fathers, be good to your daughters....
"To help answer that question, Sacramento police made arrangements for CNN to interview a 14-year-old girl who said she'd started selling herself as a prostitute at the age of 11.
'I wanted to feel loved. ... I wanted to feel important,' said the teen, who wanted to be identified only as Monique."
I've got some sneaking suspicions as to who/what may have been missing from Monique's childhood home.
Fathers, be good to your daughters....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)