Consider Christianity Week 2008
Listen to the MP3
This year’s Consider Christianity Week is March 9th – 15th and is rapidly approaching. The recent release of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey shows that it is definitely needed as much now as ever. According to the report, “Religion in the United States is often described as a vibrant marketplace where individuals pick and choose religions that meet their needs, and religious groups are compelled to compete for members. The Landscape Survey confirms that, indeed, there is a remarkable amount of movement by Americans from one religious group to another.”
To address these new challenges, Christians more than ever must “do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). The main goal of Consider Christianity Week is to equip Christians with the knowledge and ability to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do so with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet 3:15).
This equipping is vitally important, not only for sharing and defending the Gospel in the marketplace of ideas, but it is also vitally important for our own walk with the Lord. As noted in another recent survey, by the Barna Group, only 50% of Evangelical had a Biblical world view. Other Christian groups faired even worst and for the population as a whole it was only 5%. How can we ever hope to proclaim the truth of God’s word, if we don’t even know what God says?
Another aim of Consider Christianity Week is to promote an interest in Christianity among the general public by correcting many of the lies and myths about Christianity and stressing the positive contributions that Christianity has made to our culture. This is done in the belief that Christianity is not an out dated religious belief, or a belief concerned only with eternity. Christianity is a rational, reasonable, relevant religion. It is not just of historical interest, it is a faith that addresses issues that concerns our daily lives. The solutions that Christians provide are worthy of consideration.
In short, Consider Christianity Week is devoted to the ideal that Christianity is not just a belief founded on wishful thinking, but a faith solidly grounded in fact. So what are you and your Church doing to counter these attacks? If you are unsure participating in Consider Christianity Week is a good way to start, and you can find more information at www.consider.org.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
McCain’s Leadership
Besides the issues on which McCain and I differ, there is another aspect about a McCain Presidency that greatly troubles me. This is the issue of leadership, which has troubled me since the first Bush Presidency. Presidents are more than simply Chief Executives; they function as both the leader of the country, and the leader of the party.
One of the things that amazes me, is how decisions can ripple. George HW Bush owes his presidency to Reagan and Reagan’s very successful eight years. While I supported Bush, I was concerned because I knew that every president wants to put their own mark on the presidency, and this would be especially true for a former Vice President. Thus I knew that Bush would seek ways to differentiate a Bush presidency from Reagan’s. Given the conservatism of Reagan, this would mean that Bush would move left.
This is important because I do not support conservative principles because I am a conservative, I support them because I believe they work, and are what is best for the country. The country was in really bad shape in 1980. The economy was in huge trouble and Communism was spreading to country after country. Paul Johnson’s fantastic history of the Twentieth century, Modern Times, which at the time ended in 1980, saw little hope for the West.
Then came three people who quite literally turned it around: Margret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and Ronald Reagan. Conservatism worked, and in fact worked so well, people quite literally forgot how bad things had been. So Bush moving away from the principles that had worked so well could not be a good thing. My fear was that he would move to the left, things would get worst and conservatism would be blamed, which is pretty much what happened, as the four years of Bush lead to Clinton. Yes, I realize that it was a little more complicated this, but I believe the summary is still accurate.
Now Democrats argue that Clinton moved the country to the left, increased taxes and gave us eight wonderful years. However that is not quite what happened. True, once taking office, having inherited a rebounding economy that was growing, Clinton abandoned his promise to cut taxes and increased them instead. He (or Hillary) also move take over control of health care. The result was that the economy stalled, and in 1994 Republicans won control of Congress for the first time in my life. They pushed a conservative agenda of tax cuts, balanced budget, and welfare reform over the objections of Clinton, though he did claim credit later when they worked. It is simply a fact that the economic boom of the 1990s started with the Republicans winning Congress in 1994, not Clinton in 1992.
But without leadership, the Republicans lost focus, and began to abandon conservatism. When the current President Bush ran in 2000, while more conservative than his father, he was still not really a conservative, especially on domestic issue where he touted a “compassionate conservatism.” We had that in California under Governor Pete Wilson, and it basically meant a large increase in social spending.
This concern has become a reality. While ok on the war, his failure to stand up for or even defend conservative principles is one of the main reason we are in the position we are in now. He proposed bigger domestic spending and it is just a fact that it is very difficult to fight against a president of your own party. We see the result in the dispirited and angry base, and the subsequent loss of Congress; A loss that in many respects can trace its roots back to a decision made by Ronald Reagan in picking a Vice President.
But where Bush showed a lack of leadership, McCain is a big unknown. On the one hand he argues for solid conservative principles of limited government and has the reputation of a budget hawk. But on the other hand, he supports big government, budget busting proposal such as Global warming. He holds generally good positions on social issues, but has hardly been a leader in these areas, and I heard one Republican Senator claim that he often blocked progress in these issues behind closed doors.
So what will be the ramification of a McCain presidency? Where will McCain lead the party? Will he continue to anger the base, further weakening the Party? Will the once supportive press becoming negative as it supports the democratic nominee, drive him move him more to the conservative side or will it cause him to reach across the aisle even more than he does now?
Conservatives in California were told they needed to support the moderate Pete Wilson for Governor because it was the only way to win. They did, and were rewarded with Wilson attempt to move the Party sharply to the left, resulting in a fracture and devastated party, and as a result California is solidly a Blue state.
Will we end a McCain presidency in a stronger position like we ended the Reagan presidency? Or will the party be split, fractured and devastated in much the same way Wilson left California? It is impossible to say. It all depends on what McCain chooses to do, which is pretty much unpredictable? And that concerns me a lot.
Is Christianity A Religion
Listen to the MP3
Make reference to the “Christian Religion” around other Christians and you are likely to be told something to the effect that ‘Christianity is not a religion is it a relationship.” Now there is some truth in such statements as a key element of Christianity is one’s personal relationship with God. But I believe there is a lot of error, and even some danger as well with such views.
Often the claim that Christianity is not a religion is said in an attempt to avoid some of the problems that people have with religions. These problems generally fall into two main areas, historical such as with the Inquisition or more personal reasons such as a bad experience. But attempts to avoid these problems rather than confront them are not only misguided, the chance of their working is at best slim.
Like it or not, it is just a fact that evil has been done by Christians. Whether acting as a result of a relationship, or as a religion, Christians have at times done evil in the name of God. To say otherwise is simply not being truthful and it is well to remember that along with saying that he was the way, and the life, Jesus said he was also the truth. (John 14:6)
This is also a sobering reminder that as Christians we are representing God and people are watching. We often think of witnessing as something we do occasionally, and probably should do more. The fact is that we are always witnessing. If you are a Christian, unless you hide your Christianity very well, you will be witnessing. So the real question is not will you witness, but rather what kind of witness will you have. Will you live your life in such a way as to draw people towards Christ, or will you live your life in such a way as to push people away.
But back to people’s problems with religion, rather than trying to avoid the historical problems, a much better strategy is to acknowledge the failings, put them in perspective, and point to the great good that Christians have done, and continue to do, from big things like the abolition of slavery, to small things like helping people in their neighborhood. For example, how many people know about Mission Aviation Fellowship? MAF is a Christian ministry that flies 2.9 million miles a year to serve remote areas that are otherwise unreachable. MAF not only file missionaries, but also supports critical needs such as transporting doctors and medical supplies.
The danger in these attempts to restrict Christianity to a relationship is in the implied rejection of rituals which is often at the core of such statements. Rituals are out of fashion at the moment as the formalized structure of ritual does not fit in well with our current causal approach to God. Rituals are seen as dry, meaningless, formalize, the epitome of all that is wrong with religion. Yet it is important to note that God must have thought that ritual were important to have included so much of it in the Bible. It is certainly true that ritual by itself is hollow, but it hardly then follows that ritual is the problem.
Rituals serve many important functions. When rituals are imbued with meaning, they can focus and magnified belief. Rituals also serve as a teaching function. In fact a very good case can be made that it was the central role of ritual in Jewish life that help preserved the Jews for nearly 2000 years without a homeland.
Perhaps one reason people find ritual so dry and meaningless, is that they were never taught the meaning and significance behind them. This is critically important today, as it is becoming increasingly common that when children leave home, they leave the Church as well. As I have cited before Josh McDowell has documented in his book, “The Last Christian Generation” how many young people see church as just a series of events with little impact on their spiritual life. (pg 59 – 61)
Ritual teaches a habit of worship, a worship that is not based on feelings or mood. We all have ups and downs in our spiritual life. During the good times rituals amplify and focus our worship to make it even better. During the lows ritual can carry us through to return to the good times.
One other benefit of ritual is that it can help maintain the view of the Holiness of God. Much of our understanding of God is a balancing of seemingly conflicting views. We cannot understand how God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and yet God is one. We cannot understand how Jesus could be God incarnate. We do not always understand how God’s Love lines up with God’s justice. Currently the idea of God as our Father and friend is dominated, and he is. But at times this attitude about becomes so casual as to conflict with another truth, the truth that God is God almighty.
Here is a quick test, what does the Bible mean when it says that “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty” (Rev 4:8)? What does the Apostle Paul mean when he says “we know what it is to fear the Lord?” (2 Cor 5:11) If these verses don’t have much meaning or even seem to conflict with your view of God, perhaps you could use some more ritual in your worship.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion – Summary
The following is an outline of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion”
Part I – Chapter One
Three major problems with Dawkins’ approach
Part II – Chapter One
Discussion of the “educated elite,” and how it is a negative term. How the errors of the educated elite are similar to the errors of atheism.
Part III – Chapter One
How Dawkins statements show that hope and faith disguised as science are a major factor.
Part IV – Chapter One
Dawkins’ claim that there is a belief that religion should not be attacked.
Part V – Chapter Two
Dawkins’ view of God, and his idea that theology “has not moved on in 18 centuries.”
Part VI – Chapter Two
Dawkins discussion of the Founding Father.
Part VII– Chapter Three
Aquinas arguments for the existence of God.
Part VIII – Chapter Three
Dawkins main rebuttal to Aquinas, the problem of the definition of Natural and Supernatural.
Part IX – Chapter Three
More problems with Dawkins attempt to rebut Aquinas – the wrong type of sequence.
Part X – Chapter Four
Point 1- 3 of Dawkins central argument of the book.
Part XI – Chapter Four
Point 4- 6 of Dawkins central argument of the book.
Part XII – Chapter Five
The origin of Religion – the freedom of speculation, in absence of evidence.
Part XIII – Chapter Six
The origin of Morality – the role of chance and meaning.
Part XIV – Chapter Six
The origin of Morality – the evolution as a tautology – evolution as a source for morality.
Part XV – Chapter Seven
Morality in the Bible – Dawkins errors of interpretation.
Part XVI – Chapter Seven
The Moral Zeitgeist as a moral foundation
Part XVII – Chapter Seven
The role of absolutism and Summation
A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion Part XVII
Listen to the MP3
The latter part of the Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” becomes increasingly speculative as he applies his view of atheism and religion to topics such as homosexuality, abortion, and children and these issues would be better treated in more general discussion of the individual topics than a specific review of Dawkins’ slant on them.
One point Dawkins makes, however, is worthy of comment and on this point I will conclude my review. It is when he talks about the “dark side of absolutism.” (pg 284) There is a lot of truth to Dawkins’ comments on this subject, and yet because they are true, they actually undermine Dawkins main point at the same time.
As he has throughout his book, Dawkins points to examples of religious people being so sure they were correct that they made their beliefs into law, or in some other way forced their beliefs on others. Such as a Pakistani Doctor sentenced to death for blasphemy because he said Muhammad was not a Muslim before he invented Islam.
The problem for Dawkins is can be seen in his claim that “Such absolutism nearly always results from strong religious faith.” To see the problem in Dawkins statement we need to consider that nature of this dark side of absolutism and what makes it so bad. At its core absolutism, is simply enforcing what you believe to be true on others. All societies do this to some extent. After all, that is what a law is; it is the power of the state forcing people to do some things and prohibiting them from doing others. For example, we as a society are pretty absolute and downright intolerant when it comes to child molesters, and I would argue this is a good thing.
Absolutism becomes dark when the truth being enforced becomes uncertain, and it is this dark absolutism that we generally are referring to when we talk of absolutism. This is a difficult area to discuss because people do not see themselves as being on the dark side of absolutism, they see themselves as standing up for the truth, or right, or good.
For example, currently there is a major debate over man-made global warming. Those who believe in it are trying to pass laws to prevent it. Those who do not believe it label these laws as part of the dark side of absolutism. Thus whether or not this is an example of the darker side of absolutism largely depend on what you believe.
Dawkins is certainly correct that throughout the history of religion the dark side of absolutism has been a factor. What he fails to see is that, contrary to his statement, such absolutism is not at all restricted to religion, and in fact it is even a prominent part of modern day atheism.
For example, almost everyone in western civilization, if not the world, would agree that the Taliban destruction of the Buddhist statues was an example of the dark side of absolutism. But at its core, how is this action any different than the atheist demanding the removal of a tiny Cross that was in seal of the city of Redlands, or any of the numerous other examples of the atheist desire to expunge society of religion. Was the Taliban’s was seeking to remove any vestige of religion symbols they disagreed with really that different than the atheist desire to remove religious symbols they disagree with, particularly if they are Christian.
But that is the problem with such absolutism; it is very difficult to see from the inside. This is particularly true when the belief that one is correct, is coupled with corresponding view that others are wrong. Dawkins and other atheist undoubtedly sees themselves as defending reason and science, when in reality they are often guilty of the same sort of intolerance and in some cases bigotry that they are so critical of in religion.
I said earlier that Dawkins comments on absolutism undermine the main point of his book. If one takes Dawkins comments on such absolutism to heart, then it is hard to reach any other rational conclusion than that it is this dark absolutism which is the real problem not religion. In fact if you remove all the example of religious absolutism from Dawkins book, what remained would be some theories of the existence of God, some comments on the reliability of the Bible, and very little else. In short, though aimed at religion his book is really more an indictment of this dark absolutism in religion, something I and I believe most Christians also condemn, even if we don’t accept all of his examples.
To sum up this review, Dawkins’ book fails at almost every point, except his criticism of religious absolutism, but even here he mistakenly see this as an indictment of all religion, rather than an indictment on absolutism. He is quick to point out any flaw of particular religions or religious believers as automatically an indictment of all religion. Yet, any positive quality or action is either ignored or written off as due to something other than religion. More damming is that his knowledge of religion is often superficial if not actually in error. Ultimately Dawkins book is more an example of atheist’s absolutism than any serious attack on religion much less Christianity.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
