Two posts ago, I drew attention to the growing pop-atheistic-God-denying movement taking place in the US. This group has taken atheism out of the lecture hall and onto the streets. In a recent NYT article, Nicholas Kristof actually takes aim at this set of “secular fundamentalists” (Kristof’s term, not mine). He writes that “the tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often just as intolerant — and mean. It’s contemptuous and even a bit fundamentalist.”
One of the things the NO-GOD-SQUAD (my term, not Kristof’s) love to talk about is the involvement of professing Christians in atrocities. Certainly, there have been those. They are a stain on the Church and a terrible witness to Christ. But Kristof strikes a balance when he writes:
“Granted, religious figures have been involved throughout history in the worst kinds of atrocities. But as Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot show, so have atheists.
Moreover, for all the slaughters in the name of religion over the centuries, there is another side of the ledger. Every time I travel in the poorest parts of Africa, I see missionary hospitals that are the only source of assistance to desperate people. God may not help amputees sprout new limbs, but churches do galvanize their members to support soup kitchens, homeless shelters and clinics that otherwise would not exist. Religious constituencies have pushed for more action on AIDS, malaria, sex trafficking and Darfur’s genocide, and believers often give large proportions of their incomes to charities that are a lifeline to the neediest.”
At the most basic, theological level, we can note something else. While Christians have certainly done some awful things, the Christian worldview itself stands in judgment of these actions. Our very worldview provides the standards to condemn racism, genocide, and totalitarianism. And, our acts of justice and charity are motivated by a transcendent, eternal call to love, not the preference of chemical temperment (the only empircal motivating force in an evolutionary framework).
Atheists, on the other hand, have no standard but the one a) they can enforce through guns; b) they can get enough people to agree with. But large groups of people have agreed to some pretty awful things. And I’m not sure I trust Richard Dawkins pointing the business end of a shotgun at me. Do you?
The article can be viewed by “Times Select” members here:
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10617FE345A0C708CDDAB0994DE404482#
Administrator
December 28th, 2006
Adam:
Figured I’d introduce myself by way of responding to one of your blogs. I’m a friend of The Edge, knew your father (briefly) and have had your name come up in conversation because people tell me “You would like Adam. He thinks a lot like you do”.
Anyway…
You’re right. No where is the stark contrast of atheist and christian worldviews more evident than in a thrid-world scenario. Africa, Ukraine, parts of India…travel anywhere absent of a welfare state…and you will learn alot about the two worldviews. It is the global christian movement that builds orphanages in Uganda. The fruit of our worldview is found there.
But we do need to be careful when employing the “deeds vs. deeds” argument in the “my worldview is better than yours” debate. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have given more money than any Christian person or organization ever has. And the Red Cross is far and away the front runner in 9-11 support.
All this to say (as I introduce myself) that being the apologetics-worldview-philosophy junkie that I am, I have ultimately come to understand that this Christianity thing is “spiritual stuff”. Yes Jesus makes the most sense. And when logically drawn out, is undeniable. But it’s still a spiritual thing.
As I close I will tie this big, sweeping “no duh” comment back to the topic at hand with this thought-flow:
1.) God created the world for His glory
2.) God gaves us His son that we might Glorify Him because we are sinful and can’t do it ourselves
3.) Therefore, anything done outside of faith in Christ is sin
4.) On balance, if I gave one child a drink of water in the name of Christ and Bill Gates cured Aids in the name of Bill Gates, I would be justifed in God’s eyes and Bill Gates would not.
peace,
Tony
Tony Woodall
February 14th, 2007
Tony, great to meet you and glad you took the time to respond. Very sweet stuff.
Totally agree, “deeds vs. deeds” arguments are, at best, of secondary importance. They are indicative, but not infallible. “Christians” have done a lot of bad stuff. Atheists have too.
I also love what you say at the end. Have you been reading Jonathan Edwards? His essay “The End for which God Created the World” had an enormous impact on me many years ago and I’ve read a fair amount of his stuff. Anyway… Love what you wrote.
I’d only wonder what you mean by “this Christianity thing is ’spiritual stuff.’”
Personally, I find that a lot of people want to draw false dichotomies. There are people who love the “feelings/spiritual” side of things and get frustrated with theology/philosophy. Then there are those who really place an enormous premium on highly developed, well-articulated positions on just about anything. These guys really believe that we can argue a person into the Kingdom of God via their brain.
My understanding of faith is that it involves both.
But before I blabber on…let me know what you mean.
Administrator
February 14th, 2007
One more thing: Just wanted to clarify that at the end of the original post, I kind of bring home the point of the article: Only the Christian worldview provides us with the moral/spiritual/rational framework for self-correction. That isn’t a deeds vs. deeds argument.
Administrator
February 14th, 2007
Adam:
I love Johnathan Edwards. He’s my favorite dead guy by far. Reading through his “Religous Affections” right now. John Piper is an alive guy cut from the same cloth. It really is all about God’s glory. That’s all it ever could be about, logically speaking.
Now, let’s get a little deeper…
I believe the point and purpose of apologetics is to argue people out of the natural and into the super-natural. Because the answer to the question “How do I love God in a way that pleases Him?” is not found in the natural. So I look at Apologetics as a means to that end. I have studied things like philosophy, creation science, etc. to first convince my mind of my heart’s conversion, but then to be an able debater as to not let atheists, agnostics, humanists, evolutionists, cults (catholics, jv’s, morons, etc.) hide in their natural-minded arguments and positions.
However…
I fully understand that there is a huge chasm between theological & spiritual sects within the church. This is a shame. Steve Vandenend and I talk about this quite often. I am a “special” guy in that I came to reformed theology through spiritual discipline. The word and prayer taught me theology. And now my theology is taking into a deeper spiritual understanding. I believe proper biblical exegesis and theology leads to great spiritual awakening.
So…
My previous point was that a decent argument for God’s existence won’t get someone saved. However, it will get them off center in such a way as to be uncomfortably pushed into the supernatural. And that’s where faith is found. In all of my debating, I wish to leave the natural mind no quarter.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
Tony Woodall
February 14th, 2007
Definitely. Very good. Paul makes it clear in Romans 1 that the “natural” man’s problem is not a lack of sufficient evidence, but a “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Apologetics, I believe, attempts to get inside rival worldviews and deconstruct them from within, showing the unbeliever that his or her explanation of life can’t answer the most important questions or meet the deepest longings of the heart (what Cornelius Van Til called an “internal critique”).
I like the way you put it, getting people “off center in such a way as to be uncomfortably pushed into the supernatural.” Like that.
I just always want to preserve that reason/spirit/experience are meant to be integrated, not separated out (by excessive rationalism, excessive spiritualism, or excessive existentialism).
The Religious Affections are awesome (and very applicable in our modern/postmodern context). Have you read Freedom of the Will?
Administrator
February 14th, 2007
Yep. Steve and the gang were right. You and I will get along just fine.
I like this Van Til’s idea of “internal critique”. Very similar to Franciss Schaeffer’s (sp?) thoughts on the finite mind’s inability to come to truth in and of itself.
In regards to the integration of reason/spirit/experience, I totally agree. I hear a lot of people talk of “striking a balance” between these three. But striking a balance sounds more like a diet regement more than a spiritual state to strive for. They must beome one. We must be all of those things at the same time. This is a mysterious thing, much like the divine trinity. But that’s where God is.
I never read “Freedom of the Will” but I’ve read stuff and heard sermons that draw from it. I believe the summation of this was the idea that, in sin, man is free…free to choose among a number of sins. But in this state he cannot choose eternal life. This is because he is “dead in trepasses and sins”. And dead people can’t choose to be alive (much like Lazarus couldn’t make himself alive). But, given that regeneration preceeds conversion, when a man is made new by the spirit of God, He is now free to choose (indeed, irresistably drawn) to believe in Christ. “No man comes to the father unless the father draw him…” kind of idea. Is this correct?
I love Religuos Affections because Edwards is coming out of the great awakening and writing in a time when all the spiritual chips have fallen where they may. He is now able to assess the “spirutal damage” and see what was and was not really of God. It’s a fruit inspection work. Hindsight is always 20/20, but when dealing with spiritual matters, it becomes foresight. That’s the beauty of church history and theology. Much to learn from this work indeed…
Tony Woodall
February 14th, 2007